|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 9 users and 39 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 11:24pm.
Dec 10 2005 - 5:00am COME JOIN US DEC 10th : TO OPPOSE TORTURE & ABUSE OF PRISONERS IN US CUSTODY Start: Dec 10th starting in front of the Olympian Newspaper @ 12 pm. Finish: The Capital Mall @ 2:00 pm On August 8th 2005 prisoners being held, most of which without charge, at the Guantanamo Bay Navy Base prison, began to demand their basic rights under the Geneva convention by beginning a three month hunger strike. This peaceful action taken by the prisoners resulted in force feeding and an increase in brutal treatment through physical and psychological abuse and the religious persecution of the Guantanamo prisoners. A recent report issued by the U.S government has stated that torture and brutal treatment of people under the custody of U.S personnel, should be legal as long as it does not take place on U.S soil. The U.S government has repeatedly refused to report information on accounts of major violations against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan. According the the New York times, Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA director Porter Goss met with Senator John McCain in order to urge him to exempt CIA officers on the proposed ban on torture, claiming that this ban would hinder their ability to fight the war on terror. Human rights watch has declared that the US has become “ the only government in the world to claim a legal justification for the mistreatment of prisoners during interrogations |
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
I'm not sure about the wordin
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 11:36pm.Fromgenevaconventions.org:
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:32pm.torture
Torture is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).
from theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
The Geneva Conventions still
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:42pm.Here's the definition from the Geneva Conventions on the definition of "wounded combatants":
Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:
(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, fulfil 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.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Now, which portion of this definition does the guerilla and terrorist movement fall under?
The original reason for this was so that covert operatives were not afforded protection. It can easily be translated, however, to the current threat we face today.
It may be a stretch but perha
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:31pm.If the insurgents in Iraq do not qualify as combatants under this article, wouldn't they be protected in the other articles that protect civilians?
The real point I'd like to make is that if they are not specifically protected in writing, shouldn't they be? The other question I have is, does finding a loophole that makes torture legal when done to a certain group make it morally OK? I think even having a conversation about whether we should torture or not goes against some of our core American values.
Provision (6) would be the cl
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:46pm.There actually is a section dealing with terrorism and occupying powers in the Geneva Conventions. If you notice, though, "protected persons" is continually used. A non-uniformed soldier is, again, not a "protected person."
No, a non-uniformed solider should not be protected, whether they're from Iraq or the United States.
This really isn't a "loophole." This was an intended consequence, that those who do not accurately represent their true intentions as a solider should not be afforded the same protection as those in uniform.
Being a guerilla, terrorist, and spy is sort of a "Proceed at Your Own Risk"-profession. While you have an advantage in the field as far as combat is concerned, you are at a disadvantage should you be captured. It's a trade-off.
TFI, you oughtta join the mar
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 12:04am.I'll have to pass. I'm not o
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 12:57am.For some reason I imagine if I were to attend the rally tomorrow I would only become agitated by some of the commentary.
I would probably end up having the same discussion there as I'm having here, only with a few dozen more people to deal with and ending up with a few yelling at me. Not my idea of a quiet Saturday.
You're probably right. But i
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 12/10/2005 - 11:17pm.