Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Common Article III

I want to take a little time to examine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. We have talked about it before on the blog, but maybe a more elementary explanation of it for our readers is called for in light of the controversy that the Handam case has stirred up. Allow me to qualify myself. It has been a long time since to studied International Law, so perhaps the other Citizens can help fill out this analysis.

I think this is important because I have listened to multiple news stories and everyone is throwing "Common Article 3" around. The Administration is giving conflicting messages about its stance on the article and how it plans to comply with the US Supreme Court ruling in Handam.

So let's look at the real thing and allow the readers to make their own determiniation.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part I : General provisions

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.

taken from the ICRC

Ok, that is the article. Let's start at the top. For starters, it's worth remembering that prior to WWI, it was an accepted principle of international law that states could treat their own citizens any way they saw fit without outside intereference. But, after WWI there arose exceptions such as the 1926 antislavery convention and concern over the treatment of Jews in Russia and Armenians in Turkey. With the Holocaust and the establishment of the United Nations, the idea that human rights was a global affair, not just a question of internal policies, took hold. The Geneva Conventions grew out of this movement. Because of the high level of ratification by its signatories, all states are bound to respect the Conventions.

They are comprised of four treaties that protect a different group of people at risk during armed conflict. The third treaty deals specificially with internal armed conflicts (not of an international nature) and grants combatants in those conflicts similar protections as traditianal prisioners of war. It says that persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. And then it gives a semi-specific list of unacceptable treament. Like all law, this is open to interpretation. However, it is pretty obvious based on common sense what other types of things would be banned under the Convention. So anyone in the Administration that tries to say something like water boarding is acceptable under Geneva or that it doesn't apply to "enemy combatants" is looking for a way to avoid the Convention with semantics and slick legal arguements. The real bone of contention now is Artcle3, sec. 1 part D that deals with trial and conviction.

(What no one is talking about is Article 4 that covers all conflicts not covered by Article 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines prisoners of war to include members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces (4.1.1) and members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements in all conflicts not covered by Article 3 which are all conflicts of an international character.(4.1.2). But this is a different post.)

Article 3 requires that detainees be tried in a regularly constituted court. The tribunals that Bush set up are not "regularly constituted" since they have not been ratified by Congress. So what type of court can they be tried in? The military says they should be tried in military courts under the current UCMJ. The Administration wants Congress to ratify its own designed tribunals, thus rendering them "regularly constituted" under Article 1 sec 8 of the US Constitution. Yet others want to modify the UCMJ.

Administration lawyers want Congress to pass legislation stipulating that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terror suspects. In light of article 4, I am not sure how they can justify that. But I am sure they are working on that as we speak. My view is that if these people deserve to be tried at all, and I am not sure many in Gitmo should be, then I'd agree with the military brass that the current UCMJ is good enough. It would much easier and better for US policy if we accepted the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to "enemy combatants" and treated them as the POWs that they are.


Dr. Strangelove said...

I have followed USWest's links and read through some of the provisions of the Geneva convention.

The US Supreme Court also made an interesting ruling regarding the application of Article 3. Even though the first sentence of Article 3 would appear, on its face, to make the article inapplicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda (and that is what the Appellate court held), Justice Stevens wrote that the meaning of the first sentence was meant merely to distinguish the conflicts covered by Article 3 from the conflicts covered in Article 2.

The intention was that Articles 2 and 3 would cover all armed conflicts that one of the contracting parties would find itself in. The Supreme Court held that, just because the concept of an international conflict with a non-state-sponsored actor was not present in 1949, this does not mean the conflict falls outside the scope of the treaty. (Likewise, just because Guantanamo doesn't quite fit the definition of U.S. territory, this does not mean it is outside the scope of U.S. law.)

This is a classic case of conservatives trying to poke loopholes in laws meant to have none. Thank goodness the Supreme Court affirmed, at least a little bit, that not even the President is above the law.

And really, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why ordinary rules of justice--or at the minimum, the UCMJ--cannot be applied here. Surely there are procedures for prosecuting without revealing classified data? Surely this situation has occurred before, perhaps when trying spies for treason? Surely we've tried terrorists before? And if there really is something new here, let's hear what the exact issue is and frame the least onerous solution within the systems of justice available.

I am so tired of the hype and hysteria--of Bush Administration officials saying how stupendously dangerous these people are and how stunningly different this is from any other situation. That's bunk. They are dangerous and the situation is somewhat different. Let's have more American-style justice and less Soviet-style fearmongering, shall we?

Anonymous said...

And let me clarify that when I said I didn't believe that many in Gitmo should be tried, what I meant was that I suspect many in Gitmo are no more than victims of circumstance who haven't committed any crime whatsoever. 

// posted by US West

Dr. Strangelove said...

USWest is probably right that many at Guantanamo are not terrorists. Some may be victims of cirumstance. I suspect also some may be family members of terrorists at large, imprisoned (I refuse to use the euphemism "detained") to apply pressure on those terrorists. (Hey, what was section 1b of Common Article III, again?)

US intelligence was notoriously faulty regarding the middle east and terrorism... why should we trust that everyone they have imprisoned is imprisoned justly? They've already let many go now--after years of holding them--without pressing charges. Surely, if they posed any danger at all, a way would have been found to hold them longer.

The Bush Administration has embraced some new form of American exceptionalism, saying that this so-called "war" is completely different from anything that has come before, and no previous rules apply to American behavior. Congress is right to reject this notion. The rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention are pretty damned basic: no murder, no cruel treatment, no torture, and the minimal "judicial guarantees recognized as indispensible by civilized peoples." When Bush tries to limbo under even that low bar, there are no safeguards left.

Anonymous said...

I believe CA3 has been interpreted to apply to "internal conflicts." So, in the future, should the US government deem a citizen to be an "terrorist combatant," presumably these would be the protections available to them as well. Hmm

"Until we feel security, you will be our target. Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight." - suicide bomber video tape

Someone please remaind me. Why are we bombing, gassing, imprisoning, and torturing these people in the first place?


// posted by Anonymous

Anonymous said...

In the world of video games, not all games are the same quality. There are high end games available that carry an equally high price tag and there are bargain basement games that would put even small children to sleep. Use the advice in this article to separate the wheat from the chaff in the video game world.

Don't use harsh solutions to clean gaming systems. Instead, blown on it very lightly so you can eliminate dust. Using harsh solutions can ruin your system.

Create a safe online gaming environment for your kids. Keep track of the people they're playing with. Certain unsavory individuals have been known to reach children via online online gaming. It is up to you to protect your children and limit their playmates to those you both understand.

If you have a kid and they get too aggressive when they play too many computer games, you may need to put them into some sort of a time out. Give him a 10-minute warming, and then call an end to the game. Suggested activities include exercise or playing outside. This will focus his mind on something less stressful.

If you have children, be sure to limit the time that your child spends on online games. More than two hours a day can strain their eyes and interfere with other activities.

Always use a high grade video connector when setting up your video game system. These cables allow you to connect to your television with different picture qualities. You should use the best ones for computer games. If you can, use DVI or HDMI in order to obtain the best possible signal and picture. If your television does not offer this type of connection, there are several options available including S-Video, Composite and RCA connections. Coax connections are common, but they offer lower quality. Only use these cables if they're the only ones available.

The industry is going forward and gamers are too. Gamers want a huge selection, super-fast access and great prices. If you see a game you want, but don't like the price tag, just wait patiently for a bit. As time passes, the price of the games will decrease so the manufacturer will still be able to record high sales volume.

There are many types of online game consoles. There are several factors to consider before you choose which gaming system is right for you. First, find out if one system carries more titles that your child enjoys. Then, check out the memory capacity. Often, you can download additional content, which can quickly overwhelm a playstation with a small amount of memory. Your gaming console must have sufficient memory to cover this.

Always familiarize yourself on the novice levels before going on to the more demanding levels. These games are pretty difficult, and trying on rookie can help you build skills. After you have mastered the control, buttons and functions of the game, then move on and challenge yourself.

You can get good deals by purchasing used online games. It is a good idea to buy a disc cleaner if you buy a lot of used games, though. You never understand what sort of shape your game will be in when you do this. If your discs are really dirty a good cleaning kit will help to restore them. It is a good idea to look at several cleaning disc options. There are many kits like this on the market.

Figure out how to operate the safety and parental controls of any gaming system that comes into your home. You can likely make adjustments that keep kids from viewing mature content. Some allow each gaming profile to be customized separately, allowing adults to enjoy games not meant for younger audiences.

Video gaming can offer you a world of adventure, relaxation and excitement. You can also learn lots of new things as well as being a winner at whatever game you are playing! Whatever genre you prefer, apply what you've just learned and have a better time.