White House Oversight of China's Detainees?

[theletch1]

[playnice]Jeff Letchford[/playnice]

 

[Ninjamom]

....reads a little like "We agree to abide by these conditions ... when it suits us"
>
>
EDIT: For those interested in some of the nitty-gritty on the Geneva Convention .......here is an article.....

Actually, the US has responsibly, repeatedly abided by or exceeded the requirements of the Geneva Convention, even in those cases where the other party was either a non-signatory or grossly non-compliant (e.g., Japanese in WWII, North Korean, and Viet Cong treatment of US prisoners).

The arguments regarding 'legality' have to do with the actual status of the prisoners in question. One of the Geneva Conventions (there were four of them) deals with the treatment of Prisoners-of-war. The Convention goes to great detail to define exactly what a 'Prisoner-of-War' is, and who is and is not covered by the accord. According to the Convention, non-uniformed irregular combatants not representing a nation-state are specifically exempted from the Convention and excluded from the definition of Prisoner-of-War. That is why the inmates at Guantanamo are routinely called 'enemy combatants', vs. Prisoners-of-War, and why the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent/Mogen David in their care. STILL, the US government has provided them with all the requirements for treatment under the accords (even though they are not required to) EXCEPT for 1) regular access to representatives from their home governments, 2). free mail delivery, and 3) free access to educational materials and continued teaching/training. In all cases, the constraint has been on the ability to transmit/receive intelligence data. Detainees are still provided with free access to clerics of their chosen faith, health care, personal sanitation, and food and space that exceeds Geneva requirements. No Guantanamo inmate has been paraded on TV, subjected to public humiliation, or transfered to civilian control or court proceedings. No one has been executed without due process and the right to access to competent counsel. (No one has been executed yet at all, but that possbility remains within the perview of judicial review.)

As far as the "poor innocent bystanders who got caught up in a sweep", the original Guantanamo captives were taken in fire-fights in active control of weapons, using them in hostile action against US soldiers. In addition, several notables have been added based on intelligence identifying them as 'high-value targets' in the war on terror. It is these 'high value targets' who are first on the docket for trial, so those cases must either be proved or their status changed.

The problem as I see it is that too many people want to have it 'both ways'. Many want those at Guantanamo to be guaranteed the rights of POWs, without actually changing their status to POW, so that they can still have the full benefit of jury trial under civilain authority. The Geneva Convention guarantees no such thing, and was never intended to provide such.



ADDED ON EDIT: Regarding the pictures of Iraqi POWs surrendering on camera: recall these addtional factors before deciding if this is 'the same' or 'different' than Iraqi treatment of captured coalition forces:
1) There were a total of about two dozen US airmen captured in Gulf War I. Of these, about half were shown on Iraqi TV. On the other hand, there were over 70,000 Iraqi POWs who surrendered in Gulf War I. Of these, several dozen were shown surrendering by Western media sources.
2). The American (and British) fliers who were shown on Iraqi TV were shown in an interview format on state-sponsored television, reading a prepared statement handed to them by agents of the Iraqi government acting in their official capacity with that government. The Iraqi soldiers shown surrendering on American TV were filmed by embedded reporters (i.e., independent news media reporters unafilliated with the US Government who were accompanying soldiers in the area), not acting in any official government capacity.

In a perfect world, should the US Government have intervened to prevent the private news source from getting out of theatre with footage of surrendering foreign troops? Probably, in spite of the inevitable whole can of First Ammendment worms it would have opened on the domestic side.

 

[Big Don]

In a world of foment and change, it is comforting to know that as a Universal Constant you, Big Don, will always be around to advocate for the most egregious and brutal violations of human rights. :highfive:

Exactly how much crap did Libya give us or anyone else after Reagan bombed them in 86? Oh, that's right, when Bush started fighting the War on Terror, Qaddaffi unilaterally gave up his WMD programs, without a shot, or even the threat of a shot being fired.


What do we learn from that? Threats only work if the threatened KNOW you will follow through

 

[Ray]

What do we learn from that? Threats only work if the threatened KNOW you will follow through

A chess maxim is: A threat is stronger than its execution.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ninjamon, whilst I appreciate your input and understand your points, I wonder if perhaps your quote from my post was a bit too 'tight'? By this I mean that it rather changes the point I was making to mean something else by selecting so narrowly.

 

[Ninjamom]

S -

That was not intentional, by any means. I took what I thought was the gyst of what you were saying and the gyst of the article you referenced (which, article, I admit, set my hot button on overdrive ).

Sounds like I missed your point and made a very good post about something else entirely.

 

[Sukerkin]

An easy mistake to make, especially given that I tend to wind my posts around like a pretzel whilst I amble towards something like a conclusion .

Plus, it is true that the post you made was very cogent and well structured - all the more impressive if you wrote it whist your 'dander' was up :tup:.