Geneva Conventions controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.
Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (September 2006)

The Geneva Conventions controversy in the opening years of the 21st century hinges on the status of "terrorism detainees". One side wants all U.S.-held "enemy combatants" given the same rights as POWs. The other side wants them to have a substantially lower status.

[edit] More rights for detainees

U.S. Democrats make up the bulk of the side which wants to give the detainees more rights. They say that the Geneva Conventions "apply" to the enemy combatants, referring to the sections about enemy prisoners of war. They assert that the detainees are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to POWs and thus by treaty entitled to the same protections.

This side charges the opposing side of "redefining" the Geneva Conventions. [1][2]

This side asserts that detainees should not be subject to trials or tribunals, unless given access to all evidence against them (especially classified information); they should be allowed confidential, unmonitored communications with a lawyer, etc.

[edit] Fewer rights for detainees

U.S. Republicans make up the bulk of the side which wants to give the detainees fewer rights. They also say that the Geneva Conventions "apply" to the enemy combatants, but in a different sense. The assert that the detainees are not POWs because they did not wear the uniform of (or claim membership in) any country's armed forces.

This side asserts that they are not redefining the Geneva Conventions but making a proper distinction between POWs and unlawful combatants.

This side asserts that detainees should be tried by special tribunals, with limited (or no) access to classified information; limits on ability to communicate with lawyers, etc.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Mr. McCain said the White House wants to redefine the conventions, and doing so would invite international criticism. "If you change the interpretation of it, you are changing a treaty," he said. [1]
  2. ^ Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ... wrote a letter this week saying that in trying to "redefine" part of the Geneva Conventions the administration was risking the "moral basis of our fight against terrorism." [2]