Abu Ghraib is a symbol of American abuse. We took it over, we told people we would be different, and then we slid down the moral slope of "these people are prisoners, and inherently worth less".
As to the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo, media attention certainly improved it. Were these people treated better than our own criminals in our prisons at home? I'd say it was about even, but then, I haven't made or seen an in-depth comparison, just partisan talk.
Regarding the Geneva Conventions: Common Article 2, third point: 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.
Now, yes, the Geneva Conventions primarily apply between "High Contracting Parties", but there are also definitions regarding those who spontaneously rise up (and bear arms openly), and then in Article 5 of the convention regarding Prisoners of War:
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.
This could be taken to refer to the tribunals currently under way: That these tribunals have the primary goal of determining status under the Geneva Conventions, rather than criminal prosecution. But that point has not been made by the relevant authorities, which leads to the current call against tribunals and for court trials, on the presumption that these are criminal proceedings.
Now, as to "breaking treaties" being a loss of protection... that seems to be how I read it: by breaking the relevant treaties and conventions, your moral authority is lost, and other participating parties have these particular restrictions dropped -- but may still be under other obligation, whether moral or legal in nature, to treat prisoners fairly.
The question of torture is separate from the question of imprisonment, but the two are intertwined in the symbol of Guantanamo.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-05-22 04:20 pm (UTC)As to the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo, media attention certainly improved it. Were these people treated better than our own criminals in our prisons at home? I'd say it was about even, but then, I haven't made or seen an in-depth comparison, just partisan talk.
Regarding the Geneva Conventions: Common Article 2, third point:
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.
Now, yes, the Geneva Conventions primarily apply between "High Contracting Parties", but there are also definitions regarding those who spontaneously rise up (and bear arms openly), and then in Article 5 of the convention regarding Prisoners of War:
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.
This could be taken to refer to the tribunals currently under way: That these tribunals have the primary goal of determining status under the Geneva Conventions, rather than criminal prosecution. But that point has not been made by the relevant authorities, which leads to the current call against tribunals and for court trials, on the presumption that these are criminal proceedings.
I am using http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm as my reference for these quotes, by the way.
Now, as to "breaking treaties" being a loss of protection... that seems to be how I read it: by breaking the relevant treaties and conventions, your moral authority is lost, and other participating parties have these particular restrictions dropped -- but may still be under other obligation, whether moral or legal in nature, to treat prisoners fairly.
The question of torture is separate from the question of imprisonment, but the two are intertwined in the symbol of Guantanamo.