PLEASE HELP!!! How did the US government breach the Geneva Convention and Universal Declaration of human rights in Guantanamo bay. please help i have an essay and i have no clue where to start.
The torturing of prisoners was a breach of the Geneva Convention
according to the darling of the RIGHT WING—General Patraeus
Gen. Petraeus joined FOX News and Martha MacCallum today and gave a blockbuster interview, but probably not the one Fox expected. Once again, he called for the responsible closure of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. He also said that mistakes were made after 9/11 and that the Army Field Manual is all that we need to use to interrogate prisoners. In addition, he said that we have to have faith in our judicial system and we should try the Khalid Sheikh Muhammads in a court of law.
Martha tried to give him the ticking time bomb scenario to justify torture and he really didn’t bite. He did say maybe an Executive Order could be appropriate, but that it really wasn’t necessary. Petraeus repudiated pretty much most of what Limbaugh Republicans and the Rove/Newt/Cheney Party have been saying.
(rush transcript)
MacCallum: Where do you think those people should go?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, it’s not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
MacCallum: What about the concern that a Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a US court and the possibility that some of the treatments that were used on them that they could go free.
Gen. Petraeus: Well, first of all, I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for, what we stand for. And so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith, I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.
MacCallum: So you’re confident that they will never go free.
Gen. Petraeus: I hope that’s the case.
MacCallum: (Ticking time bomb scenario)
Gen. Petraeus: ….T here might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with, but for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange if you will, is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them — those techniques work, that’s our experience in this business.
MacCallum: So is sending this signal that we’re not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions, we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Someone has suffered in their life or they have a really tragic story to tell. Two women (let’s call them Kathie and Hoda) drag them onto television and increase their suffering tenfold by making them listen to an incredibly sappy and/or maudlin song. I ask you, should this be allowed to continue?
The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. If these women are classified as victims of war as prisoners and their rights have been violated, than they should be protected. Otherwise, as sad as their stories might be, the conventions have nothing to do with them. There are civil and criminal laws, which might be applicable to their situations.
Sorry, Politics section ain’t moving fast enough so I’m stuck asking question that enter my head.
My opinion is, it is. My major focus is on the bit about torture. A person will say anything to get out of it. And it’s inhumane, sure they do the same, but why follow their example? Show them you’re better than them?
This isn’t exactly based on now. It’s sorta more based on future and past I guess. I abhor the use of torture on anyone.
You are absolutely right. Geneva Convention is an extremely important document for any military combatants. It protects them against inhumane treatment such as torture and allows Red Cross to assess their condition on regular basis.
Time and time again, torture has been proven worthless as an information gathering device.
I have two questions.
1) It is my understanding that military tribunals cannot actually try civilians, but only soldiers. Is this true? I know court martials are supposed to be for both soldiers and civilians, depending on the situation; but does anyone know if military tribunals are limited to soldiers only?
2) Are all soldiers covered under the Geneva convention, or just the soldiers of countries that signed the Geneva Accords?
1. Wong. Tribunals are for illegal combatants. An illegal combatant can be shot in the field with no trial of any kind. A soldier, in uniform, must be treated in compliance with the convention.
2. Only the ones who are in compliance with the convention. They must be clearly identifiable from the civilian population by wearing a distinct uniform or a marker of some kind.
a Uniform?
A. They should be afforded all right of the Constitution of capturing country and then tried in Civilian Courts.
B. Be shot on sight as Illegal Combatants or spys and or tried as War Criminals in a Military Tribunal.
C. Given Citizenship in capturing country and set free.
D. Can be confined indefinitely, like POWs, until the war ends or they are paroled.
E. A and C
F. B and D
G. None of these above.
Please advise…
first answer…WRONG…
G: None of the above. The Geneva conventions do not protect those that do not follow them. One must appear in uniform on the battlefield in order to be protected by the Geneva conventions.
Anything can be done to the civilian and it is not a violation of the Geneva protocol, but it may violate other local laws.
So who cares if they are tortured?
How the hell did you get from terrorists to 10-yr. old boys? And you did not make a valid point in response to my question.
Thanks Biz owner and D H you two seem to be the on the ball. It’s nice to see there’s other people out there with common sense. As for the rest of you not only do you fail to answer the question most of the time you fail to make sense.
The Geneva Convention applies only to those who signed it.
Just like any other treaty .
The terrorists don’t follow it , so why should they be pritected by it ? Arn’t these the kind folks who;
1. fly planes into buildings
2. blow up planes full of people
3. fire rockets across borders at civilian areas
4. behead journalists
5. practice the art of suicide bombing
If you make a practice of kicking your dog, the day will come , when the dog bites you .
The day has come and the dogs have big teeth .
The "rules of engagement" our fighting men are forced to abide by are not reciprocated by our enemy who engages in a kind of "assymetrical" warfare where "anything goes" "throw-out-the-rule-book" tactics have become the norm.
I’m of the opinion we should consider the Geneva Convention a relic of history and allow our forces the latitude to respond in kind to what they are facing.
Comments, questions, snide remarks?
the Geneva convention gives guide lines for a conventional war between uniformed countries. last i looked terrorist wore no uniforms and they did not sign the convention. the Geneva convention is antiquated. it kills me every time i see what gets written about how the USA is in violation of the convention but i hear nothing about how cutting someones head off live on TV is also against the convention. many people wear blinkers through life and see just what makes their argument better. it’s time for people to wake up and look at the world for what it is. I don’t want to live under extremist rule.
the world is very different now.
They are not soldiers, or even identifiable. They hide behind women and children.
The Geneva convention applies only to UNIFORMED soldiers of an actual army. Applying those same rights to people who snipe women and children on pilgrimage is a mockery of Geneva itself.
Does it work ? "To help to keep the peace"
Well, when terrorists cut heads off of people and give the footage to our esteemed media, it apparently results in honors. Not that this is torture or anything. Only America does that.
applies only to soldiers in battle and in uniform don’t you? So why are you being idiotic and using this as a Bush War Crime. Terrorists are spies, not combatants.
Yes. You are correct. The Geneva Convention only applies to the uniformed military of a Nation State.
I suppose one could consider the spirit of the law, but that wouldn’t likely hold up in court.
The phrasing of "Terrorist are spies" isn’t completely apt. Terrorists are worse.
I believe the closest historical parallel in International Law is the pirates of the late 18th century.
They were declared "enemies of all mankind" and hunted down without mercy.