obama commissioned an investigation of gitmo which he expected to taut around... but it found that the US exceeded all the requirements of the geneva convention in their treatments of the gitmo detainees. Naturally the mainstream press said little about their findings... so did our president.

Internationa law/ the GC states that if you are not in uniform on the battle field you are a spy. You have no rights and the people that catch you may do whatever they wish with you. you may be shot on the spot without a trial, you can be tortured to death, if arrested you may be held until the end of the war and according to the GC you do not have to have a trial until after the war. Those rules/laws were written before WWI and agreed to by most nations including Germany. Every year each person in the U.S. military must take 24 hours of refresher classes on the GC. Violation of the GC it punishable by DEATH or long prison terms in the US. So even if an officer or the president orders you to break the law you still get to go to jail or get shot for breaking those laws.

The GC was written with "traditional" war in mind, where you have armies fighting  with soldiers in uniform. A civilian in these circumstances is suspicious and thus treated a spy. In the war against terrorism declaring everyone in civlian clothes a spy does not seem to  be in the terms of the GC because terrorists wear no uniform.

I find it ethically problematic to detain people you suspect of being a terrorist without having the proof nor the need to proof so either (until the conflict is over - but it isn't like there is a clearcut frontline in asyemtrical conflicts). Even though I know that most of you think differently, that practice violates human and constitution rights. And in the brief research I did, admittedly only on wikipedia, there had been information on issues with shortcomings and deficienies with the tribunals.

I know that this whole topic brings out strong polaraized oppinions and emotions as everybody who utters criticism is automatically viewed as defending terrorists or describing them as victims of an evil system. That isn't my intention though.

1. Should we unilaterlally abrogate the treaty because of the actions of terrorists?

2. When a man has a gun pointed at me, I dont ask him if he has signed a treaty.  If he is not shot and killed, he will be regarded as a spy (the Gitmo guests were rounded up for the most part on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan).

3. Why is the victim the criminal?  Clearly rules were made that are abided by, by the vast majority of nations.  They sought to sivilize a very uncivil activity. War. 

4. But just because some dont sign it (the GC) does that mean that all who sign it should disregard it?  Japan had not signed it, should we have disregarded it during that war?

The false premise of the GC is that you can civilize war.  Clearly as soon as you try (outlawing some weapons - did you realize that WMDs have been around for over 150 years?), desperate people will find a way around them.  regardless of intentions.  War is ugly, brutal, and non-selective.  instead of worry about how to civilize it, we should find a way to erradicate it.

The fact that terrorists are waging "untraditional" war by hiding among civilians is a strike against them, not against the armies who follow the international conventions of protecting civilians rather then using them as shields.

Liberals have often said "if the USA was invaded, then the american military would do the same"... No it would not, it is a war crime to do so. It is despicable, and anyone who does that is sentenced to death in almost any military in the world.

But the terrorists don't care, they shield themselves with the bodies of innocent civilians. And liberals call it just and say that for some reason the GC does not apply here because of their circumstances (which are, Muslim religious extremist terrorists "fighting" against free democracies by murdering civilians)

Which isn't what we are doing, we make sure we have some proof, and we let a whole lot of them go... a fair number of them go right back and join their terrorist cells.

No, we happen to think that you should have proof of some sort.

It explicitly does not violate either.

Wikipedia is horribly biased, especially on this issue. Remember that it is privately controlled by one single liberal individual.

Not true, the purpose of that particular clause was to discourage cheating, being in civilian clothes and attacking people in uniform. It helps prevent civilian deaths because only people in uniform are shot at. If you get caught out of uniform and you were attacking uniformed troops you have no rights under the law. The terrorist know this and chose to not wear a uniform. They want to blend in with the public. Fine with me. Once they are caught doing something bad they get taken out of the war. The 3000 Iranian troops caught in Iraq are in POW camps, the illegal combatants are in GITMO. It is also against the GC to move pow’s outside the theater of war. Illegal combatants don’t get covered by this law either. We can ship them anywhere we want. You see to be declared and enemy combatant they person has to be in civilian clothes and witnessed attacking uniformed troops. Once that is documented under penalty of prison or death the illegal combatant becomes a non-person under the law with no rights. So you can’t just point out some civilian on the street and say he is an illegal combatant. The witnesses have to state they saw the person attacking troops. If it is found out to be a lie the witness is subject to prison or death. No statue of limitations on that either.

It is not so much that I think differently it is more that I know the laws because I was in the military and had to sit through those classes every year for 13 years. The laws are established to protect civilians from the horrors of war. People that violate the rules of war get what they get. Please list the shortcomings and deficiencies with tribunals since you are admittedly ignorant of how they run maybe we can help you.

Much longer than that...they use to through animal carcasses into wells (bio-warfare) to incapacitate populations.

I'll list what I read in regards with the tribunals, but I can't do it right now because my nephew infected me with the flu last weekend and it really hit me hard last night.

Forgot about that one.  Yes, a lot longer.  Of course only Muslims seem to be afraid of the pig bomb these days.

We help refugees from Bosnia to rebuild their homes. Many refugees from Bosnia live in Croatia and try to rebuild their homes across the border. An essential part of that are wells. I personally know two woman who had to dig new wells because they found human skeletons in their wells. That was maybe 8 years ago.

Hope you're feeling better quick, utemia.

Awesome post, very accurate and informative... to go back to the OP, this is why liberalism is immoral.

Part of what the geneva convention set out to do was protect civilians but ensuring the ultimate of punishments against anyone who hides among civilians or tries to subvert this system. If it wasn't in place, soldiers would be justifying in firing on civilians because for all they know those civilians are enemies in civilian clothes.

Terrorists know that and exploit it, they don't care what happens to civilians, they are not out to liberate anyone, protect anyone, or do anything just... they are out to murder people for their religious convictions.

Yet liberals aren't concerned with the rights of the uniformed soldiers from civilized countries like the USA, they aren't concerned with the rights of civilians on both sides, they aren't concerned with innocent non combats... all the above are hurt when a terrorist assumes a civilian guise... yet it is the terrorist they are concerned for... and his inalienable rights. which they then claim to come from either the constitution (it does not), the geneva convention (it does now), or when shown how there is not written law giving those bastards such protections, they decide it comes from "basic human rights".

LOL

Alexander the great used plague infected bodies to break sieges.

I never once said that terrorists are the victims. And if the system with the tribunals works so well, and that only actual guilty suspects are detained, then why are there dozens of former suspects who are still detained and why does it take so long to set them free? Should it not be the case that only guilty suspects arrive in Gitmo in the first place?

Basic human rights - you use that phrase like it leaves a foul taste in your mouth. I know that you'll just roll your eyes, but the enlightenment movement brought many achievements, and acknowledging that is apolitical. The idea that every person is born with inalienable rights was pretty radical 300 years ago.

Nobody cares much what happens to civilians in wars. As far as I know, the US are the first country that actively try to avoid civilian costs.