|
Geneva Conventions and POWs
This topic seems to pop up frequently - and some solid clarification is in order. Perhaps even the activist Clinton-appointed federal judge who sparked this latest round will be able to comprehend... nah, he won't - because that's not why he acted the partisan moron in his ruling regards Hamdan. But, for the rest of us, a clear and concise explanation could be quite illuminating...Not quite one week after the American people overwhelmingly endorsed George W. Bush's conduct of the war on terror at the ballot box, a federal district judge in Washington D.C., challenged the president's policies by ruling that Salim Ahmed Hamdan is entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan, is being held at Guantanamo Bay as an al Qaeda member, and has been designated for trial before a military commission. President Bush has, of course, refused to grant any Geneva Convention status to al Qaeda members because that group is not, and could not be, a party to those treaties. Mr. Hamdan's case is obviously on its way to the Supreme Court which, earlier this year, decided that such individuals can be held, without a criminal trial, as enemy combatants so long as hostilities continue in Afghanistan. Although the court also ruled that detainees must be given the opportunity to challenge their detention — most likely before a board of military officers — it never suggested that detainees were entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions. In particular, the Supreme Court did not require that detainees be treated as prisoners of war (POWs) until a "competent tribunal" has determined otherwise, as provided in Article V of the Geneva POW Convention. Nevertheless, this is exactly what the district court has ordered in Mr. Hamdan's case, in addition to challenging the government's right to try him before a military commission. The Geneva POW Convention, the court concluded, applies to everyone fighting in Afghanistan, regardless of their nationality or allegiance, merely because that country has ratified the treaty. This, of course, would extend Geneva protections to al Qaeda. Posted by: .com 2004-11-16 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=48913 |