Friday, September 15, 2006

Article 3

Since the Bush administration, Gonzales, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest believe that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is hopelessly confusing, I thought I would post it so you folks can help us come up with a way to explain it to them.
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:

1. 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:

(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.

2. 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.
What is so confusing????? What's Joe's latest take on this? And, what did he think about this before this evening? Who's he aligning with -- McCain or Bush? Decisions, decisions....


mrobinsong said...

There are four Geneva Conventions, signed August 12, 1949, and the two additional Protocols of June 8, 1977. These treaties are all fully indexed on this site.

Notice that the conventions are a series of treaties, then remember what our Constitution says about treaties.

Article VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, the president can't ignore a treaty, he must obey it as the supreme law of the land. So must judges. I heard Bush refer to the opinion, as in "that's their opinion" (I don't have quote) when he was told that Amnesty International says his policies violate international law. Law and opinion are two different things. I've heard him call laws "tools' which they aren't.

Laws aren't guidelines, goals, tools, opinions, talking points, suggestions...Laws are laws, nothing else. We are a nation of laws. You can always tell a Progressive - we get upset when people try to play the game without rules.

CT Bob said...

That's a good post. Powell broke with the President on our actions with regard to torture. Bush accused him and anyone else who goes against him of "faulty logic". It's hard not to throw up when hearing Bush invoking the rules of logic when referring to his policies.

Bush is just trying to "clarify the law". That's Cheney/Rumsfeld-speak for "ignore the law". Fuckers.