bryant

You're viewing

bryant's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Well! We’re holding children under sixteen at Gitmo. That kind of stings. These kids, like other prisoners at Gitmo, are being held without benefit of either US law or the Geneva Convention. Let’s assume that the case for the legality of this has been made. I still can’t help but wonder why the US government is willing to put aside those two bodies of law. The real test of morality is not what you do when you have no choice — it’s what you do when you do have a choice. Apparently, when we have a choice, we sometimes decide not to grant civil rights. Even to kids.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

merlinofchaos

I read the Geneva Convention bit (or parts of it) in respect to PoW.

It's not that we're putting aside the GC, it's that the GC very explicitly does not apply to combatants that aren't basically soldiers in uniform doing soldier things in battle.

The GC explicitly makes it so that soldiers that are trying to make it difficult to identify themselves as soldiers do not get Geneva Convention protections. Thus they are illegal combatants.

From:

bryant

The prisoner of war argument is kind of an unintentional red herring. My reference here is the full text of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Article 4: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Article 5: "Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

"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.

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention."

Thus, while the Gitmo detainees may have forfeited their rights of communication, they explicitly have the rights to a fair and regular trial. This is not happening. Our bad.

(But the greater point is this: if we believe that the right to fair trial is a good thing, then why have we elected to deny the Gitmo captives that trial?)