Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Pentagon erases Geneva rule from Army field manual

  1. Jun 5, 2006 #1
    In rewriting the field manual, the Pentagon has apparently decided to remove language referring to certain 3rd Geneval Convention provisions for human rights in treatment of prisoners of war. The core instructions for Army interrogators will thus no longer include certain provisions explicitly, effectively undermining them. From the http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,7975161.story?coll=la-home-headlines [Broken]:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-torture5jun05,0,7975161.story?coll=la-home-headlines [Broken]

    To any Martians visiting our beautiful planet and not yet familiar with our Geneva Conventions, welcome! and here's the relevant text, from the Third Convention enacted in 1950:

    The relevant text is highlighted.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 5, 2006 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's a tough one - it is vague and ill-defined. To some, for example, the very fact that they are imprisoned could be considered humiliating and degrading.

    I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that one of the reasons why we didn't ratify all the conventions is because some are unreasonable (mail? c'mon) and others like this one are ill-defined and perhaps even a little sappy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2006
  4. Jun 5, 2006 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When you think something is ill-defined, you can either :

    i. Clarify this requirement with additional explanatory notes so as to still retain the spirit of the clause, or

    ii. Get rid of it entirely, and completely void the intent of that clause.
     
  5. Jun 5, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wait a second, prisoners of war? Sounds like this article is explicitely not talking about prisoners of war, rather civilians.
     
  6. Jun 5, 2006 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No one at 'Gitmo or an Iraqi prison would be considered a civilian (if they were not fighting, then they should be released).
     
  7. Jun 5, 2006 #6

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    "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: ...."

    That just about excludes every situation to which such a convention could be applied.

    Post-1950 precedents for prisoner treatment? Nam. Long's things get no worse than what went on in the Hilton, no one's got any gripes. Right?
     
  8. Jun 5, 2006 #7
    As far as I can tell, it reduces to the fact that international law is spotty and rarely enforced, and thus lacks precedent. If this were a national law there'd actually be legitimate-looking courts making interpretations and setting precedents. With precedents the language above could easily be well-defined; without precedents the interpretation becomes a matter of opinion apparently. Though if the Pentagon wants to remove some of the language from the Army Field Guide, the intent seems pretty obvious - they wish to undermine one particular clause in practice, without explicitly withdrawing from the Convention.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2006
  9. Jun 5, 2006 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Follow the link provided by Rach. The entire Geneva Convention is specifically written regarding Prisoners of War, thus it's not repeated in every article.
     
  10. Jun 5, 2006 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What about the legality of it? Can you sign a Convention and then say you'll ignore this bit here and that one there?
     
  11. Jun 5, 2006 #10

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not publishing it isn't illegal, but if the provisions are violated, then they'd still be held responsible according to any penalties named by the convention. Not informing the Army of these rules seems pretty foolish for that reason.

    If there are problems with ambiguity of wording, then that should have been addressed before it was drafted and signed. Otherwise, it seems the prisoners get to call the shots there as to what is degrading and humiliating if it is not otherwise further defined. It seems it needs to be amended with a clarification, otherwise just putting someone in handcuffs in front of others would qualify as humiliating and degrading.
     
  12. Jun 5, 2006 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No doubts there, but the point of not publishing it is to safeguard themselves against being accused of violating guidelines of their own field manual. An offense that could previously lead to a court-martial, now affords legal wiggle room. The removal of the text serves no purpose if members of the military are going to adhere to that clause. It only serves a purpose if they do not.

    I still think it's a dirty cheat. If there is vagueness in it that gives prisoners an easy out, and it sure looks like there is, the correct solution would be to clarify the clause rather than dismiss it.

    As for Russ' statement that civilian prisoners at Gitmo or in jails in Iraq should be released from there, what mechanism exists to ensure that? How does a detainee prove that s/he is a civilian?
     
  13. Jun 5, 2006 #12

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, it seems in terms of the Convention itself, the individuals are not the ones responsible, according to Article 12:
    Then articles 129 and 130 state:
    I'm not sure if I'm reading all of this right, but it sounds like ultimately, it's the US held responsible, or whoever gave the order is responsible (but is NOT telling someone NOT to do something covered under that?), not the individual soldiers, except in the case of these "grave breaches," which then each signing country is expected to check are not occurring on the part of individuals.

    What's bothersome is that there are no conditions or penalties spelled out for breaches of the convention other than that those actions should be stopped immediately and the prisoners released back to their home nation.

    The whole thing seems to be pretty vague about what happens if you just disregard it. There is an article stating that they are required to disseminate the text:
    I bolded that last part. Obviously, we're all sitting here reading it, so it's widely available, but it sounds like only those who are actually responsible for prisoners of war MUST have the full text and be given special instruction with regard to it. All the rest of it reads like it's just a recommendation, not a requirement.

    So, does it get someone off the hook if it's not in their field manual, but is still widely available online? If anything, I think it has more of the chance of forcing people higher up the command chain to be held responsible for not providing instruction if someone is handling prisoners of war without having that clause provided to them. But, it's all written in political legalese, so I'm not sure if I'm completely reading it all right.
     
  14. Jun 5, 2006 #13
    Pray tell, how do you know this? Because Bush and/or the military assures you that much? I think it's pretty clear what either of their words are worth...nothing. On the one hand, we have Bush lying in pretty much everything he says (including little things, like saying that he caught a 7.5 pound perch). On the other, we have the cover-up of the Haditha killings. My trust of the federal government is at an all-time low. Ironic, isn't it? By the classical definition, that would make me a conservative, and I should nominally support Bush.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2006
  15. Jun 5, 2006 #14
    There not civilians. They were was a formal decleartion of war against Al-Qudea which means that anyone who is currently an Al-Qudia opertive is currently considerd an emeny combant which means that there not civilans!
     
  16. Jun 5, 2006 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    scott, an assertion is not a proof.

    Just saying "everyone at Gitmo is al Qaida" does not make them so. In fact, it is known to be untrue. Some of them have had to be released after having spent several months there with no access to legal counsel, because when it finally came down down proving that they were al Qaida, the Goverment had no case.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2006
  17. Jun 5, 2006 #16
    First of all, it's Al-Qaeda, no Al-Qudia.

    Secondly, I think you're missing the point. I don't how many at Gitmo were Al-Qaeda operatives or not. You don't know how many were Al-Qaeda operatives. No one does: they haven't been tried. All we have is the word of the federal government. Once you start allowing people to be jailed without any justification or evidence, you have a police state.

    Thirdly, assuming for a moment that every Gitmo prisoner actually is an enemy of the US (and that's a big assumption), you still arguing semantics. As Juliet said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Just because you call someone an "enemy combatant" doesn't mean that you can magically treat them any differently from a POW.
     
  18. Jun 5, 2006 #17
    Yet the humiliation of imprisonment itself can't rightly be covered under an agreement not to humiliate prisoners. What the statute does address is things along the lines of the naked-prisoner pyramid photo shoots our solders have been putting prisoners though, and clearly the Pentagon has become less inclined to advise our solders against engaging in such disrespect for human rights.
     
  19. Jun 5, 2006 #18

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As I was reading through the language of the Geneva Convention, something related to that caught my attention. In defining a Prisoner of War, they include:
    Does that mean in countries where military service is compulsory for all young men, pretty much any adult male could be picked up and detained under this definition?

    Also, there are conditions where civilians can be held as prisoner's of war:


    Both of these are found in Article 4.
     
  20. Jun 5, 2006 #19
    What about keeping people in prison while there on trial.
    Still there not civilans.
     
  21. Jun 5, 2006 #20
    I think it was estimated to be about 4,000 members around the world.
     
  22. Jun 5, 2006 #21
    To some, the idea of prison is "cruel and unusual punishment." Does that mean that we should imprison no one domestically? You have to draw the line somewhere, and by not explicitly doing so, the Pentagon is intentionally blurring that line.
     
  23. Jun 5, 2006 #22
    I don't see what you're getting at. Frankly, you're not making any sense. First of all, keeping people in prison while they await trial is completely different from keeping people in prison indefinitely. In the former case, there is a precise amount of time that they will be held, and they've actually been charged with a crime. In the latter, there are no charges, and the government claims the authority to hold them however long they feel like it.

    Secondly, "still there not civlians" is not an argument. It's an assertion (and a poorly worded one at that). You have yet to provide any evidence that some of the men held at Gitmo aren't just civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's a requirement of this country's legal system. You know, innocent-until-proven-guilty, that sort of thing?

    As for how many people in Al-Qaeda, I was asking a rhetorical question about how many Al-Qaeda people are actually in Gitmo, not an actual question of how many there are total...
     
  24. Jun 5, 2006 #23

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But when you arrest them, you give them a quarter and let them call a lawyer. And shortly after, the lawyer makes a case to a judge who decides whether on not the person need be detained.

    Besides, who's not a civilian? Someone spending the night in jail prior to her court appointment?

    Please make clear, logical statements.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2006
  25. Jun 6, 2006 #24

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's what article 3 is addressing. (No wonder Pengwuino was confused about it...it too several re-readings to figure it out...I hope I finally have it right. :uhh:) It covers POWs, and anyone else detained, basically saying those are the minimum human rights standards for any detainee, regardless of the additional specific rules for POWs.

    What criteria are they using to say that the detainees at Gitmo are NOT POWs and defined as enemy combatants instead? The more I'm reading, the more it sounds like the Geneva Convention would cover members of Al-Qaeda as POWs, either under Article 4.2(a) or 4.6, or is it that it isn't a war declared on a specific nation but on a terrorist organization that provides the loophole for those being held there?
     
  26. Jun 6, 2006 #25

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I was under the impression that the detainees at Gitmo are classified as enemy combatants precisely so that they can be treated as POWs and therefore not afforded the legal rights that a criminal detainee has, such as habeus corpus and the right to legal counsel.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook