>
>This provides some interesting facts around my belief that US has been
>mistreating prisoners for years. The good news about the Iraqi prisoner
>scandal is that perhaps it will bring to light long-time practices and create
>a solid dialogue. For example, is it all right to keep someone awake for days
>in order to gain information that might save thousands of lives? How about
>making hold uncomfortable positions for long, painful time? Is it clearly
>that no mistreatment is acceptable for any reason or is the line somewhere
>else.
You mean the ticking time bomb argument. if it were a day or two and
you knew where it was then it is within the realm of possibly being
justifiable. I don't think that the argument can apply when its done
over several months period, and applying the duress across all
prisoners. Also the legal experts I've been listening to,
specifically on NPR and CBC, have suggested that even then those
applying these methods, and those authorizing them are still liable.
One retired Navy JAG said likened it killing in self defense. You
still are liable.
>It was easy for us to take the highroad when there were not USA lives on the
>line. How about now when these forms of torture could save lives?
see my answers above. But in brief it may apply to immediate cases
but not when the prisoner has been detained for months already.
>
>This is NOT unique to the US, but is still a world-wide issue. The Geneva
>conventions never produced the dialogue necessary for ordinary people to gain
>consensus and clearly the UN or any other international organization never
>have any teeth for enforcement.
The Geneva Conventions are very clear, and the US is both a signatory
and an enforcing power. Therefore it has some teeth. Moreover, the US
military's own codes and regulations of conduct do list the Geneva
conventions as having the force of military law. Perhaps it might be
germaine to look at the actual relevant conventions:
From the (current) 1949 "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War" (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm):
"Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to
give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army,
regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent
information. If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render
himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his
rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its
jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an
identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army,
regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and
date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature
or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well,
any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add
concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible
the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate.
The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand,
but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any
kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition,
are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the
medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established
by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding
paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a
language which they understand."
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may
be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of
any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind."
That means no disincentives for refusing to answer question other
than name, rank, date of birth and serial number. None. No threats
- no insults - no exposure to any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind.
"Article 22
Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and
affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in
particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners
themselves, *they shall not be interned in penitentiaries*."
The articles also define who are to be covered by the conventions,
and the Iraqi prisons are covered under no uncertain terms. Article
45 of the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)":-
"Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of
an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and
therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims
the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to
such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status
on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the
Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such
person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall
continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the
Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has
been determined by a competent tribunal.
2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is
not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an
offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to
assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial
tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible
under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before
the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting
Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that
question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are
held in camera in the interest of State security. In such a case the
detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled
to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more
favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall
have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this
Protocol. In occupied territory, an such person, unless he is held as
a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the
Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that
Convention."
(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm)
Protected persons:-
"Article 31
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons,in particular to obtain information from them or from third
parties."
(From "Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War"; http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm)
hth,
larry
--
Larry C. Lyons
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Chaos, Panic and Disorder. My work here is done.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
