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.
Originally posted by tom goose
the soldiers did not start any wars, they should not be punished and made to feel humiliated because of some political agenda, Right?
Originally posted by dgtempe
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yet another misleading and false title based upon a personal piece which is taken up and touted as fact by some, ah, why must these things keep occurring?
The Supreme Court justices are speaking and "seeing" for the people. They know this is no regular administration and they need to be stopped.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
Originally posted by dgtempe
Sure, this is what it says now- We got their backs. They got their backs.
Its all good. Nobody gets hurt. How are ya, cuz?
Lets see a little smile.....
International humanitarian law: the essential rules
Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.
United States of America 12.08.1949 02.08.1955
Iran (Islamic Rep.of)
Syrian Arab Republic
United Arab Emirates
Frist and Torture: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?
Time magazine yesterday revealed new allegations of systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees made by a “decorated former Captain in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division.” For months, the Captain says, U.S. soldiers were directed “to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning.” In one instance, “a soldier allegedly broke a detainee’s leg with a metal bat.” Other prisoners had “their faces and eyes exposed to burning chemicals.”
On July 27, the same month the Captain came forward, Sen. Frist single-handedly derailed a bipartisan effort — led by Sen. McCain — to clarify rules for the treatment of enemy prisoners at U.S. prison camps. In what news reports at the time described as an “unusual move,” Frist “simply pulled the bill from consideration” before it could be debated.
Congress Tackles the Guantanamo Challenge
The White House has argued that the president's inherent authority as commander in chief — along with Congress' 2001 authorization to use military force against terrorists — grant him extensive powers to decide how to conduct the war on terrorism, including how to treat detainees and what kinds of surveillance are necessary.
Strengthen Interrogation Policy
The original language was designed to conform with the minimum Geneva Convention protections against cruelty and torture.
But the Bush administration has, since 2002, suspended portions of those requirements, contending that they are too restrictive and that the special nature of terrorism - its mobility and capacity to strike at civilian targets anywhere in the world - justifies the use of harsher treatment.
Among the questionable techniques reportedly employed by American interrogators to elicit information are sexual humiliation, the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, sleep deprivation and "water-boarding," which involves strapping a prisoner to a board and dousing him or her with water to simulate drowning. Such methods are ineffective because prisoners will say whatever they think the interrogators want to hear to stop the abuse.
How Terror Led America Toward Torture
* Jan. 22, 2002: In a memo to the White House and Pentagon, the Justice Dept. says Geneva would not apply to "the detention conditions of al Qaeda prisoners" and "customary international law has no binding legal effect on either the President or the military because it is not federal law as recognized by the U.S. Constitution."
* Jan. 25, 2002: The then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advises President Bush that portions of the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete" and that adherence would restrict U.S. interrogation methods in this "new kind of war."
* Feb. 7, 2002: Echoing Rumsfeld, Bush issues a directive asserting that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to Qaeda suspects captured in Afghanistan and that neither they nor the Taliban would be eligible for POW status. "Our values as a nation," he writes, "call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment."
* Aug. 1, 2002: A Justice Dept. memo narrowly defines "torture" under U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions as limited to abuses causing physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
Why the U.S. Is So Opposed
The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing. To raise the specter of an irresponsible prosecutor before the ICC, or of other nations manipulating the Court's jurisdiction for anti-American political purposes, is to create a straw man.
An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others. This is singularly inappropriate when the game involves allegations of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. The US claim for special status undermines the very idea of the rule of law as a single, principled normative order to which all are bound. Even worse, it may undermine the great international effort of the last century to subject the use of force to the rule of law. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation-state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.
US war crimes immunity bid fails
The US has given up trying to win its soldiers immunity from prosecution at the new International Criminal Court.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had warned the Security Council not to renew the measure, partly because of the prisoner abuse scandal.
Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the required support.
For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing they could face malicious prosecutions.
Originally quoted by Astronomer70
As usual ceci2006 you do good research for your comments.
I have always thought it was "out of character" for the U.S. to hold itself aloof from the ICC.
We currently have agreements with both Afghanistan and Iraq exempting U.S. soldiers from the laws of their countries and I see nothing wrong with those agreements.
In my personal opinion such agreements are necessary whenever one country has soldiers fighting in another country. The ICC though is a different matter and I see no valid reason to exempt U.S. citizens from falling under their rules. Although if a case is ever brought against a U.S. citizen for crimes the U.S. feels are politically motivated, it would create one hell of a problem.
Originally posted by ceci2006
the U.S. "tortured" these "unlawful combatants" in Gitmo and other detainee camps
Time magazine ..
L.A. Times ..
Harford Courant ...
Originally posted by Muaddib
if anyone from the supreme court decided to claim that the administration is criminal because it didn't treat enemy combatants as prisoners of war, perhaps it is time for them to read the Geneva Convention instead of them "believing what they want to believe"....
I find something very wrong with those agreements. For example, with the crimes against civilians in Iraq by our soldiers, who will try them? The Iraqi courts? Or the military? Or should crimes committed on foregin soil be tried by foreign courts? There is a very definite problem with where the trial will be held and where those committing the crimes would be incarcerated.
I see those agreements as a cop out and a get out jail free card for the occupying power who commits heinous acts in the "occupied country". Just imagine if Germany had those same agreements. They would get away with a lot, especially in Poland.