It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Does the US support the Geneva Convention or doesn't it?
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 25th March 2003
Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva Convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them."1
. . . prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and ear phones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).3
. . .
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
So isn't it clearly a breaking of the Geneva Convention that the USA even showed these photos of the enemy?
Originally posted by Djarums
If the "enemy" was protected by the Conventions, then showing photographs of them would absolutely violate the Conventions. They are not, so it does not. I'm quite familiar with the Conventions, and with the point you are trying to make.
Why not agree that the actions were hideous and leave the Conventions out of it since they're not relevant here.
Originally posted by mwm1331
Oops it the exact same stuation at gitmo.
Those at abu ghraib and those at gitmo are not covered by the geneva convention.
Originally posted by 00PS
The USA didn't sign the Geneva Convention? If that's the case then I am wrong...
Originally posted by dawnstar
even if it was considered proper not to consider them worthy of the protections of the Geneva Convention......well, there are other laws and treaties that ban this kind of treatment......