Iran and the Geneva Convention.
Iran is a signatory to the Geneva conventions, and has been since 1949. While we are not at war with Tehran, I have been doing some investigating as to the applicability of the conventions, particularly the Third to current events.
Always supposing that Tehran is correct in its assertion to that Jolly Jack Tars etc were in their territorial waters, article five would appear to apply:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Thence to Tehran's obligations:
13 - "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated....Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity".
Article 60 is another curious one: "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay".
Always supposing that Tehran is correct in its assertion to that Jolly Jack Tars etc were in their territorial waters, article five would appear to apply:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Thence to Tehran's obligations:
13 - "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated....Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity".
Article 60 is another curious one: "The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay".
Labels: Iran
This entry was posted
on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 8:42 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Yes and another one is is why have the rag head bastards snatched our people. There is nothing remotely complicated about this. In the second world war my father use to go down to chat to the Italian and german POWs who were held is humane and thoroughly friendly circumstances in the pitch of the war. Meahwhile the Bosh were commiting nightmarish crimes which began (I discovered ) in Numibia years earlier in disgusting Eugenic experiments).
There is no equivalence then , there is none now .They are filthy cowrads and crininal kidnappers
As Simon Heffer noted . Where is the anger where is the condemnation ?Do you think these people respect fear and weakness .They must know that there us the will to punish them for this . I detect none of it now.
You are a little dispassionate for my taste in this post C but that is your way.
Numibia? Is that Namibia, former Suid-Wes Afrika?
Has the US signed the Geneva convention? Does it apply in Guantanamo?
I have just blogged on much the same issue of intimidation and humiliation, but Iran's Ahmadinejad apparently was actively involved in the storming of the US embassy, so developed his taste for banditry fairly early on. Having spent a bit of time in the region, expecting countries still living in the middle ages to respect the niceties of International Law is a bit of a forlorn hope. If the kidnap happened in Iraqi waters it is either an act of aggression or piracy. The Marines were entitled to defend themselves. Why the Commander of the Cornwall failed to protect troops under his command is a dereliction of duty. If Commander Lambert is hung out to dry, the rules of engagement that Blair distanced himself from yesterday need to be examined.
Point taken This Guy, the Americans would be the first screaming foul if their troops were subject to the same treatment.
The whole Gitmo business is a bit of a problem - unlawful combatants and the like, and is perhaps analogous to the IRA's demands for political status for prisoners in the 1970s.
There are some very serious questions to be asked as to why the tars / marines did not / could not defend themselves and to what extent they are currently under duress.
Has the US signed the Geneva convention? Does it apply in Guantanamo?
Straw Man in two comments, not good enough, must try harder.
If the hitch hadnt turned into queen victoria he would be currently making discreet enquiries about joining up again , boy would i love to have a crack at those bastards
fuck guantanamo bay , yes I dissaprove but so what?
I am interested in the welfare of our best , one day bush and balir will pay for what they have done , what matters is today and wiping Iran off th face of the planet , Im so fucking angry I may even convert and join the IDF
Not tempted to 'freelance'?
International conventions say you can detain prisoners of war without trial for the duration of the conflict, so please shut up about Guantanamo. At the end of the war, they'll be tried and those found innocent will be released.
Interesting, by the way, that of the ones released so far, around 80% have applied for Green Cards.
Anyway, I don't know why you're all obsessing out the plight of our "detained" service personnel when one of the most serpentine and knowledgable political minds since Talleyrand, Margaret Beckett, is on the job. Her quick wit and foreign language skills alone will ensure bursts of jolly laughter and goodwill all round during the negotiations, and a promise from President Amireallymad for a week's free parking in Iran's most upmarket caravan park.
PS - Does she understand that the Iranians aren't Arabs,I wonder?
PS - And those Conventions are to protect legitimate combatants. The people being held in comfort (they've all put on weight through their addiction to burgers and fries) are not legitimate combatants. They have no uniform and no rank. So they are being treated with humanity above and beyond the call of any international convention.
Iancroydon - OK so what's the answer? Does the Convention apply in Guantanamo Holiday Paradise?
Vee - what's your source for the green cards remark?
The whole point is, they're not prisoners of war. If they weren't tortured, why has the US promised not to torture them anymore? I look forward to your defence of secret imprisonment.
This Guy - I don't have a lot of interest in what you're looking forward to. I read about the number of ex-detainees who, upon release, immediately filled in applications for Green Cards somewhere. I don't keep a link of every word I read in every publication worldwide, but I daresay it is not beyond you to Google it.
I am not rehearing the Guantanamo Bay argument.
Re the events very much on all of our minds, the illegal detention of our fellow countrymen, I suggested over on The Telegraph that a 21stC electronic embargo may do the trick:
Britain, the United States, the EU, Australia - freeze every bank account held in a private or corporate Iranian name. No funds in. No funds out. Until our service personnel and our warship are returned to us in good order.
re. C.'s query above, I understand that they didn't fight back because their rules of engagement forbade them to. Why? After the last disgraceful kidnapping in 2003, one would have thought they'd be under orders to resist arrest.
I also hear that various UN ambassadors are refusing to sign up to our declaration on the illegality of this kidnapping because they "don't know who to believe" _ I hope they believe the ODA pulling all aid to the bastards _ Ghana is one, there are others.
P.S. I am writing this in Munich, where apparently, I am a "Sonstiges"
There is no argument on Guantanamo as Verity said it is a war and they are detained on that basis . What is more they are treated humanely and the Press have a staggering and unwise amount of access (the real problem). As far as international law is concerned there is no such thing and the extent to which there is is chiefly because the US police standards where they can
I have no doubt that the lost left will look back on their support for the fascist dictator ,his torture and slaughter as a new low in victim tourism. Then they argue we should have left him there on racially determinist lines ( they are not ready for a democracy). Stunning
Back to the international law issue the reason that ,despite all sorts of ceded authority as profiteered from by our very own darling Cherie Booth profits , it does not exist is because a country cannot be tried. It can only be defeated. This if we choose to ignore the EU we can . They do nothing and we have simply changed international law. This why it is so deeply worrying that France and Germany arte always plotting to remove out independent right to act militarily.
BTW
( Verity I gave you as stylish a death as I could think of on a “ How would you go` thread)
Thank you, Newmania [airy flourishes and curtsies] but I didn't like the background music for my demise. Well, I don't dislike Nina Simone, and "I put a spell on you" is a good, moody number, but I am more into Jacques Brel just now.
What that in French, Croydonian, where he sings "C'est dur mourrir quand something something, tu sais". That might have been better. But Merik would be good! On the other hand, maybe something from Leon Goosens. The oboe would be good to die to.
When I first moved here, I rented a flat for three months while I was looking for property, and an oboist from the symphony lived next door. Of course, all the windows are open in a climate like this, and it was simply wonderful to hear him practising in the afternoons ... the seductiveness of notes from the oboe hanging in the tropical air, wafting across a lawn, curling around a tropical tree. It was lovely.
BTW, Newmania, perhaps your thread should have been called: Mind How You Go, meaning, don't die in an inappropriate place with background music that is so not you.
PS - Do you think Margaret Beckett will go for the nuclear option? I trust she can find Iran on the map and not nuke Belgrade in error.
How outrageous that our troops have been captured under the "watch", if that is not too strong a word, of foreign secretary (snigger) town council chairwoman Margaret Beckett and her 'personal assitant' on the taxpayer tit ... the uh, 80-year old Mr Beckett.
Has any administration in Britain been more venal? More destructive? -- Yes, Tone, we knew you were being destructive of our country. We didn't think it was all a mistake. We knew it was coldly deliberate.
Obviously you've never heard of Harold Wilson & Ted Heath.
Yes, obviously.
I thought history began yesterday. Thanks for the tip-off.
Your posts are always boring.
» Post a Comment