I don’t know where you’re getting that. It’s pretty clear the 3rd convention defines POW status. The 4th Convention applies to everyone else. From what I’ve read, no one at GITMO would qualify for POW status, so treatment as defined under the 4th convention would apply.

And I have read each Convention. If you read common article 3 (common, because it’s the same in each of the 4 conventions) it clearly defines the limits of what you can do in any case - POW or not.

I don’t know why to bring up GC1. It specifically applies only to battlefield casualties. GC2 expands that to wars at sea. GC3 covers POW’s. GC4 covers everyone else. The rights people have under GC4 are less than what are accorded to POW’s. The only people not covered under some portion of the GC are nationals from countries who have not signed it.

So I’m not sure what you mean by “Part 1.” If you’re talking Protocol 1, then we, and many other countries, have not ratified it.

Sort of like telling you if you’re playing under the rules of football, basketball, bridge, soccer, or golf. It’s good to compare football rules to golf, but most would think it a bit of a strech?

I’d support Part IV controlling if Part I is struck down. Unless you claim there is a conflict - it’s been years, but I believe there is an entire body of case law, both international and in the US about conflict of laws. Thus, either your position is you cannot find an interpretation where all parts of the same (emphasis) law agree with one another, or you stike Part I, or you reach some other reasoned decision.

Having ventured into the realm of Geneva, the conclusion of using a tribunal is a first necessity, all parts of all the conventions come into agreement, and Kofi smiles !

I’ve got the weekend/holiday duty, and with vacations I’ve been quite busy the last two days, so it’s been a little difficult both to read enough to be informed as well as to keep current and pertinent on the blog.

You conveniently skip over relevent sections of the convention, specifically articles 3&4:

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

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 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:
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
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.
The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[edit]
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.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

As you can see it applies to any person captured in us custody.

The provision on spies and sabateuor are forfeited rights of communication - that does not mean you can arbitralily kill and torture them.

For example, maybe Andy and others should read the title of the 4th Geneva Convention:
CONVENTION (IV) RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR and Part I stating:
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

and also in Part I (note it’s a good idea to read the parts prior subsequent parts):

“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.”

also, one of the prior conventions:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, specifically:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

It would seem to me the issue is one simply of status. The internationalist love using tribunals - evidently a view the Supreme Court seems to like as well. Thus should not the status of the person must be decided before one would know what to do? Actually, doesn’t it seem reasonable to establish status of the kind and gentle persons in Gitmo before we conclude they are the Mother Teresa’s of the Islamic world? And maybe finally end their stay at our tax-payer provided tropical paradise?

So if you were on the tribunal and had a vote: are these folks civilans, spies, campaign managers, or what? Those of you who choose to answer immediately are doing so with no facts regarding the individual.

Let the tribunal decide and let us do whatever it takes to hang a status label on their lapels so we can act accordingly.

who exactly are “those persons”…anyone we say? Anyone we capture on a battlfield be it with Al Q or Taliban… or anyone? The truth is, we should follow the conventions. Should have been since the start of this war. We would have gained more intel, and gotten a lot better press (propaganda) if we had maintained our high standards instead of re defining who we are, the definition of turture and the definition of how we treat basic human rights. The war on terror is as much about information as it is combat. The Administation, with all its double speak, signing statements etc. has screwed up royally. It is going to take us dcades to get back moral high ground that was so easily pissed away by their over zelous foolishness.