
Oops. Gov. Bill Ritter, a lifelong lawyer, may need to brush up on Article 22 of the Geneva Convention as he offers to house Guantanamo terrorists at Supermax in Florence. It says no signatory can house military prisoners at a civilian facility.
Captain Arapahoe, an active duty officer who blogs for me at BackboneAmerica.net, surfaced this concern in a post yesterday.
Maybe there's a way to square this circle, but we need to hear it.
So, will the Post ever require corrections on this stuff?
You know, when one of its bloggers -- who also is one of its columnists -- knowingly posts factually inaccurate information to promote his point of view?
It is possible Andrews did not realize that he posted factually inaccurate information both on his own blog and on the Post's blog; that makes it even worse, given that he doesn't have the integrity to fact-check assertions that he's posting as fact.
Does the Post care about factual accuracy on its website?
Speaking of squares.
Got to give Andrews his due. "Captain Arapahoe"? Gosh all mighty. Pass the corn Myrtle.
Andrews vs. Facts
By the way, Andrews' purported pal "Captain Arapahoe" misled on what the Geneva Convention actually states regarding the internment of military prisoners in civilian facilities. His post on BackboneAmerica.net offered a non-functioning hyperlink to a Yale University source regarding the Geneva Convention, and the assertion: "The language of the convention is quite clear: regarding where captured enemy combatants may be held, Article 22 of the conventions states clearly and unequivocally that 'they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.' "
Actually, here's what Article 22 says in its entirety, including some rather important verbiage Andrews and Arapahoe left out that rather specifically states military prisoners may be interned in penitentiaries "in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves":
"Article 22
Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.
Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.
The Detaining Power shall assemble prisoners of war in camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language and customs, provided that such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent."
See for yourself, on the U.N.'s official Geneva Convention site: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Certainly not in the past eight years...
Not surprisingly, Mr. Andrews doesn't feel the need to "square the circle" about the last eight years relative to the Geneva Convention. If in fact one considers the inmates at Guantanamo Bay "military prisoners," then one had better actually READ the Geneva Convention, which says regarding prisoners:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
But then, Andrews' apparent position, as it always is, sounds like IOKIYAR.
Prisoners of War ?? Since when .
Glad to see that Backbone America is right on top of the case. So I have to believe it is true that prisoners of war cannot be housed at a civilian facility. But, didn't Bush tell us repeatedly that these detainees were enemy combatants and were not prisoners of war ? Isn't that why they were held in Guantanamo in the first place ? Isn't that how he justified the way they were treated ? What am I missing here ? How can they not be prisoners of war one day and then magically become so after the administration changes.