US breaches Geneva Convention (again)
yozzee | 24.10.2004 22:12
The U.S. government transferred al Qaeda fighters out of Afghanistan during the war there after it ruled that they were not protected by the treaty. Former members of the Iraqi military and Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, by contrast, are considered to be protected by the treaty, the Post said.
Apparently this can constitute a war crime under the Geneva Convention. From Reuters:
U.S. intelligence officials have transferred detainees out of Iraq for interrogation, a move that experts say violates international law, The Washington Post reported in its Sunday edition.
The CIA has invoked a confidential memo written by the Justice Department to justify secretly transferring as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months, the Post said.
The CIA has hidden the detainees from the International Red Cross and other authorities, the Post said, citing an unnamed intelligence official.
In a March 19, 2004, memo the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said the CIA can take Iraqis out of the country for a "brief but not indefinite period" and can permanently remove those determined to be illegal aliens, the Post said.
Some specialists in international law say the opinion amounts to a reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits forcible transfers of civilians during wartime, the Post said.
The CIA and Justice Department declined to comment for the article, but a White House official disputed the notion that the Justice Department's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions was unusual.
The memo noted that violation of that portion of the treaty could constitute a war crime and that officials should proceed carefully, the Post said.
The U.S. government transferred al Qaeda fighters out of Afghanistan during the war there after it ruled that they were not protected by the treaty. Former members of the Iraqi military and Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, by contrast, are considered to be protected by the treaty, the Post said.
![](/img/extlink.gif)
yozzee
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Cuntish censors
24.10.2004 23:41
Alisdair
Have you ever read the damned thing?
26.10.2004 11:50
SURE ---- and pray tell us what proper treatment is specified therein or "civilians" captured "in arms". Stood up against a wall and shot, yes?
The Geneva Conventions are useful guides for treatment of soldiers of STATES (whether "regular" or "irregular" soldiers) and for actual civilians. They do NOT provide protections for warriors of non "state" armies. The latter are not classified as "civilians" either. In the old days they were called "pirates", "freebooters", "francs", etc. Yes, there used to be "private armies" roaming the world -- but when captured, soldiers of these did not get treated as "prisoners of war" (between states).
Those wishing to obtain some protections for these prisoners should attempt to get accepted new interpretations of the Geneva Conventions to cover soldiers who while not operating on behalf of a recognized state are nevertheless not "private" either. The problem is one of precendent. By any modern standards, some of the "freebooter" entities, especially as organized in the Caribbean, had "governments" (were "states", just not recognized by other states).
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm mtdata.com