Bush a War Criminal?
That's the question that Rosa Brooks asks in this morning's LA Times. Here's the basis for her 'case':
Clearly, Hamdan wasn't wearing a "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." In fact, I'd bet the ranch that nobody being held at Gitmo was wearing anything that'd fit these requirements. Furthermore, Fred Barnes said that he'd talked with someone from the Reagan administration yesterday afternoon about terrorists being covered. This Reagan administration official said that the subject came up in the eighties and that it was summarily rejected.
The implication of this is monumental: the four liberal idiots, joined by Justice Kennedy, ratified unilaterally a new 'treaty' that gives terrorists rights that the Geneva Convention says that they aren't entitled to having. In that light, it's impossible to figure out how the Bush administration could be war criminals when SCOTUS wrote new law yesterday.
In closing, it's clear that Ms. Brooks either needs (a) to be more thorough in researching the Geneva Convention so she knows what she's talking about or (b) to stop selectively choosing which Geneva Convention rules she'll apply to terrorists. In short, she'd be wise to tell the whole truth, not just the convenient truth.
Posted Friday, June 30, 2006 8:16 AM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants, including prisoners, in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states.That's true as far as it goes; unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. While it's true that part of the Geneva Convention meant to protect citizens as much as is possible in war, it didn't stop there. Ms. Brooks either intentionally or incompetently stopped there. That blockquote above is part of Article 3 of the Convention. Let's see what Article 4 has to say:
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:This section essentially says that people only qualify for Geneva Convention protections if they're wearing a uniform that has "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." They don't have to be part of a nation's military but they have to be visibly identifiable as being combatants in a conflict.
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, fulfill 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.
Clearly, Hamdan wasn't wearing a "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." In fact, I'd bet the ranch that nobody being held at Gitmo was wearing anything that'd fit these requirements. Furthermore, Fred Barnes said that he'd talked with someone from the Reagan administration yesterday afternoon about terrorists being covered. This Reagan administration official said that the subject came up in the eighties and that it was summarily rejected.
The implication of this is monumental: the four liberal idiots, joined by Justice Kennedy, ratified unilaterally a new 'treaty' that gives terrorists rights that the Geneva Convention says that they aren't entitled to having. In that light, it's impossible to figure out how the Bush administration could be war criminals when SCOTUS wrote new law yesterday.
In closing, it's clear that Ms. Brooks either needs (a) to be more thorough in researching the Geneva Convention so she knows what she's talking about or (b) to stop selectively choosing which Geneva Convention rules she'll apply to terrorists. In short, she'd be wise to tell the whole truth, not just the convenient truth.
Posted Friday, June 30, 2006 8:16 AM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
