"expert" on NPR claiming the torture isn't a war crime

[G_j]

because the war is over. Thus they are not prisoners of war.
war over?

>Laws of War -- and War Crimes
NPR's Cheryl Corley talks with Gary Solis of Georgetown University about how laws of war crimes apply to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody.< audio not available yet



edit: from KoKo01's thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1511289

what do you think?

<snip>
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.
Article 4

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
Article 5

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Article 6

The present Convention shall apply from the outset of any conflict or occupation mentioned in Article 2.

In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.

<snip>

[fearnobush]

1. National Public Republicans. NPR since its 100 mil from McDonalds

has turned to an other voice for the GOP.

[Cocoa]

2. if the war is over...

don't they have to let them go?

[leftistagitator]

3. I had no idea that the war was over

I wish someone would tell the Iraqis that.

[salin]

4. So none of the charges against Milosevic

come from actions taken while there was no formally declared war? Actions/torture that happen only during aggression and suppression actions of the government only count IF at the time there is a formal declaration of war pending?

[troublemaker]

14. Crimes against HUMANITY is what you're looking for

Not everything in the world is a War Crime. I don't recall if Milosevic is charged with any war crimes, but I know he's charged with Crimes against Humanity

[never_get_over_it]

5. Well actually

the war was never on I guess. Congress has to declare war which they never did. Don't care what you call it those acts were disgusting and should be punished.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. What's a POW?

"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

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 civilian 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, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

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 of 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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. "

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Sure sound like POWs to me...

[FlemingsGhost]

7. In that case, I'd hate to be a captured U.S. soldier.

Oooops...

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I think that "expert" is nuts

How many people were killed this week? Does that sound like the war was over to you? Shall we ask the residents of Falluja if the is over?

It is certainly a crime against international law and one for which, if the Bushies are intent on blowing the prosecution, a international tribunal can and should be convened.

This is the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which the US is a party. The junta has violated this covenant time and time again by sending suspects to a third party state where they are to be tortured.

[Kanary]

9. Setting up the defense before charges are filed?

[Supormom]

10. Hey, The war is over?

Let's bring the troops home!

[G_j]

11. Gary Solis

Gary Solis, adjunct professor of law and a former Marine Corps judge advocate

[Jack Rabbit]

12. An article by Solis

From the Crime of War Project
Dated July 2001

Expert Analysis
By Gary Solis
An expert on war crimes, Gary Solis, Ph.D., has written two books on Viet Nam. A retired Marine, he served two tours in Viet Nam: in 1964, as a 2nd Lieutenant platoon commander; and in 1966 as a captain. Since 1995, he has taught the laws of war (a course he created) at the United States Military Academy at West Point. The views expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily reflect, or represent, those of the USMA.

Bob Kerrey came to see me, on April 21, and asked, "Did I commit war crimes?"
Any attempt to answer that question must be based on the facts. The problem is that there are two competing versions of the facts–Senator Kerrey’s and Gerhard Klann’s. I have no doubt that these individuals are equally sincere in their accounts. But memory is the most faulty of resources. Especially thirty years after the Viet Nam war.
If you believe Senator Kerrey, as I am prepared to do, no war crimes were committed at Thanh Phong. If you believe Mr. Klann–which I don’t, but again, I don’t doubt his sincerity–then there were.
Perhaps I speak out of loyalty, though not entirely so. I had never met Kerrey before that day a couple of weeks ago at West Point. Bob Kerrey is the first to concede that his memories may be unreliable. But they are his memories, they have plainly tormented him. I view him as a military and civilian hero. An educator.
As a former prosecutor, I wouldn’t touch this case. It’s the classic "He said/she said." I would no more prosecute Mr. Klann than I would Senator Kerrey.

Read more.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. When was the "War Over"? "Mission Accomplished?" Tell that

to the last 500 or so dead soldiers/sailors. I guess we can just bring everyone on home then, eh? And anyone there now can just do whatever they want?

:wtf:

[bobbieinok]

15. I heard that segment - it sounded like 'legally' he was correct

1-War over--------Bush declared it over. Maybe that's why he did.

2-Once war is over, people arrested are not POWS but 'criminals, suspects, etc."

3-People in the US military in an occupation 'after a war' are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

4-If people working for private contractors are in involved, as one of the soldiers said...it may be impossible to bring them to account.

Why not...

...The NPR person asked who they are accountable to.

...Answers ....

......NOT to the military

......to US justice system. Solis doubted any US prosecutor would be willing to prosecute a case so far away.

......to Iraqi justice system. But it looks like nothing is in place.

5-Soldier in diary and emails and to defense lawyers said they received no guidelines for treatment of prisoners.

...Solis doubted that. He said the unit they are in is responsible for prisoners so training about proper treatment would HAVE TO HAVE been given.

My impression of interview: Solis is a professional lawyer, served in VN, has been in the military legal system.

It sounded to me that legally he was correct. Which makes me wonder...were private contractors there so that there could be no legal penalties????

Implications of the interview (if what he said is accurate) ARE SICKENINGLY EVIL.

[G_j]

16. audio now available

on this page,
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=current

you are right in that the implications of the private contractors being accountable to no one is sickeningly evil!
This is very, very serious.

I still have doubts though that a President can just declare a war "over" as it continues to rage on.

All in all, "evil" is the only way to describe this situation!