Afghanistan was the nation-state Bush decided al-Qaeda belonged to

[bigtree]

so, the Gitmo prisoners "removed from the battlefield" ARE entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. If not, then where does the justification for invading, occupying, and overthrowing the Taliban rule of that nation come from?

Bush: Geneva accords don't apply to Gitmo

Jul. 7, 2006 at 12:12PM

U.S. President George Bush says the people being held at Guantanamo Bay do not fall under the Geneva Conventions because they do not represent a country.

At a news conference Friday in Chicago, Bush said though he will adhere to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision saying he exceeded his authority in ordering military tribunals for Guantanamo inmates, he is convinced "this is different than what any president has been through before."

"I stand by the decision I made in removing these people from the battlefield," Bush said. "See, here's the problem -- these are the types of combatants we have never faced before. They don't wear uniforms and they don't represent a nation-state. They're bound by an ideology. They swore allegiance to individuals, but not to a nation. The Geneva Conventions were set up to deal with armies of nation-states. They've got standard rules of war. So this is new ground."

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060707-120745-3099r.htm

Bush can't have it both ways. Either Bin-Laden WAS associated with Afghanistan or he wasn't. If he was, as the Bush regime has asserted all along, then he, and his fellow combatants who were also associated with the former controlling authority in Afghanistan (Taliban) are entitled to the same conventions that the U.S. afforded Chinese captives during the Korean War (even though we had no diplomatic relations with China at the time), and afforded Viet Cong prisoners without uniforms or insignia.

The line all along has been that these prisoners were 'on the battlefield.' How they got there should be mostly irrelevant to how we treat them after we capture them. Besides, where IS the justice in ducking the rules on a technicality? We know the reason they want to duck the rules is that they don't have sufficient evidence against many of the prisoners to convict them. That's why they've been held without charges and without counsel for years. If they had the evidence they would put them up for trial and put them away.

But, they don't. The most significant difference in the tribunal court the Bush regime wanted (and was denied by the Court) and the military court advocated by rights groups and others, is in the ability of the defendants to have access to evidence against them without it being obscured by an artificial veil of secrecy by the government prosecutors. They want to be able to present a one-sided case against the prisoners and severely limit the defense.

That may be the only way to hold some of these prisoners that they insist are extremely dangerous, but it's just an extension of the summary executions our military practices 'on the battlefield' with their indiscriminate bombings and collateral killings. It may be an inevitable outgrowth of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and the hunt for and prosecution of those determined responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers. But, this cherry-picked justice the Bush regime is pursuing makes a mockery of the democratic nation they purport to represent and defend.

[madrchsod]

1. very good post-- very good

never fails to amaze me the level of writing that du has..your`s is a perfect example. to bad this won`t make it to the front page because it is well worth reading..