Want to read the Geneva Conventions?

[trof]

They're all here:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Particularly relevant:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Is the U.S. guilty or not guilty?
You be the judge.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

1. Thanks Trof

Now, if we can just get Rumsferatu to read them.

[Az]

2. The dodge

This is not a declared war. The prisoners are not prisoners of war. They are enemy combatants. Because of the stupid bill the Congress signed they basically gave Georgie permission to do what he wants without regard for the law.

[Spazito]

3. I disagree, the Conventions also cover "conflicts", they are not

relegated only to a declared war even though by the bush admin trying to obfuscate this by using the phrase "enemy combatants". The bush admin has already said that they would not adhere to the Geneva Conventions re Gitmo which, to me, is a tacit admission that they know the detainees there should be covered.

Here is one relevant section:

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

[Az]

4. Oh I agree

But this is the dodge they are going to run to. Think about it. They consulted with lawyers to see just how far they could push the law to torture people. This is not morality in action.

[prodigal_green]

5. Does this apply to private contractors?

I mean "legally"

I love how Dumbsfeld now hides behind lawyers when discussing the abuses in the prisons.

[Spazito]

8. If they are paid through the DOD, wouldn't that make them subject...

to the same legal restraints as the DOD? For example, if the companies that have hired the "contractors", who are really just mercenaries, the company should be under the same legal restraints as the DOD is and therefore their employess would be as well. Could they be subject to a military trial, I don't think so but they sure can be charged criminally for murder, etc. That's my take, anyway.

[Spazito]

6. When I went through the Geneva Conventions...

what I could not find was specific actions to be taken for those signatory countries that contravened the Conventions except that it says the other signatories must hold the offending country to account (paraphrasing here). How are those countries to do this specifically? I couldn't find that but may very well have missed it. Does anyone know? With Canada as a signatory, I would, at the very least, send an e-mail to my government if I knew what specific actions could be taken.

[arwalden]

7. Rush Is Suggesting That Liberals Are Hypocrites About The GC...

he says that we're always bemoaning the fact that the US Constitution is a living document and should't be so rigid... and he wonders why liberals don't belive the same thing about the GC.

Rediculous!

-- Allen

[prodigal_green]

9. One's a treaty and one's a constitution

Man, the oxy-moron is really dumb.

Repugs don't seem to have much problem trashing either one though, so I guess I see why he'd think that way.

[GiovanniC]

11. But at Least They're CONSISTENT

Obviously, the issue of great importance here is CONSISTENCY.

[primavera]

10. Now there's logic for you

So for the GC to be a living document, it needs to be expanded to include legitimizing torture? Yeah, that makes sense all right. :eyes:

[Spazito]

12. The interpretation of the US constitution is up to the USSC...

the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is up to the UN, in which the US is only ONE member. Rush must be back to getting a rush from his drugs.