Geneva Conventions

much is being made in the realm of law about the status of the combatants in gtmo.

lawyers are especially want to decide their fates in a court of law. i think is more than a little bit of self interest here. more than a little bit of self justification going on by the members of the bar.

the world is chaotic. states provide sanity and order to the world. inside the state we do this with law. some nations have laws which are very similar. some not so similar. cultures dictate to us our similarities and differences.

when states meet and inevitably clash in the world, we try to pre arrange each others conduct with things called treaties. a while ago the major powers of the world met in a place called genf, switzerland (land of my forebears) to agree on the conduct of nations towards each others citizens.

specific conduct was determined, AS WELL AS the criteria for qualifying a person under the auspices of those conventions.

an important point is that the conventions specifically left matters internal to a state alone. no state wanted another state meddling in its own internal affairs.

this gives us our current dilemna.

cultures in today’s world are producing combatants not pre defined in the geneva conventions.

the combatants in guantanamo bay are not members of any state’s military. if they were, we would have legal grounds to spank that nation righteously with arms. but the combatants transcend any state organization. the swear allegiance to an organization beholden to no state. al qaida. and as non members of any military force operated by a state, they are not subject to the safeguardings guaranteed to captured POW’s by the geneva conventions.

lawyers argue for the right to try them in court. civil and criminal courts were formed INSIDE of states to try persons who do not obey the rules made by that state. the detainees in gtmo were captured in foreign countries, by allied forces, for conducting armed resistance against the us. maybe a few did break a law
in a country, but most have not. they were recruited into alqaida by alqaida, and granted status in afghanistan by the taliban. then they fought alongside the taliban (whose forces we are still fighting in a very limited way).

it was within the rights of the taliban to organize and resist the northern alliance, and its allies (namely us), when we came to kick their asses.

no court in the us has jurisdiction over them. with the possible exception of military courts. nuremburg established the jurisprudence of trying non americans captured not in america for an alleged wrong to america.

think to world war 2. captured german soldiers, and i specifically cite german and not nazi (SS),  were not guilty of any crime, yet we detained them interminably until the war was over. this is conduct specified in the geneva conventions. we were under obligation, to the other signatories of the geneva conventions to obey the treaties and treat the german soldiers within the treaties.
no such agreement exists concerning the treatment of soldiers for a transnational organization. no state protects them.
we need to get one. the united states should call another gathering of nations beside lake geneva. failure to do leaves the prisoners in limbo forever.

  • David

    I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut. I watch College Football, and way too much tv. Work in IT. Live in North Texas.

    Related Posts

    HAMAS MUST LOSE

    I’ve been watching the war in Gaza fairly closely. Not close enough to call myself an expert by any means, but probably more closely than most. So Hamas did start…

    Taylor Swift

    Why does she matter? She’s dating one of the Kelce’s. Good for them. Hope it works out for them. Who celebrities are dating stopped mattering a long, long time ago…

    One thought on “Geneva Conventions

    1. Quite interesting acticle. there is a lot of discussion in Europe about the subject mentioned. Most critics is about the lack of legal representation for prisoners (combatants), even if they combatants “transcend” any state organization.
      “no court in the us has jurisdiction over them” Counter-opponents express their view to the international Court in the Hague

    2. Oh yah, hey, the International Criminal Court will be so effective. Look at how quickly and smoothly the Slobodan Milosevic case went (under the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia). Only problem is, the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC. Heh.

      However, these people in question are not wayward members of European society, such as the Bader Mainhof gang. They are enemy combatants. But if we are to try them for “crimes” — that is, for war crimes — then they must be given legal defense. Even in the Nuremburg trials, the accused had legal representation. And there was very strong legal opinion against the tribunals because they were so close to being “victors’ justice.” There was grudging agreement that the crimes being prosecuted constituted an international standard. To assuage your angst, Holland, the military provides defense lawyers for the accused in military courts, and that was also spelled out in Bush’s executive order instituting the tribunals. (See Congressional Research Service analysis RL31191 for more informaiton.)

      At any rate, the lawyers are so adamantly about getting the terror trials all held in the U.S. criminal court system — because they would get paid by the U.S. Government to represent the suspects. You know, that whole “if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent you” thing. Heh. Each and every trial case could be thrown out because the soldiers in the field failed to read the goons their Miranda rights!

    3. yeah, but the constitution does not guarantee anything outside of the us’ territories.

      i really do not like trying terrorists in a civilian court. they are combatants plain and simple. but their status is not covered by existing geneva conventions. this is why i claim a new accord is due.

    4. Terrorists can be tried as war criminals. I made reference to a SCOTUS case from WWII (tried in 1950) that seems to parallel what we are doing with GTMO over on a posting with the Geek in response to his rant on MCA. Or we simply give them over to the ICC, as Holland suggests. If you’re willing to give up our rights to prosecution by military tribunal and enjoy a long (very long) human rights circus aimed at denigrating U.S. hegemony, that is.

    5. i don’t think we have to try them at all. we don’t try prisoners of war. we need a new accord to spell out exactly what a terrorists status is. if it is a prisoner of war, for a combatant of a trans national org, why should we try them.?

      yup, quit falling into the liberal/lawyer trap. even you were saying ither or. either our military tribunal, which is a trial, or the icc. which is again a trial.

      what trial did nazi prisoners of war get? if they committed crimes against humanity, they got nuremburg. but if not, their repatriation was negotiated at the conclusion of the war.

      no trial.

    6. Mlah,

      This reminds me of the law enforcement/military discussion about the War on Terror I had with yup some time ago.

      Even if a new accord is due, it still doesn’t necessarily settle the dispute for who has jurisdiction to try suspected terrorist in the United States.

      The more I read into this and the more I spend time thinking about the big picture (I am right now reading Richard Posner’s Not a Suicide Pact which at the least has me thinking even though I disagree with many of his general views), even the idea of putting U.S. citizens accused of being of a terrorism-related crime gives me great pause for concern.

      I may be a civil libertarian but I am making what I think is an honest forthright attempt to tackle this issue head on and get my arms around all its implications. Posner’s book, probably because he is critical of civil libertarians (although I’ll caveat that and you’ll see why when I review it), will at least get me farther down the road.

      These are the very issues I did not have at my disposal when debating yup on FISA, and it’s rather unfortunate that I didn’t. With a book review and my comments and thoughts on the new Military Commissions Act brewing, I feel that I can not comment without addressing the terrorism issue as a whole.

      Yup, don’t let my moment of weakness get to your head. 🙂

    7. Oh yeah, I have to respond to yup’s comments on Johnson v Eisentrager and Ex Parte Quirin.

      It’s so awesome to see that up there because I have been trying to draft a separate post on those two cases. Now I can steal it. bwahahahahaha.

    Leave a Reply to Geek Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    Blogging

    • By David
    • July 14, 2025
    • 17 views

    HAMAS MUST LOSE

    • By David
    • August 5, 2024
    • 11 views

    Princess Kate

    • By David
    • March 18, 2024
    • 4 views

    A List of Shows

    • By David
    • February 4, 2024
    • 6 views

    Taylor Swift

    • By David
    • January 31, 2024
    • 6 views

    The Border

    • By David
    • January 28, 2024
    • 6 views