The conventions are written like statutes - the first parts are definitions that define the playing field. For any of the Gitmo folks to have any legal standing under any legal they must first, be classified as the "status" of the conventions state and, evidently, by a tribunal. If the tribunal says their POW then the fourth convention does not apply. See the full text of each convention - Part 1's.Comment Posted By rdh On 2.07.2006 @ 13:48
A minor point, but defintions do matter in most legal systems and documents and that's why they are in the first part of most statutes.
Sort of like telling you if you're playing under the rules of football, basketball, bridge, soccer, or golf. It's good to compare football rules to golf, but most would think it a bit of a strech?
I'd support Part IV controlling if Part I is struck down. Unless you claim there is a conflict - it's been years, but I believe there is an entire body of case law, both international and in the US about conflict of laws. Thus, either your position is you cannot find an interpretation where all parts of the same (emphasis) law agree with one another, or you stike Part I, or you reach some other reasoned decision.
Having ventured into the realm of Geneva, the conclusion of using a tribunal is a first necessity, all parts of all the conventions come into agreement, and Kofi smiles !Comment Posted By rdh On 2.07.2006 @ 06:53
I think the issue is very simply one of status and which convention, if any, may apply after that determination.
For example, maybe Andy and others should read the title of the 4th Geneva Convention:
CONVENTION (IV) RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR and Part I stating:
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
and also in Part I (note it's a good idea to read the parts prior subsequent parts):
"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention."
also, one of the prior conventions:
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, specifically:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
It would seem to me the issue is one simply of status. The internationalist love using tribunals - evidently a view the Supreme Court seems to like as well. Thus should not the status of the person must be decided before one would know what to do? Actually, doesn't it seem reasonable to establish status of the kind and gentle persons in Gitmo before we conclude they are the Mother Teresa's of the Islamic world? And maybe finally end their stay at our tax-payer provided tropical paradise?
So if you were on the tribunal and had a vote: are these folks civilans, spies, campaign managers, or what? Those of you who choose to answer immediately are doing so with no facts regarding the individual.
Let the tribunal decide and let us do whatever it takes to hang a status label on their lapels so we can act accordingly.Comment Posted By rdh On 1.07.2006 @ 08:50
Before the nuke-issue became the only topic of public opinion, do you recall the Iranian economy was deplorable, restlessness in the public mosques, young folks considering revolt, attention starting to focus on Iran's role in Iraq, open support for terrorists groups, amoung others.
So what to do? Why not just rev up a nuke threat, and create a crisis. The score so far seems to be hugely on the side of Iranian objectives:
a. huge increases in oil revenue looks to have salvaged their ecnonomy since their actions have added a fear premium (maybe 10-15 US$ per barrel?)
b. purge the malecontents. Stalin killed millions mostly without notice while the West focused on all kinds of things.
c. other external activities viewed unflavorable by others are mostly given a pass and fade to noise level.
d. add immensely to the "Arab street" image of Iran (ala Nassar) in standing up to the West.
e. enlist the usual divisions in the West that seem only to focus on the most recent event as "crisis" management.
I'd agree this is a gambit, but a minor one. This one will play out over the next year or so, much like the Ali Rope-a-Dope. Iran Islamist will be much, much stronger and will claim yet another win in a much greater game.Comment Posted By rdh On 12.05.2006 @ 07:12
Way too early to tell if (a) it was a sting or (b) taking advantage of a specific leak. Think back to the Keating Five time lines.
Imagine you're tracking a drug ring, you know who the street dealers are but you really want the ring leaders or, at least, to confirm the person(s) acting solo. The only reason to arrest immediately would be to flip the dealer. This group of folks would not flip just by something as simple as an arrest. History since 1992 says it would be highly unsuccessful.
I seem to recall the Administration did disavow the characterization. With the MSM and others, puffing and shouting has zip effect. After all, even Rick thinks something was a-foot although sure what.
However, given a source, then tracking all the linkages in and out of the CIA, accumulating evidence, and vefifying events would be time consuming. If there were/are suspects in in Congress (much less the MSM or worse) a methodical (and time consuming) investigation would ensue. Thus, you'd get about what we've seen regarding the time line to today, one way or another. I think the investigators have all they can get from this source and have decided to turn the light switch on.
After all, once you go public, it's like shining a light into a roach-infested room. And, if one has cameras, it could provide some more evidence as well.Comment Posted By rdh On 22.04.2006 @ 09:56
Pages (1) :