how does the the US govt argue that the prisoners in Guantanamo bay are not protected by the Geneva convention

Answer 1

because the Geneva convention says the definition of military is someone that clearly states their intentions by uniforms and must follow the convention them selves. How can you fight someone by a set of rules when the other side isnt.

Answer 2

Unsuccessfully.... the Supreme Court ruled June that the Geneva Convention fully applies. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006). And because ratified treaties have the same force as federal law, any violations of the Geneva Convention are also violations of federal law.

So, Congress passed a law (the Military Commissions Act) stripping federal courts of the authority to hear complaints for violations of the Geneva Convention or similar laws. In other words, while violations are still illegal, the people being violated have no legal recourse to sue the government. They can't even sue under Habeas Corpus, which Article I Section 9 of the Constitution mandates shall not be suspended, because Congress stripped federal courts of the rights to hear those challenges.

Bottom line, the govt has found a way to break the law at will, without being caught, because they removed the right to sue them in federal court for such violations.

{EDIT} All the people above arguing that detainess don't have constitutional rights or are not protected under the Geneva Convention should try reading those documents sometime. The treaty and the Constution both impose limitations on what the government can do, to anyone. It doesn't matter what label they are given. This has been confirmed repeatedly by the US Supreme Court. Bush just doesn't care what the laws say.

Answer 3

The Geneva convention is an agreement between country's on how prisoners of war are treated and to some extent the allowable conduct in a war. The people in Guantanamo bay are not part of a country. They are rogue and are not a signing party to the rules and do not live by them. There for they do not get the protections guaranteed by them.

That said, the prisoners in Git mo are being treated better that any US prisoner has ever been treated in history, before or after the Geneva convention came to be.

Answer 4

The prisoners at Gitmo are not, or were not, members of any country's standing army.

Nonetheless, they are being treated much better than the biased media reports that you're getting say they are.

Even though they're not officially entitled to Geneva Convention treatment, that's pretty much what they're getting.

.

Answer 5

The Bush Regime argues that the prisoners are civilians & therefore do not fall under the guidelines of the Geneva Convention. In other words, they are not true prisoners of war, they are civilians. This is a ridiculous argument, but it is the only one they have.

I would think if the international community wanted to try Bush for war crimes, they could.

Answer 6

Because they're more mercenaries than soldiers. They don't fit the definition of POW's - I copied this from the Geneva Convention for you:

Article 4

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (*My note:This is where the terrorists differ from soldiers)

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Answer 7

the argument is that they are not "enemy combatants" or soldiers that wear the military uniform of a country that is a party to the Geneva Convention.

The patriot act lists a special category of "suspected terrorists" who are not subject to US civil law nor the Geneva convention.

Answer 8

Well I am not sure but they represent no government and there is no legally declared war, probably due to there being no opponent government.
If you can get a country or government to stand up and say "we are responsible for 9-11 then we can try to get a case going,...... for fools in government asking to get their country and government destroyed by the arguably most powerful nation on the globe.

Answer 9

They are not soldiers of any state. The Geneva convention is about states and their soldiers in wartime.

Answer 10

Because they are King George's prisoners.