• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"US violated Geneva Conventions" - Gen Petraeus

Okay, you have asked a question, I will demonstrate how to answer it.

No, I do not believe so. War crimes are necessarily defined by the GC and a solider (which I would assume is any member of a GC recognized force) is bound by those laws. However, it must be noted that not all acts are conceived of within the GC, and if a soldier were to have engaged such an act, it would stand to reason that he or she was not in violation of the GC, despite the fact that said act could be considered immoral.

See how that works? You asked a question and I provided you with a reasoned and relevant answer. Now you try it:

How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?

So I take it you have concluded that there were Zero atocities committed against anybody of importance that can be linked back to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalas?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Were there any atocities committed by anybody other than the troops that were under the Bush administrations command?
 
I think what General Petraeus and others are basing their assertion that we violated the Geneva Conventions are the following:

- According to Article 5, "should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

No competent tribunal adjudicated this. Instead.......

- Bush granted himself broad sweeping authority under the Patriot Act and used the provisions under that act to declare the prisoners "unlawful combatants" and then to state that the US wasn't bound by the Geneva Conventions. This opened the door for the use of "ehnanced interogation techniques".


The world was outraged, rightly so, and it took a while for the case to make it's way to the Supremes, but, it eventually did and they ruled against Bush.

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions
The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.



In this April 6, 2006, file photo reviewed by U.S. military officials, a guard looks on within the fenced-in grounds of the maximum security prison at Camp Delta, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba. An investigation into three apparent suicides at the prison has found that other detainees may have helped the men hang themselves or were planning to kill themselves too, according to court papers filed late Friday, July 8, 2006, in Washington. (Brennan Linsley - AP)


The developments underscored how the administration has been forced to retreat from its long-standing position that President Bush be given extensive leeway to determine how to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects captured in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Until recently, the White House and Defense Department have pursued such anti-terrorism policies with little interference from Congress and the courts, but that has begun to change.

Since 2002, the administration has contended that the Geneva Conventions would be respected as a matter of policy but that they did not apply by law to terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in U.S. military custody elsewhere. Administration officials have voiced concern that the conventions are too vague and could expose the military to second-guessing about appropriate treatment.

But the Supreme Court rejected that view in a 5 to 3 decision last month, ruling that a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo Bay could not be tried by a special military commission established by the Bush administration. The court held that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

More than 400 such detainees are being held at Guantanamo Bay. None has been brought to trial, and some say they are innocent civilians mistakenly swept up in U.S. military raids.

Administration officials indicated that they had little choice but to act in the aftermath of that Supreme Court ruling. They disputed the suggestion that the new Pentagon policy represents significant change, because the administration already said that it treats detainees humanely.

"We strongly believe that terrorists picked up off the battlefield -- who don't represent a nation, revel in killing the innocent, and refuse to wear uniforms -- do not qualify for protections under Geneva," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. "Five members of the Supreme Court disagreed. As the president said, we will comply with the ruling."

The new Pentagon policy -- detailed in a July 7 memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England -- called on defense officials to ensure that military personnel adhere to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which provides a base-line level of protections for all terrorism suspects picked up on the battlefield.

The practical impact of the policy is uncertain. Legislation approved last year over Bush's objections bars the use of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment against detainees, approximating what is in the Geneva Conventions. Some military lawyers, however, said they think the memo will remove a certain ambiguity about what military interrogators may do in the name of extracting information.

Many involved in the debate, especially those representing detainees and military lawyers who have fought the administration's policy, see symbolic significance in the new order, coming as it did after five years of intense battling within the administration over the applicability of the Geneva Conventions.

Bush declared in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that al-Qaeda members were not entitled to the formal protections of the Geneva Conventions, siding with White House and Defense Department lawyers over objections from the State Department. But he said the prisoners would be treated humanely.

The upshot, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that we were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and article 3.

High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals
5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it.

Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

Here's the Department of Defense memo outlining every branch to comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/genevaconvdoc.pdf

Just because Bush tried to use the Nixon defense, doesn't mean he or others can't be held responsible for those years between the beginning of the war and the SCOTUS ruling.

Patraeus is right. We did violate the Geneva Conventions.
 
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you sheepishly differ to authority figures in matters of such import.



I’m not justifying anything. I just asked a question. Why can’t you answer it?

I think that we were wrong in torturing anyone. I frankly don't care if it is inside outside above or below the Geneva Convention. We are supposed to better than that. The question as to whether this is outside the Geneva Convention is not really answerable in this. Who know whether we tortured Iraqi military or not. Can you say for certain that we did not. No one knows. I think Petraeus has pretty good odds of knowing if we broke with the Geneva Convention or not. When you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we didn't torture any military personal then maybe the discussion is worth having. I will side with Petraeus until i know for sure that this is the case.

Torture of anyone is despicable. I think that anyone that agrees with the policey of torture is despicable as well. The justification of said torture under any circumstances is disgusting and Un-American. I think the entire Bush administration should be brought to trial. Not here but before an international court. I think the families of any military member that was wounded or killed in Iraq should sue the US government for wrongful death or wrongful injury. I believe they were sent there on a pack of conjured lies by the administration.

Torture is wrong whether against the Geneva Convention or not. We have sunk to as low as we have ever claimed the so called enemy is. We should be embarrassed by that 8 years.

When you can come up with the proof that Petraeus is wrong let me know.
 
Sorry, I wasn't aware that you sheepishly differ to authority figures in matters of such import.



I’m not justifying anything. I just asked a question. Why can’t you answer it?

I think that we were wrong in torturing anyone. I frankly don't care if it is inside outside above or below the Geneva Convention. We are supposed to better than that. The question as to whether this is outside the Geneva Convention is not really answerable in this. Who know whether we tortured Iraqi military or not. Can you say for certain that we did not. No one knows. I think Petraeus has pretty good odds of knowing if we broke with the Geneva Convention or not. When you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we didn't torture any military personal then maybe the discussion is worth having. I will side with Petraeus until i know for sure that this is the case.

Torture of anyone is despicable. I think that anyone that agrees with the policey of torture is despicable as well. The justification of said torture under any circumstances is disgusting and Un-American. I think the entire Bush administration should be brought to trial. Not here but before an international court. I think the families of any military member that was wounded or killed in Iraq should sue the US government for wrongful death or wrongful injury. I believe they were sent there on a pack of conjured lies by the administration.

Torture is wrong whether against the Geneva Convention or not. We have sunk to as low as we have ever claimed the so called enemy is. We should be embarrassed by that 8 years.

When you can come up with the proof that Petraeus is wrong let me know.
 
I haven't seen any new arguments here that make me want to engage in this same debate again, but all I will say is this:

Regardless of the legality of the tortures according to the Geneva Convention, the interrogation methods were in complete and utter contradiction to the stated foreign policy of the United States, as peaceful nation wanting to bring democracy, liberty, and economy to struggling nations.

The tortures may or may not have violated the Geneva Convention, but they did violate what it stands for. The fact that apologists are trying to scrape for the wording to justify it shows that the U.S. has veered dangerously off course in the past decade.
 
Last edited:
Well the Republicans have always claimed that Petreaus is a smart and wise general...now he is proving them right.
Wait a minute, I thought you had to suspend disbelief with Patreaus. :confused: So you guys are huge hypocrites now for believing him. Boy oh boy, either that or you were stupid as **** the first time. So which is it, you're stupid or hypocrites?
 
Wait a minute, I thought you had to suspend disbelief with Patreaus. :confused: So you guys are huge hypocrites now for believing him. Boy oh boy, either that or you were stupid as **** the first time. So which is it, you're stupid or hypocrites?

It goes both ways, Republicans and conservatives touted how great and smart the man was and that we should believe him because he is "on the ground" so to speak.

So to quote you:

Boy oh boy, either that or you were stupid as **** the first time. So which is it, you're stupid or hypocrites?

Works just as well for Republicans and conservatives coming from YOUR words.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute, I thought you had to suspend disbelief with Patreaus. :confused: So you guys are huge hypocrites now for believing him. Boy oh boy, either that or you were stupid as **** the first time. So which is it, you're stupid or hypocrites?

Yes, like so many others, your choice to dogpile Democrats you don't know and accuse them of things that they may or may not have done or said overrides your desire to actually discuss what the General said.

I can see why you would stay away from the topic given your nature.
 
It goes both ways, Republicans and conservatives touted how great and smart the man was and that we should believe him because he is "on the ground" so to speak.

So to quote you:



Works just as well for Republicans and conservatives coming from YOUR words.

I know, this thread really draws out some posters true nature.
 
I think that we were wrong in torturing anyone. I frankly don't care if it is inside outside above or below the Geneva Convention. We are supposed to better than that. The question as to whether this is outside the Geneva Convention is not really answerable in this.

Amazing, you actually answered the question. Was that so freaking hard!? As Lerxst and I have concluded (after several pages of nonsense), the fact is we do not know what specific clause of the GC we supposedly violated or what instance of abuse Patreus may be referring to. Does this justify the use of EIT? No, I never once implied that it did. My only interest in this thread was establishing legal factuality which is different from establishing moral legitimacy - learn to make that distinction if you want to survive in the world of politics and law.

Having said that, I would like to communicate my disgust at this thread. I asked a simple question and not only was it ignored by multiple people for multiple pages, I was accused of trying to push some agenda or of justifying some action taken by the Bush administration. Not only that, but Inferno made numerous assumptions as to what I would be doing if "the show was on the other foot," so to speak, but she has no reason (aside from her partisan preconceptions) to believe I'm a hypocrite. When I am justifying EIT you will know it; in this case, I was not.

When you can come up with the proof that Petraeus is wrong let me know.

When you can come up with the proof that Petraeus is right let me know.
 
How can one violate the Geneva Conventions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?

Because the Geneva Conventions do apply to its signatories.

See, there's the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, neither of which should be ignored. In its attempts to excuse/justify torture, Bushco is relying on people like you to dismiss the meaning and intent behind the words.

Convention III, Part I, Article 2:

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.

The ICRC discusses this statement in detail:

[p.24] PARAGRAPH 3. -- CONFLICTS IN WHICH THE BELLIGERENTS
ARE NOT ALL PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION

1. ' Relations between belligerents party to the Convention '

This provision appears to state an elementary truth; but that was not always the case. The Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1906 all contained a ' clausula si omnes ' (9), and that provision was in force when the First World War broke out in 1914. But despite the fact that the application of the Convention might have been suspended on the ground that one of the belligerents -- Montenegro -- was not a party to it, all the Contracting States in general honoured their signature (10).

It was essential, however, to clarify the position and to prevent any future recurrence of a situation similar to that of 1914. It should be noted that this problem of relations between opposing Powers is quite distinct from that of the relations between allied Powers fighting under a unified command. The latter case, which is also very important, is considered later in this volume, in connection with Article 12 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article'.

2. ' Relations between Contracting and non-Contracting Parties '

The second sentence, added by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949, has certainly the characteristics of a compromise, for it does not come to a decision between the suspensive and resolutive conditions. At first sight it appears to incline towards the Belgian amendment. But whereas the latter only made the Convention applicable as from the time of its formal acceptance by the non-Contracting Power, the sentence adopted by the Diplomatic Conference drops all reference to an invitation to be made to the non-Contracting Power, and substitutes for the words "as from the latter Power's acceptance" the words "if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof".

What, then, is the position in the interval between the launching of hostilities and the non-contracting belligerent's acceptance?

[p.25] The First Report by the Special Committee of the joint Committee, to which reference has already been made, states: "according to the spirit of the four Conventions, the Contracting States shall apply them, in so far as possible, as being the codification of rules which are generally recognized" (11). This passage shows how this not very clear provision should be interpreted.

The spirit and character of the Conventions lead perforce to the conclusion that the Contracting Power must at least apply their provisions from the moment hostilities break out until such time as the adverse Party has had the time and an opportunity to state his intentions. That may not be a strictly legal interpretation; it does not altogether follow from the text itself; but it is in our opinion the only reasonable solution. It follows from the spirit of the Conventions, and is in accordance with their character. It is also in accordance with the moral interest of the Contracting Power, inasmuch as it invites the latter to honour a signature given before the world. It is finally to its advantage from a more practical point of view, because the fact of its beginning itself to apply the Convention will encourage the non-Contracting Party to declare its acceptance, whereas any postponement of the application of the Convention by the Contracting Party would give the non-Contracting Party a pretext for nonacceptance.

There are two conditions to be fulfilled under this part of the paragraph -- (a) acceptance and (b) de facto application of the Convention. What happens if the non-Contracting Party makes no declaration, but in actual fact applies the Convention? Before answering this question, it must be seen what is meant by "accepting" the provisions of the Convention (11).

Is a formal and explicit declaration by a non-Contracting State indispensable? The Rapporteur of the Special Committee seems to say that it is. "A declaration" he wrote "was necessary, contrary to the Canadian amendment, according to which an attitude on the part of the non-Contracting State in conformity with the Convention would have sufficed to make it applicable". He added, it is true, that it was not possible to lay down any uniform procedure in the matter, and that "the Convention would be applicable as soon as the declaration was made. It would cease to be applicable as soon as the declaration was clearly disavowed by the attitude of the non-contracting belligerent" (12).

[p.26] Does it follow from this that, if the second condition -- namely the application of the Convention de facto -- is alone fulfilled, the Contracting Party is released from its obligations?

Closely as that may seem to follow from the letter of the text, it does not appear possible to maintain such an interpretation. It would make the application of the Convention dependent on a suspensive condition even more rigid than that of the Belgian proposal, which was itself regarded as being too strict. It would bring about a paradoxical -- not to say, a monstrous -- situation. It would entitle a Power to disregard rules solemnly proclaimed by itself, while its adversary, though not legally bound to those rules, was scrupulously applying them; and all this only because of the omission of the latter to make a declaration, or because of delay in the transmission of such a declaration.

' Summum jus summa injuria. ' The saying may often be true; but it should never be cited in reference to a humanitarian Convention. The Third Convention, like its three sister Conventions, rightly condemns reprisals against persons in the most categorical terms. But would it not be worse than any reprisals to ill-treat prisoners even before one's adversary had done so, merely because it was inferred from his silence that he was intending to do so?

The two conditions laid down for the non-Contracting Power are that it should ' accept ' and ' apply ' the provisions of the Convention. In the absence of any further indication, there is no reason to assume that "acceptance" necessarily implies an explicit declaration. It can equally well be tacit. It may be implicit in de facto application. These considerations do not in any way minimize the importance of an explicit declaration by the non-Contracting Power. It is, on the contrary, most desirable that the latter should make such a declaration, and with the least possible delay. The International Committee of the Red Cross for its part, when offering its services at the beginning of a conflict, never fails to ask Parties to the conflict which are not legally bound by the Convention to declare their intention of applying it or of observing at least its principles, as the case may be.

The ICRC concludes:

Furthermore, although the Convention, as a concession to legal form, provides that in certain circumstances a Contracting Power may legally be released from its obligations, its spirit encourages the Power [p.27] in question to persevere in applying humanitarian principles, whatever the attitude of the adverse Party may be. (13)
 
Furthermore, although the Convention, as a concession to legal form, provides that in certain circumstances a Contracting Power may legally be released from its obligations, its spirit encourages the Power [p.27] in question to persevere in applying humanitarian principles, whatever the attitude of the adverse Party may be.

Yes lets look a bit closer at this last part.

It basically says we understand this will not apply to all people all the time. We would like to request you keep to the spirit if it is not clear.

In this case it is very clear they are illegal combatants not represented by any power.

Again it would appear the convention does not apply.
 
Hmmm it seems the good General can't come up with what parts of the Genevea Accords we violated. From the same story

Petraeus didn’t say which parts of the Geneva Conventions he thought he and other administration officials had violated.

Also Iwish folks would call it by it's true name they are the Geneva Accords.
 
In this case it is very clear they are illegal combatants not represented by any power.

You should read it again. It says:

whatever the attitude of the adverse Party may be

There is no requirement in that statement that the adverse party must be "represented by a [specific] power."
 
You should read it again. It says:



There is no requirement in that statement that the adverse party must be "represented by a [specific] power."

But it does not require it, it only encourages it "its spirit encourages the Power" not making it illegal in any way.

Huge difference between a direct order and a request.
 
But it does not require it, it only encourages it "its spirit encourages the Power" not making it illegal in any way.

Huge difference between a direct order and a request.

As already stated, there's the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, and neither should be ignored OR twisted to suit one's agenda. In its attempts to excuse/justify torture, Bushco is relying on people like you to dismiss the meaning and intent behind the words.
 
As already stated, there's the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, and neither should be ignored OR twisted to suit one's agenda. In its attempts to excuse/justify torture, Bushco is relying on people like you to dismiss the meaning and intent behind the words.

And here comes the hyper partisan spin.

If you had actually read the thread you would already know I am against torture in any form including water boarding. I have no agenda and have not excused it in any way. I will not sit by and let partisan hacks try and spin this Geneva convention crap as it has no bearing at all.

If people got convicted for breaking the spirit of the law I would agree, but they aren't. This is just another asinine twist to say "Bush did it!" Sorry I am not playing that silly partisan game.
 
I am not playing that silly partisan game.

I'm not playing a partisan game either.

Here's the deal: As a nation, we signed the Geneva Conventions in good faith. To intentionally ignore/dismiss the intent of that promise and the good faith that was exhibited when it was made, because it suits this or that administration's agenda (as BushCo has done), is dishonest and disingenuous. To pretend otherwise is also dishonest and disingenuous.
 
I'm not playing a partisan game either.

Here's the deal: As a nation, we signed the Geneva Conventions in good faith. To intentionally ignore/dismiss the intent of that promise and the good faith that was exhibited when it was made, because it suits this or that administration's agenda (as BushCo has done), is dishonest and disingenuous. To pretend otherwise is also dishonest and disingenuous.

Actually it's called the Geneva Accords and second may I remind you and everyone else that terrorist don't follow the Accords hence no Signie Nation needs to follow it when it come to dealing with these Animals.
 
Why is is that every time that Bush and Cheney's name is mentioned in reguards to the torture debate it is deemed to the "hyperpartisian liberals" putting a partisian spin on things? That is a total copout crock.

The torture debate involves the Bush administration at every angle you cannot have the discussion without the fact that the Bush Administration played the key role in making it all happen.

Sad but true...and it will be included in the debate until it's conclusion.

Whenever that is/
 
I'm not playing a partisan game either.

Could have fooled me. Oh wait, you did.

Here's the deal: As a nation, we signed the Geneva Conventions in good faith. To intentionally ignore/dismiss the intent of that promise and the good faith that was exhibited when it was made, because it suits this or that administration's agenda (as BushCo has done), is dishonest and disingenuous. To pretend otherwise is also dishonest and disingenuous.

Again people are not convicted in this country for breaking the "spirit" of any law. You actually have to break the law as it is stated.

Secondly it was a request, not an order leaving it up to the powers that be to decide.

The only thing disingenuous is your partisan interpretation of the law as it stands to get Bush.

Go after Bush if you like, but bring a real case, not trumped up crap.
 
I'm not playing a partisan game either.

Here's the deal: As a nation, we signed the Geneva Conventions in good faith. To intentionally ignore/dismiss the intent of that promise and the good faith that was exhibited when it was made, because it suits this or that administration's agenda (as BushCo has done), is dishonest and disingenuous. To pretend otherwise is also dishonest and disingenuous.

Your correct we are Signee of the Geneva Accords but with that said not one let me repeat this not one Terror group is hence they are not protected by the accords, also the Accords only protect Standing Arm force's and follow the rules of Warfare.

Also you folks all keep bring up Mr. Bush fine then how about this I start bring up JFK,LBJ and Carter all of them at one time or another violated the Accords.
 
Could have fooled me. Oh wait, you did.



Again people are not convicted in this country for breaking the "spirit" of any law. You actually have to break the law as it is stated.

Secondly it was a request, not an order leaving it up to the powers that be to decide.

The only thing disingenuous is your partisan interpretation of the law as it stands to get Bush.

Go after Bush if you like, but bring a real case, not trumped up crap.

"TRUMPED UP CRAP" sounds like Bush and Cheney's justification for invading Iraq and torturing and raping people.
 
Why is is that every time that Bush and Cheney's name is mentioned in reguards to the torture debate it is deemed to the "hyperpartisian liberals" putting a partisian spin on things? That is a total copout crock.

The torture debate involves the Bush administration at every angle you cannot have the discussion without the fact that the Bush Administration played the key role in making it all happen.

Sad but true...and it will be included in the debate until it's conclusion.

Whenever that is/

Because until it is shown that the former administration actually broke a law, that is all it is.

If President Obama and the majority Democratic Congress are not bringing up the former administration on charges, what else would you call it?

It is a partisan witch hunt by those mostly not in power, period.
 
Back
Top Bottom