Question about the Gonzales hearing and "unlawful enemy combatants"

[Sparkly]

The Republicans get up, one after another, and basically make the same speech ("Democrats are being partisan, Gonzales is Hispanic, he was born poor, he didn't write that memo, he may not have answered all the questions but he answered a lot of questions.")

But here's the thing they keep saying that I wonder about: "Geneva conventions don't apply to al Qaeda or other unlawful enemy combatants who don't wear uniforms or work for a government." (Of course in the next breath they say, "but we treat them humanely anyway.") What I don't get is: most people at Abu Ghraib were released -- many were plucked off the street as I understand it, and they had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. So surely some laws apply to people who aren't even combatants of any kind, but just suspected combatants or something, citizens out of uniform. No? Have Democrats addressed this?

(In addition, have Democrats stressed that torture is not even a reliable method of getting truthful information anyway, in response to Repukes continuing to say "they're bad, bad bad and we can't go around being politically correct toward them"?)

[w4rma]

1. Yes. (nt)

[whistle]

2. Republicans should be called on their crap because to a....

...person all republican elected officials are following the party script and that script has been written for the neo-conservative/fascist cabal that is now running the United States government. Fight them, expose their lies because if we don't, they will surly destroy everyone who does not follow their hard line fascistic agenda. What other possible reason does Bush have for nominating this war criminal Gonzales to be attorney general?

And, if Geneva conventions do not apply to al Qaeda combatants, then certainly international criminal law does and I don't believe torture is accepted under international criminal law either.

[gottaB]

3. some links

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/gonzales/statements/hrf_opp_gonz_full_012405.asp

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/3/205944/1451

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1357&wit_id=1012

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17497

[Spazito]

4. Here is another good link re 'unlawful combatant'

snip

The Americans argued that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories, saying that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld labeled them "unlawful combatants," and said the rules of the Geneva Convention did not apply.

An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition: An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished. As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform. In the Second World War, the United States captured eight German saboteurs who were out of uniform and executed six of them.

However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html