Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Time for war crime trials.

Blatant violation of Article 2, United Nations Convention against Torture, United States Signatory 18 April 1988, ratified 21 October 1994.

To be proven by ACLU:

"...For more than a month, Suleiman endured an incessant barrage of torture techniques designed to psychologically destroy him. His torturers repeatedly doused him with ice-cold water. They beat him and slammed him into walls. They hung him from a metal rod, his toes barely touching the floor. They chained him in other painful stress positions for days at a time. They starved him, deprived him of sleep, and stuffed him inside small boxes. With the torture came terrifying interrogation sessions in which he was grilled about what he was doing in Somalia and the names of people, all but one of whom he’d never heard of. ..."




Half of the heads of state of Europe would be dragged along with the US since the convention forbids states to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

Overall 54 countries participated and cooperated with the US on it's extraordinary rendition program from Iceland to Iran. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/g...

This would be an interesting trial indeed...


So, the Geneva convention is basically a lip-service treaty only enforced when its convenient? Sounds like most treaties come to think of it.


The Geneva convention doesn't cover irregulars, this is the UN treaty against torture which like most UN conventions is an utter joke.


The Geneva Convention is pretty clear and the United States signed on.

Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Library:

Article 2 & 5:

"...Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Power, but not of the individuals or corps who have captured them. They must at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited.

: "...No coercion may be used on prisoners to secure information to the condition of their army or country. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind whatever. ..."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/geneva02.asp#art5


Of their army or country. Irregulars as in terrorists, spies, mercenaries etc. Are not protected by the Geneva convention and are not considered prisoners of war.


Interesting legal point. We never declared war on "al Qaeda" since it's a ultimately just a logo and the combatants could be labeled criminals.


A treaty is only as strong as the will of the other countries to enforce it.


Unfortunately war crime trials are always for losers of wars, not winners.


US government and military personnel are immune from criminal and civil action for interrogation techniques that "were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time they were conducted." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainee_Treatment_Act


I am sure the officers of the Third Reich were equally protected by their country's law. It mattered little at Nuremberg.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: