US Military will Apply Geneva Convention to All Prisoners.

Pentagon officials are reportedly applying a policy that would make all prisoners held by the US military subject to the same rights under the Geneva Convention.

Link

In a major policy shift, the Pentagon has decided that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions, according to two people familiar with the move.

The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.

So, what is to be done about Guantanimo?

[edit on 11-7-2006 by Rasobasi420]

The Geneva convention rules should only apply to countries that respect them. They should not apply to the people we are fighting now because they do not go by the geneva convention rules. This kind of political correctness crap is going to be the down fall of the US.

Excuse my ignorance, but i was under the impression that all prisoners of NATO countries were subject to the rules under the Geneva convention anyway?

CX.

Originally posted by CX
Excuse my ignorance, but i was under the impression that all prisoners of NATO countries were subject to the rules under the Geneva convention anyway?
CX.

I'm sure your impression is mostly correct; but, it skirts the issue a bit. The big problem with the whole Geneva Conventions Argument is whether all prisoners count as prisoners of war.

What with all the screaming from both sides, it’s easy to get caught up in a position without looking objectively at the situation. Here’s my take on it:

In most laws, there is the “letter” of the law, and the “spirit” of the law. A good example would be let’s say you got a speeding ticket for driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. You have clearly violated the “letter” of the law (you were diving 2 mph faster than the posted limit); however, have you violated the “spirit” of the law (which is to keep motorists, pedestrians, children, and animals safe by maintaining safe driving speeds for road conditions)? I don’t think so, and probably neither would most judges.

In some cases, though, the letter and spirit of the law can be pretty darn close to each other, if not identical. In my opinion, that is the case here. It is my under informed impression that there is a distinct difference between enemy soldiers and enemy combatants. See, the Geneva Conventions are, essentially, all about making an ugly thing–war–as nice as possible for all involved.

So, for example, all soldiers are supposed to be in uniform. This way, one can distinguish between soldiers and civilians. And, that is a major distinction (which I believe is actually spelled out in the Geneva Conventions) between soldiers and combatants.

Therefore, if a fighter is not in uniform, and is not part of a country’s regular army, air force, navy, etc. (no, a band of rebels or insurgents doesn’t count). That fighter, when captured is, to the “letter” of the law, NOT a soldier. Instead, he IS an enemy combatant. In my opinion, because this is specifically addressed in the conventions, I believe that that classification also follows the “spirit” of the law. That is, the framers of the convention intended them to be considered enemy combatants.

The next step is that detained/captured enemy combatants, unlike true prisoners of war (captured, uniformed, regular soldiers) are NOT afforded any protections under the Geneva Conventions. Some may not like it, but I’m pretty sure that’s the way it works. It is designed, in my opinion, as a way of offsetting the benefit of hiding amongst a civilian population. You do it, that’s your business, but if you are caught, you can be held forever without trial and not be protected like other POWs.

So, CX, the issue is not really whether NATO signatories are protected, or even if Iraqi army prisoners are protected. Instead, the issue is whether captured insurgents and suspected terrorists (none of who wear the uniform of any signatory country) are protected. In short, according to the Conventions themselves, I believe they are not.

That said, I think regardless of what the Conventions say, I don’t think that it can do the U.S. any harm to consider all captured fighters as prisoners of war. Despite the outcry from around the world, we’d realistically probably be the only ones doing it.

And, I must admit, how each side in the U.S. and all the various countries around the world who love to voice there opinions over how we keep our house, is of great curiosity to me.

Ah i see, thanks for that explanation Hamburglar.

CX.

You have to admit, often, an enemy combatant will have more of a real reason, more of an honorable reason to fight than many countries soldiers. For example, would it be in line with the spirit of the convention if an official soldier raped and murdered innocent people and received convention treatment, while a man who isn't associated with any nation's military kills a soldier who was going to rape and murder his family gets treated as less of a human being?

I have to say, I'm glad the pentagon is taking this seriously.
(that is as close to a compliment the Pentagon is going to get from me BTW)

These scum deserve nothing of the sort. catch them, try them, shoot them. Thats all they deserve.

Have you seen the US troops torture video and the aftermath?? believe me they in no way shape or form got the geneva treatment, far, far , far , far from it.

Treat these jihadic animals as saddam did and you may just get that hell hole licked into shape and ready for our troops to leave.

That video has changed my views on the war and issues of prisoner status for these foriegn fighters forever. Finish it, fast, and if that means with maximum brutality and bloodshed of these so called holy warriors so be it.

oh to my brother in afghanistan, I salute you! may God watch over you whilst you 'robustly patrol' that desert hell hole.