Let's talk about the election

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Bill Harsey
Ok, what I've learned here is that this could be more complicated than what the cartoon version of the news (networks) tells me.

Sir, I am shocked and outraged to hear that you would doubt the integrity of the Fourth Estste!!

Next thing we know, you will be telling us they propagate falsehoods about Santa and the Easter Bunny.

TR

[Bill Harsey]

Uhh, I'd been meaning to sit down and speak with you about those guys.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Not exactly.

IIRC, in order to be entitled to the GC POW/combatant protections, combatants must:

1. Wear a recognizable uniform.

2. Have a responsible Chain of Command.

3. Adhere to the GC themselves.

I think they are missing some key elements to be ENTITLED to the protections, but we may choose to AFFORD them the protections, whether they are entitled, or not.

TR

Essentially right for POWs*. If they are unlawful combatants, they are not protected by the Third Geneva Convention (Treatment of Prisoners of War). If they are combatants at all, they are not protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War).

However, US laws and regulations have broader reach. AR 190–8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI 31–304/MCO 3461.1 covers all armed services. Its categories are "Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees". The EPW definition follows the Third Geneva Convention, as does that of Retained Personnel (essentially medical personnel, chaplains, Red Cross personnel and the like). A Civilian Internees is "a civilian who is interned during armed conflict or occupation for security reasons or for protection or because he has committed an offense against the detaining power." This category would appear to cover a number of Abu Ghraib inmates, especially regular criminals. The last category, Other Detainee, catches pretty much everyone else. They are to be treated as EPWs: "Persons in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces who have not been classified as an EPW, RP, or CI, shall be treated as EPWs until a legal status is ascertained by competent authority."

I just noticed that the links in my first post go to the same 4th Geneva Convention, rather than 3rd and 4th. The right link to the Third Geneva Convention (Treatment of Prisoners of War) is here

* There are four conditions for militias and guerrillas to get GC EPW protection (from Art. 4(2) of the 4th GC):

(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.

[dickens]

Being new here, I think the original question was about Bush's re-election. Someone said they never expected Willie to get elected either. I know I'm still in shock about it. I was not shocked at his re-election since my party seemed to roll over play dead. I am worried. But I am hopeful because people just don't seem to like Kerry. He is cold and distant. He's been caught in so many lies I can't count them...but not sure that matters to people anymore. I think the debates may well tell the tale. Everyone said Gore would clean GW's clock and that isn't the way it turned out. I think Kerry will come across as what he is...mean and cold.
On another question: Not being military myself...is it me or does it seem as though we are the only people on the face of the planet that actually tries to abide by the Geneva Convention?

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by dickens
Being new here, I think the original question was about Bush's re-election. Someone said they never expected Willie to get elected either. I know I'm still in shock about it. I was not shocked at his re-election since my party seemed to roll over play dead. I am worried. But I am hopeful because people just don't seem to like Kerry. He is cold and distant. He's been caught in so many lies I can't count them...but not sure that matters to people anymore. I think the debates may well tell the tale. Everyone said Gore would clean GW's clock and that isn't the way it turned out. I think Kerry will come across as what he is...mean and cold.
On another question: Not being military myself...is it me or does it seem as though we are the only people on the face of the planet that actually tries to abide by the Geneva Convention?

You must be new to the Internet in general to think that after 47 posts anyone even remembers the original question.

On the election, since I cannot understand why even a flaming liberal would consider voting for Kerry, I do not understand why he is consistently in the mid- to high-40s. I guess ABB is the only thing that matters to a lot of Dem-leaning voters. So the big question will likely be that perennial cliche - voter turnout. Bush supporters generally are strongly supportive of Bush politically and personally, while Kerry supporters just don't like Bush or his policies. Will ABB be enough of a motivator to get them into the polling booths?

As for international humanitarian law, I would not limit your characterization to Americans, but it is true that the only countries who usually abide by the Conventions' rules are the Western countries whose cultures and laws are such that they would play by those rules even if there were no treaties. As noted with regard to the regulations "Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees, and Other Detainees" (AR 190–8/OPNAVINST 3461.6/AFJI 31–304/MCO 3461.1), by regulation all services default to the Geneva Convention categories even when they don't technically apply. When the SecDef says a particular category of detainee is not subject to the GC, he is not saying "...so we can hook batteries to their genitals if we want", despite the attempts by the media and international "humanitarian" groups to imply otherwise.