Detainees not covered by Geneva Convention, so torture is legal.

[norml]

An exercise... Detainees, and insurgents not covered by Geneva Convention, so torture is legal, and violates no agreements. How do you counter this argument?

[Taxloss]

1. The mercenaries ... sorry, contractors ... in Iraq

Like the three who were killed and strung from that bridge in Fallujah. They're not bound. Why should we care what happened to them?

[Ready4Change]

2. Then every US citizen not part of the military can be tortured.

Doesn't the Geneva Convention only apply to military personel held prisoner?

[Taxloss]

3. No, it also applies to civilians

it sets rules for how the military should treat them.

Non-military personnel who are still fighting, though, like the mercenaries in post #1, are not covered.

[Ready4Change]

7. So, they're claim they're playing a loophole?

You can't torture military personel captured fighting a war, and you can't torture civilians captured while not fighting, but if that civilian picks up a gun (or you claim they did) you can start attaching electrodes?

[Taxloss]

8. I'm not endorsing torture. I'm pointing out a parallel.

The US defines Gitmo residents as "enemy combatants", rather than prisoners of war, and claims this exempts them from the Geneva Convention. If this is the logic, then why don't the same criteria apply to US "security personnel"?

The poster asked for ways to argue against a point. The case I made means that Americans, as well as terrorists, could apply. That's an argument against the position.

[bpilgrim]

18. enemy combatants is NOT what they are claiming they are claiming ILLEGAL

COMBATANTS, just like IMPERIAL JAPAN during WWII

but even ILLEGAL COMBATANTS are covered under the GC anyways

peace

[Taxloss]

19. My mistake. But they are still CLAIMING illegal combatants

are NOT covered by the GC. So if the White House, in error, says X applies, what are the implications? That was the question I was trying to help answer, but it seems I may be out of my depth.

[bpilgrim]

14. NOT TRUE! All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of Geneva

"The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.""

more...
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm

see also...

The United States maintains that the Guantanamo detainees do
not qualify for POW status. The United States also maintains that the
assignment of POW status to these detainees would be bad policy.
Specifically, the U.S. argues that neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda detainees satisfy the express requirements of the POW Convention, and
that POW protections would impede the investigation and prosecu-
tion of suspected terrorists.

Of particular concern are: (1) restric-
tions on the interrogation of POWs; (2) the criminal procedure
rights of POWs, which might preclude trial by special military commis-
sions; and (3) POWs’ right to release and repatriation following the
cessation of hostilities.

In short, the U.S. has denied POW status to
the detainees, at least in part, because the Administration views the
rights afforded to POWs under the Convention to be inconsistent with
U.S. policy objectives.

Irrespective of the merits of these concerns,
U.S. policy is manifestly inconsistent with Geneva law if the proce-
dures utilized to classify these detainees were insufficient, or if the classification determinations were inaccurate in fact or erroneous in law.

Furthermore, the treatment of these detainees is arguably defi-
cient under the Geneva Conventions even if the U.S. has lawfully de-
nied them POW status. Assuming the detainees are not POWs, they
are still “protected persons” under common Article 3, and many of
them are protected under the Civilian Convention. The Civilian Con-
vention guarantees rights to “unlawful combatants” that are nearly
identical to the rights assured to POWs under the POW Convention.

Thus, by denying the protections of the POW Convention to the
Guantanamo detainees, the U.S. is violating many of the rights to
which they are legally entitled under common Article 3 and the Ci-
vilian Convention.

source...
http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/JinksSloss.pdf

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Taxloss]

22. I concede the whole argument.

I'm out of my depth.

I thought I had a point originally, but I screwed it up and it's irretrievably lost now.

Just to try and show I'm not a hopeless schmuck, here's my practical case against torture, posted a day or two ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2902527#2902601

[norml]

25. Thank you bpilgrim! This is the best response so far in this thread.

This is something on which we obviously need more drill, if we are to be ready for debate on this issue.

[bpilgrim]

28. no worries

thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :evilgrin:

peace

[norml]

27. "Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons

in Time of War." We have a winner! The rest of you need to study, and then educate others on this.

[Taxloss]

4. I should say: The Geneva convention isn't law

It's an agreement. If you sign it, you agree that you will treat those your military come in contact with in a certain way. What is considered the civilised way.

Well, the turrists haven't signed it, so why should we? Because it works the other way: being a practising signatory of the convention means that other signatories will treat your troops well.

So it's sort of a "gentleman's agreement". Nothing solid, but beneficial to both sides.

[shraby]

5. The Geneva Convention IS law

If you read the constitution you'll find that any treaty signed by the United States becomes part of the laws of this land.

[Taxloss]

9. Most civilised countries have laws like that.

In itself, however, the convention is not law.

[LynnTheDem]

37. Yes it IS law.

Read the United States Constitution.

[bpilgrim]

15. you are mistaken again

Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

source...
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

p3eace

[Taxloss]

20. Please see posts #5 and #9

But I think I'm way out of my depth on this whole issue. I concede both your points.

[democracyindanger]

6. Finding a loophole

doesn't make something 'legal'--it only demonstrates that something is beyond the scope of the Geneva Conventions.

[Been Fishing]

10. While some laws have been passed recently

that makes it quasi-legal to suppress individual rights, it is not ethical.

Right wingers argue that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens and legal residents. The detainees don't qualify. This is another example of what the neocons are doing to restrict and limit civil liberties.

Military tribunals are illegal, and would not allow detainees legal protection. Detainees are not required to appear before the tribunals, can be restricted from hearing the charges against them, and are not permitted to present a defense.

What's happened to "justice for all"?

Judges need to stand up and tell this administration and the military to return to the rule of law.

[Sgent]

12. Very important to point out....

That the US has never signed teh Geneva Convention re/ prisoner's of war.

We have agreed to abide by the requirements, but we have never signed it -- at least as of a few years ago (and I don't think that's changed). The issue is subjecting US soldiers to foriegn courts.

[bpilgrim]

16. The United States ratified the Conventions in 1955

peace

[LynnTheDem]

38. Yes the US did ratify the GC re POWs.

Signed, sealed, delivered. 1955.

[Dunedain]

11. Conventions

It's Geneva Conventions, there are 4 of them and 2 protocols.

Don't, learn a foreign language so that when the world comes and kicks our head in, you can say your sorry in a foreign language.

Read some and you'll just shake your head.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[bpilgrim]

13. illegal combatants ARE covered by the GC

and thats the very same argument imperial japan tried to use during WWII.

peace

[Poiuyt]

17. If they aren't considered covered by the GC, wouldn't torture be

considered as police brutality?

[genieroze]

21. It's not Christian as * lies when he says he is, and allows garbage like

this.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

29. So--we should check for Al Quaeda membership cards?

Or can you tell just by looking at someone?

[unpossibles]

24. I get this argument from NeoCons all the time

that it does not apply because we are not fighting an actual national army.

BS. Not only does it still apply, but as the "good guys" we need to be above the torture of prisoners and the killing of civilians.

oops. We already went that low? My bad.

[CWebster]

26. It pretty much nullifies the Geneva Convention

by providing the gaping loophole that POW status is a technicality to be dispensed with.


In that case, what is the point? It is a way round the law.

[Democracy Died 2004]

30. It is countered quite easily

Americans do not torture. It is not in their moral belief system to do so. So if anyone uses torture they are not Americans and have no right representing Americans. They are criminals.

[RobinA]

31. This Is My Argument

as well. The US either stands for something or it doesn't. You don't not torture because the Geneva Conventions say you don't, you don't torture because it's morally wrong. And if it's wrong to torture this class of people who are listed in the Conventions, it's equally wrong to torture people who aren't listed. The morality of torture doesn't change depending on who's being tortured.

Of course, you can make this argument 'til you're blue in the face to wingers and they won't get it, because they only understand moral distinctions when they are handed down word for word by some authority figure, whether it be some guy in the sky or some worldly substitute claiming similar moral power.

[bpilgrim]

32. kick - they are trying to CLAIM that al quaida is NOT intitles to GC

:puke:

peace

[RuleofLaw]

33. Legally speaking

Torture by an American citizen is illegal, regardless of who is being tortured:

The federal anti-torture statute is formally known as Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code. The law consists of three sections (2340, 2340A, and 2340B), which define the crime of torture and prescribe harsh punishments for anyone—an American citizen or otherwise—who commits an act of torture outside of the United States. (Domestic incidents of torture are covered by state criminal statutes.) A person found guilty of committing torture faces up to 20 years in prison or even execution, if the torture in question resulted in a victim's death.

The law was added to the books in 1994, as part of the United States' efforts to ratify and comply with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (more simply known as the CAT). The treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1984, but not ratified by the U.S. Congress until a decade later. The CAT mandates that all parties to the treaty "take effective legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100460/

[norml]

34. We have another winner! "The federal anti-torture statute"

Thank you RuleofLaw!

[RuleofLaw]

35. By the way

Severereld the DOJ have to give a definition of Torture, when there is a statute with a perfectly good definition:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 Prev | Next

§ 2340. Definitions

Release date: 2004-08-06

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html

[norml]

36. Everyone should read this legal definition of torture.

Knowing what the laws are concerning torture is essential to being able to debate this issue.