An Irish woman's social, political and domestic commentary
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
From Sunday's NYT "Presented last fall with a detailed catalog of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the American military responded on Dec. 24 with a confidential letter to a Red Cross official asserting that many Iraqi prisoners were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions.
The letter, drafted by military lawyers and signed by Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, emphasized the "military necessity" of isolating some inmates at the prison for interrogation because of their "significant intelligence value," and said prisoners held as security risks could legally be treated differently from prisoners of war or ordinary criminals."
There's so much talk about the GC I decided to read it...it's pretty clear and even it's early articles are prescient: "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
posted by Sarah | 13:56 1 comments
Notice how the Pentagon used the hoopla of Dubya's big speech last night to sneak through the news that they are replacing the commanding general in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez. Sanchez is implicated in some of this ambiguity about whether the GC applied or not -- the ambiguity itself being part of the strategy to weaken it.Post a Comment