White House: Detainees Entitled to Geneva Protections

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:57 pm**

Pardon my bluntness, but bull crap. Bull crap. Terrorists--ununiformed combatants--are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections. Has the White House lost its mind? I think so.

Hitchhiker · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:20 am**

The Geneva Convention was written after the second World War and is slightly outdated.

Perhaps it could use an update. But the spirit in which it was written and the reasons for which it was written still remain today.

The White House has not lost its mind, no. It's reaffirming the somewhat unknown concept of basic human decency.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:27 am**

I think it's little more than spin. It looks to me like this is a policy reversal. But even if it isn't, terorrists do not fall under the juristiction of the Geneva Convention, and so to say that they deserve Genveva Convention protections is just outrageous. That's not to say, however, that we should follow the spirit of it when it comes to treatment of prisoners, etc. We have not, as Dick Durbin even admitted today, tortured prisoners in Gitmo, and that's as it should be. There was some misconduct in the beginning, but things there have since been fixed for some time now.
While they deserve humane treatment and whatnot, they don't, however, deserve Geneva Convention protections because they don't apply to it. Period.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:44 am**

You say "terrorists" as if everybody who is a prisoner there is a terrorist, and has already been tried and found guilty. And before you say that they were caught in the field of battle, or under incriminating circumstances, or whatever, that still doesn't mean they're guilty, as people are still being set free from Gitmo.

Just an observation or two.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:52 am**

Point taken. They're not all terrorists, but just because there are some innocents there doesn't mean that they all qualify for Geneva protections, or that even most do. That's just not the case, nor should it be. We should not make a Mousaui case, for instance, out of every person that enters Gitmo. They could be interrogated and put in front of a special tribunal when ready to determine whether they're guilty or not, but it shouldn't be said that they qualify for Geneva protections, because they don't fall under that juristiction.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:05 am**

Article five of the third Geneva Convention says: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

If they even let one person free from Gitmo (and they've let more than one go free), then it shows that there's reasonable doubt for nearly all the people there.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:20 am**

But the thing is, they may technically be prisoners of war, but by definition non-uniformed combatants are not POWs. Therefore they do not fall under the juristiction of Geneva Convention protections.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:30 am**

If innocent people are being locked up there for years, then why shouldn't they each be given a tribunal to decide if they're POWs or terrorists? It seems rather sick to make the assumption that everybody's guilty and innocent people should be subject to "coercion." Maybe that's just the democracy in me.

And have you just admitted to knowing that they're POWs, but they don't deserve protection due to a technicality?

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:38 am**

I just said two posts ago that I would be fine with tribunals, particularly the military tribunals that the Supreme Court ruled against. I don't really have a problem with that. Just they shouldn't get the same treatment as American citizens in that regard (because they aren't American citizens) and the process shouldn't be as complicated as the Convention requires.
And really I would think it would be whether or not they're terrorists, not whether they're terrorists or POWs.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:45 am**

Hmm, I suppose at this point it would be terrorists or not. I don't know if anybody from Hussein's former military is being held there.

As I said before, the fact that they're letting people go shows that they don't know if everybody there is a terrorist or not, and therefore nobody there should be forced to undergo some of the things allowed without Geneva protection (if, of course, they fall under the "doubt" category).

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:52 am**

Well, I agree that they should be treated humanely, and in terms of physical treatment we should stick with what the Geneva Convention, in this case, suggests, and that is what we're doing. Coersive interrogation, I think, should be acceptable, but abuse and torture should not be.
Dick Durbin (the Dem who called our troops at Gitmo Nazis a while back) stated today that there was nothing inhumane that he saw there. He thinks it should be closed down, but only for our image across the globe. I disagree with that.