U.S. soldier to plead case as objector

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Which article?

Both actually But, I referred to the one fronm the Professor in Houston.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE46LJQ51.DTL

Officials say methods at prison broke rules
Pentagon aides say abuses violated Geneva accords

Washington -- Two of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials were forced to admit Thursday that a tough method approved for handling prisoners in Iraq appeared to violate the Geneva Conventions, although both said they were unfamiliar with how the decision to allow such techniques had been approved.

The statements by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put them at odds with their boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who approved a "stress matrix'' for interrogating detainees there.

"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...146574,00.html

Officials admit Iraq interrogations violated Geneva Conventions

By Ken Guggenheim
The Associated Press


Washington - The No. 2 military and civilian officials at the Pentagon indicated that interrogation techniques ordered in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions and said they did not know who approved them.

[strandinthewind]

Bush is correct when he says the GC would not apply to all prisoners in Iraq. The GC POW status applies only to the soldiers fighting in the Iraqi army, if there are any left. These new people currently exploding car bombs, etc., would more properly and accurately be considered enemy combatants because they are not fighting under the flag of Iraq, wearing the Iraqi uniform, etc. - these are the terms set froth in the GC. I cannot comment on the existing treaties because I have not read them. Finally, any prisoners already in prison (although SH mostly emptied the jails prior to the invasion) would be considered as civilians under the GC because they did not attack us, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE46LJQ51.DTL

Officials say methods at prison broke rules
Pentagon aides say abuses violated Geneva accords

Washington -- Two of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials were forced to admit Thursday that a tough method approved for handling prisoners in Iraq appeared to violate the Geneva Conventions, although both said they were unfamiliar with how the decision to allow such techniques had been approved.

The statements by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put them at odds with their boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who approved a "stress matrix'' for interrogating detainees there.

"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

This is why W should not have rushed to war and why Rumsfeld needs to go to jail and prey he gets treated nicely - what a jerk!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Both actually But, I referred to the one fronm the Professor in Houston.

You want to email the former JAG and tell him of the error? Or shall I? You know all of the legalese much better. I'm just a hippie/dippy white chick. It might sound better coming from you. Want his email address?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

You want to email the former JAG and tell him of the error? Or shall I? You know all of the legalese much better. I'm just a hippie/dippy white chick. It might sound better coming from you. Want his email address?

He might, as many do, think I am a loon But, he is incorrect about Al-Q unless he insome way can prove Al-Q was fighting on behalf of The Taliban, which would be hard to do considering The Taliban deined Al-Q was even in the country

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bush is correct when he says the GC would not apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

Then, whatever could this mean:

"Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq."

Torture, war, concientious objectors, war crimes-it's enough to make your head spin!

[strandinthewind]

Here is a link to a site about which I know nothing, but it has the relative part of the GC:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[strandinthewind]

Here is the text:

Article 4

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.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Then, whatever could this mean:

"Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq."

Torture, war, concientious objectors, war crimes-it's enough to make your head spin!

I think he is saying not all prisoners in Iraq qualify under the GC, Only the ones under Art. IV above do. But, I think we no longer have any or at least hardly any former Iraqi soldiers in prison. I could be wrong about that - but, I remember reading that we are using the old soldiers in the new army.

[gldstwmn]

Boy, I sure am confused...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rumsfeld_x.htm
Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Convention applies to all prisoners held in Iraq,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ir...nventions.html
However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/ru...ogation.memos/
Leading up to the Iraq war, Bush said Iraqi prisoners would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said last month that Bush had made that instruction clear.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFrie...8&section=news
Lawyer wants Bush on witness stand over Iraq abuse
Mon June 21, 2004 05:04 AM ET


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A lawyer defending a U.S. soldier charged with abusing prisoners in Iraq says he will seek to put U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld on the witness stand.
Bush and Rumsfeld sidestepped the Geneva Convention in their "war on terror", civilian defence counsel Paul Bergrin said on Monday.

His client, Sergeant Javal Davis, was instructed on a daily basis to soften up Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence, Bergrin said.

"Bush gave a speech declaring his war on terror and said the Geneva Convention no longer applied," he told reporters after an impassioned address in the court room.

He accused Rumsfeld and other top U.S. officials of trying to redefine the definitions of abuse and torture in a campaign aimed at influencing lawyers at the Department of Justice.

Pretrial hearings are being held in Baghdad this week for Davis, Specialist Charles Graner and Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, reviving notorious images of sexual and physical humiliation that sparked worldwide outrage.

The photographs of smirking American soldiers tormenting naked detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison rocked the U.S. military when they emerged in April, prompting accusations that policies adopted in Bush's "war on terror" had encouraged the cruelty.

Davis is accused of abuses including jumping on a pile of prisoners and stamping on their hands.

"My client was not even instructed for five minutes on the meaning of the Geneva Convention, nor was he trained to work in a prison. He was instructed on a daily basis by military intelligence and civilian contractors to soften up and loosen up detainees so he could save American soldiers from getting slaughtered," Bergrin said.

During Monday's hearing, the U.S. military judge handling the case agreed to Bergrin's request to question top American generals.

Judge Colonel James Pohl said Central Command chief General John Abizaid and Iraq commander Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez could be interviewed.

The U.S. army, keen to demonstrate it is weeding out the culprits, has launched investigations into seven low-ranking suspects in relation to abuse at Abu Ghraib, which U.S. officials have blamed on a few wayward individuals.

Pohl ordered the prison be preserved as a "crime scene", despite a suggestion by Bush that the building be demolished.

Bergrin said he wanted to take members of the jury to the jail so they could experience the conditions U.S. soldiers were working under.

"We want the court members to smell the faecal matter and the urine that service members who worked inside that prison and who are accused in this case had to live with," he said.

The hearing on Monday, at a convention centre built by Saddam Hussein, aims to resolve any outstanding legal issues ahead of the start of the court martial.

The trio have yet to plead.

Graner, who faces the most serious accusations, could be sentenced to up to 24 years and six months in jail if convicted.

He is accused of photographing a detainee being dragged on a leash, and posing for a picture by a pile of naked detainees.

Graner is also charged with making prisoners strip and masturbate in front of each other, and forcing one detainee to simulate oral sex on another, before taking a picture.

Frederick faces charges including participating in an incident where a prisoner was hooded and made to stand on a box with wires attached to him, and told he would be electrocuted if he fell off -- an image splashed on front pages worldwide.

One U.S. soldier, Specialist Jeremy Sivits, has already been sentenced to a year in prison after admitting abuse charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...prisoner_x.htm
U.S. military admits wrongly holding prisoner in secret
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended his decision to hold a prisoner captured in Iraq without notifying international authorities, saying it was at the request of CIA Director George Tenet and the detainee was treated humanely.
"He wasn't lost in the system," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "There is no question at all ... that he received humane treatment."

The terror suspect has been held since October without being given an identification number and without the International Committee of the Red Cross being notified, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Both conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3831399.stm
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's November 2002 memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:


putting detainees in "stress positions" for up to four hours;

removing their clothes;

intimidating them with dogs;

interrogating them for 20 hours at a time;

forcing them to wear hoods;

shaving their heads and beards;

using "mild, non-injurious physical contact" such as prodding.
Less than two months later, Mr Rumsfeld withdrew approval for those methods, reportedly on advice from military lawyers. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend interrogation methods.

But Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

http://uttm.com/stories/2004/04/30/i...in614905.shtml
U.S.: Detainee Begged For Death

June 25, 2004
(CBS/AP) Three U.S. soldiers will testify that a former CIA contractor beat an Afghan detainee with a heavy flashlight 10 to 30 times and kicked the man so hard he came off the ground and later begged to be shot, a prosecutor said Friday.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-3034253.php
Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040510-18.html
The United States seeks to comply "fully" with the obligations of the Geneva Conventions with respect to the treatment of prisoners of war and security prisoners in Iraq, says Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel to President Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Well, read the text of the GC above and you won't be confused any longer Clearly, it applies only to armies and such, not terrorists not operating with any armies.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He might, as many do, think I am a loon But, he is incorrect about Al-Q unless he insome way can prove Al-Q was fighting on behalf of The Taliban, which would be hard to do considering The Taliban deined Al-Q was even in the country

Like I said, we can email him...

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, read the text of the GC above and you won't be confused any longer Clearly, it applies only to armies and such, not terrorists not operating with any armies.

I covered that:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ir...nventions.html

The Geneva Conventions have one aim – to protect both soldiers and civilians as much as possible from the horrors of war. Those conventions now outline the rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, civilian internees and sick, wounded or shipwrecked members of fighting forces.

In fact, what the hell, just so you're not confused anymore:

Violating the Geneva Conventions, breaking the rules may constitute either war crimes or crimes against humanity. Today's conventions, negotiated after the Second World War, and including some updated amendments from the late 1970s, are the result of a century of diplomatic wrangling and lobbying by humanitarian organizations.


John McCain is administered to in a Hanoi, Vietnam hospital as a prisoner of war in the fall of 1967. McCain spent 20 years in the Navy, a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp after his jet was shot down over Hanoi during a bombing mission Oct. 26, 1967. The Navy pilot nearly gave up during his captivity but his memory of books and movies helped him survive. North Vietnam did not follow the Geneva Convention, because, it in its view, the conflict in Vietnam was an "undeclared war." (AP Photo/File)
The first important convention was actually signed in The Hague in 1907 and ratified by most of the world's nations in the following years. That convention tried to set out rules for fighting wars, and where it hasn't been supplemented by later agreements is still in force. A key clause in the 1907 Hague Convention that called for wars to be conducted within "the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience" became the basis of the later idea of "crimes against humanity."

The limits of the 1907 Convention became clear during the First World War. In 1929, many of the world's nations signed a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war. The Second World War again showed the previous conventions need amending and updated, so in 1949 diplomats negotiated four Geneva Conventions. They are:


Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The first two conventions cover members of armed forces involved in a conflict who are no longer able to fight (hors de combat is the legal term). The third convention regulates the treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention for the first time laid down rules for the treatment of civilians both during the fighting and in occupied territories. The supplements to the Geneva conventions neogiated in 1977, Protocols I and II, widened the definition from declared war to "armed conflicts" and recognized both "international" and "non-international" (such as civil wars) conflicts.

Prisoners of War

The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:


That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
That of carrying arms openly;
That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

PoW or Unlawful combatant?

The United States created a new controversy over the conventions after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration quickly declared that members of al-Qaeda captured on the battlefield were "unlawful combatants" and not subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Mary Robinson, the UN human rights chief, said they should be considered prisoners of war, as defined by the Geneva Conventions. At the time, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials called them "detainees" or "unlawful combatants."

Rumsfeld repeated that contention during the controversy over abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. He said that prisoners in Iraq were covered by the conventions, while members of al-Qaeda are not, adding, "Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians."

The Americans argued that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories, saying that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld labeled them "unlawful combatants," and said the rules of the Geneva Convention did not apply.

An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition: An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished. As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform. In the Second World War, the United States captured eight German saboteurs who were out of uniform and executed six of them.

However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.
Lawyers for prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as those representing two U.S. citizens held in a navy brig as enemy combatants, have challenged the policy before the United States Supreme Court. A decision is expected in mid-summer.

Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured.
Rumsfeld has defended the use of interrogation techniques such as dietary changes, sleep deprivation, forcing prisoners to sleep naked and forcing them into "stress positions" as justified against unlawful combatants. Humanitarian organizations and some U.S. senators say those practices "go far beyond the Geneva Convention."


Carpiquet, France; July 4,1944---- Canadian Private Leopold Marcoux with German prisoner of war taken during battle for Carpiquet In Airport. During the Second World War, both the Allies and Germans treated prisoners of war following the rules of the 1929 Geneva Convention. (CP PHOTO) 1999 (National Archives of Canada / Michael M. Dean)
Occupied territories

The key phrases of the fourth convention covering civilians in occupied territories cover both the occupier and the occupied. The occupier is required to treat people properly, while the population of an occupied state can forfeit rights if they take part in acts such as spying or sabotage. But the convention also adds that detainees cannot be deprived of their rights indefinitely. Those rights must be restored when the security situation permits. Critics of the Bush policy have pointed out if what the U.S. calls the "war against terrorism" goes on for years, prisoners could be held without rights indefinitely.

Article 1 of the convention states:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [unable to fight] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Violation of prohibitions

Violation of prohibitions are covered by Article 5, which states:

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 at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.