First, it would be prudent to question if our policies regarding torture come from a valid source? If we are going to be dismissive of such strong concepts as torture, would it not be proper to delve into the fundamental principles that hold our society together?
If this is the case, then we must ask, “should we or should we not adhere to the precepts that lie within the Geneva Conventions?” Below is Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention document. It's rather interesting, care to look?
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
Article 3
"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. "
Pretty powerful words. In fact, so powerful the they were accepted by all Western Nations at the time. ... at least in print. Gandhi had an intersting explanation about how Article 3 was to set standards for soldiers in the treatment of others on the battlefield.
As Gandhi said in reference to Article VI of the Geneva Conventions
“In general, common article 3 is implemented by setting standards in military manuals, by offering training to armed forces of humanitarian laws, enacting national legislations and by fixing accountability on individuals who are responsible for violating common article 3.”
Second, would it not be prudent to review the laws of our country? Should we or should we not adhere to the Articles within our own U.S. Constitution? Specifically Article VI.
The U.S. Constitution
Article VI
"... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. "
What this means is that since the United States took part in the Geneva Conventions treaties, "all treaties made... under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" that we are then bound by these same principles.
With so much debate over Ballot Measure 50s infringement on Oregon's Constitution, one would think that the same adherents would be up in arms as to a violation of the US Constitution.
Is it appropriate to ignore Articles within the Constitution for the sake of argument when it is merely convenient? Are there any more principles that Americans still believe in and stand for? Do the words created by our founding fathers mean nothing? What are our values?
At present, at least one large and vociferous group of people have made it extremely clear where their morals, values and principles lie. Would it be prudent to examine our own values before making rash conclusions based on emotional currency?
If this is the case, then we must ask, “should we or should we not adhere to the precepts that lie within the Geneva Conventions?” Below is Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention document. It's rather interesting, care to look?
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
Article 3
"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. "
Pretty powerful words. In fact, so powerful the they were accepted by all Western Nations at the time. ... at least in print. Gandhi had an intersting explanation about how Article 3 was to set standards for soldiers in the treatment of others on the battlefield.
As Gandhi said in reference to Article VI of the Geneva Conventions
“In general, common article 3 is implemented by setting standards in military manuals, by offering training to armed forces of humanitarian laws, enacting national legislations and by fixing accountability on individuals who are responsible for violating common article 3.”
Second, would it not be prudent to review the laws of our country? Should we or should we not adhere to the Articles within our own U.S. Constitution? Specifically Article VI.
The U.S. Constitution
Article VI
"... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. "
What this means is that since the United States took part in the Geneva Conventions treaties, "all treaties made... under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" that we are then bound by these same principles.
With so much debate over Ballot Measure 50s infringement on Oregon's Constitution, one would think that the same adherents would be up in arms as to a violation of the US Constitution.
Is it appropriate to ignore Articles within the Constitution for the sake of argument when it is merely convenient? Are there any more principles that Americans still believe in and stand for? Do the words created by our founding fathers mean nothing? What are our values?
At present, at least one large and vociferous group of people have made it extremely clear where their morals, values and principles lie. Would it be prudent to examine our own values before making rash conclusions based on emotional currency?
No comments:
Post a Comment