Journal Jorj X. McKie's Journal: Geneva Convention(s) 2
There has been a lot of talk about the Geneva Convention recently. From a quick reading of the document (Convention III, Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War), it seems that most people don't know what they are talking about. This may include many of the people in government who are responsible for applying the Convention. In fact, the convention on the treatment of prisoners of war is only one of several.
Here is an overview page. Text of Convention III. Another version, indexed and slightly easier to read.
From my quick reading (skimming) of the text, it seems that it not only bans mental and physical torture, but that any form of coercive interrogation is also forbidden. However, under article 4, it looks like that many of the prisoners are not covered by the convention at all. It covers regular troops, and irregulars to the extent that they openly bear arms and are identifiable as fighters. Moving on, there is nothing that covers the suspension of the convention. The provision for denunciation of the Convention specifies that such denunciation takes effect only a year after it has been made, and after any conflict in existence at the time of the denunciation has ended and all prisoners from that conflict have been properly disposed of (i.e., no changing the rules in the middle of the game). Oh, and it does not seem to be illegal to put individual prisoners on trial for crimes they have committed, providing that they have all the normal legal rights available to persons under the jurisdiction of the detaining power (with certain specified minimum rights, such as access to counsel). Based on what I saw, I could not decide whether or not military tribunals are competent to try POWs.
I'm not trying to make political points here. The words "Geneva Convention" have been thrown around a lot, and it seemed like a good idea to inject some facts into the discussion (yes, I know this is Slashdot, blah blah blah).
Here is an overview page. Text of Convention III. Another version, indexed and slightly easier to read.
From my quick reading (skimming) of the text, it seems that it not only bans mental and physical torture, but that any form of coercive interrogation is also forbidden. However, under article 4, it looks like that many of the prisoners are not covered by the convention at all. It covers regular troops, and irregulars to the extent that they openly bear arms and are identifiable as fighters. Moving on, there is nothing that covers the suspension of the convention. The provision for denunciation of the Convention specifies that such denunciation takes effect only a year after it has been made, and after any conflict in existence at the time of the denunciation has ended and all prisoners from that conflict have been properly disposed of (i.e., no changing the rules in the middle of the game). Oh, and it does not seem to be illegal to put individual prisoners on trial for crimes they have committed, providing that they have all the normal legal rights available to persons under the jurisdiction of the detaining power (with certain specified minimum rights, such as access to counsel). Based on what I saw, I could not decide whether or not military tribunals are competent to try POWs.
I'm not trying to make political points here. The words "Geneva Convention" have been thrown around a lot, and it seemed like a good idea to inject some facts into the discussion (yes, I know this is Slashdot, blah blah blah).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:what is important is the US observation (Score:2)
Except that there is still the presumption of innocence -- at a minimum the presumption of innocence of the charge "doesn't respect the rules of war". Merely taking up arms and resisting an invading power is explicitly allowed by Article 4(A)(6), and thus qualifies such a combatan