PDA

View Full Version : APP - Marine who built Gitmo: US lost moral high ground



Socrtease
09-25-2009, 04:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_re_us/us_marine_guantanamo

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. – The Marine commander who built the Guantanamo Bay prison said Thursday the U.S. lost the "moral high ground" with its brutal treatment of prisoners, and the facility should be closed as quickly as possible.

It was the first time Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert publicly acknowledged his doubts, although he said he did make his concerns known through the appropriate chain of command.

Lehnert, 58, was commander of Joint Task Force 160 when it was assigned to build prison cells in 2001 at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba to hold designated "enemy combatants" from Afghanistan and elsewhere.

He said he was given little guidance from the Pentagon, but he did have his staff read the Geneva Convention, the international agreement governing treatment of prisoners.

"I wanted to run it close to Geneva Convention rules," Lehnert said. "Our job was to take them out of the fight, and once we had done that, I felt we had a moral responsibility to take care of them."

However, another task force was put in charge of interrogating detainees, and there were disagreements over their treatment, Lehnert said.

"I think it is extraordinarily important how we treat prisoners," he said. "Obviously, there were other views."

"I came to the conclusion very soon that this probably wasn't the right way to go," said Lehnert, who served just 100 days at the base.

"Probably before I left Guantanamo, I was of the opinion it needed to go away as soon as possible," he said.

The general said he didn't feel the U.S. would get much useful information by using the techniques.

"I think we lost the moral high ground," he said.

President Barack Obama has ordered the prison to close by January 2010, but it's unclear where about 200 remaining prisoners would go.

Lehnert is opposed to sending some to stateside military bases, including Camp Pendleton.

"It would fundamentally change the mission of that base," he said. "The entire focus would shift to long-term incarceration of detainees."

Lehnert now oversees seven West Coast Marine bases. He retires Tuesday.

Socrtease
09-25-2009, 04:12 PM
Now let the assassination of Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert's character begin by those who subscribe to the Soviet assertion that the ends justify the means.

SmarterthanYou
09-25-2009, 05:56 PM
sounds like a good marine who did what he could.

christiefan915
09-25-2009, 07:36 PM
What say you, Tutu?

Socrtease
09-25-2009, 08:34 PM
sounds like a good marine who did what he could.Of course he does, but his view of Gitmo and the interrogation techniques used there fly in the face of NeoCon revisionist history that anytime ANYONE speaks out against it, there past does not matter, they just love terrorists or whatever other bullshit the right can come up with to prop up the Bush administrations handling of the entire war on terra.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-25-2009, 08:45 PM
i have no idea why i said that

cancel2 2022
09-26-2009, 03:46 AM
What say you, Tutu?

She probably knows him as he is based at Camp Pendleton.

cancel2 2022
09-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Now let the assassination of Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert's character begin by those who subscribe to the Soviet assertion that the ends justify the means.

If the past is anything to go by they will most likely ignore this thread completely especially TuTu, and Ice Prancer.

Lowaicue
09-26-2009, 06:34 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_re_us/us_marine_guantanamo

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. – The Marine commander who built the Guantanamo Bay prison said Thursday the U.S. lost the "moral high ground" with its brutal treatment of prisoners, and the facility should be closed as quickly as possible.

It was the first time Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert publicly acknowledged his doubts, although he said he did make his concerns known through the appropriate chain of command.

Lehnert, 58, was commander of Joint Task Force 160 when it was assigned to build prison cells in 2001 at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba to hold designated "enemy combatants" from Afghanistan and elsewhere.

He said he was given little guidance from the Pentagon, but he did have his staff read the Geneva Convention, the international agreement governing treatment of prisoners.

"I wanted to run it close to Geneva Convention rules," Lehnert said. "Our job was to take them out of the fight, and once we had done that, I felt we had a moral responsibility to take care of them."

However, another task force was put in charge of interrogating detainees, and there were disagreements over their treatment, Lehnert said.

"I think it is extraordinarily important how we treat prisoners," he said. "Obviously, there were other views."

"I came to the conclusion very soon that this probably wasn't the right way to go," said Lehnert, who served just 100 days at the base.

"Probably before I left Guantanamo, I was of the opinion it needed to go away as soon as possible," he said.

The general said he didn't feel the U.S. would get much useful information by using the techniques.

"I think we lost the moral high ground," he said.

President Barack Obama has ordered the prison to close by January 2010, but it's unclear where about 200 remaining prisoners would go.

Lehnert is opposed to sending some to stateside military bases, including Camp Pendleton.

"It would fundamentally change the mission of that base," he said. "The entire focus would shift to long-term incarceration of detainees."

Lehnert now oversees seven West Coast Marine bases. He retires Tuesday.

I can't help but notice that Lehnert refers to the prison as Guantanamo Bay. Thats the prison built by the American government on a corner of Cuba, an independent nation that American ignorance has decided remains a threat to The US national safety.
However, the thread starter, one Socrtease, prefers to sanitise the name to hide the shameful way that America treats innocent non-Americans yo GITMO.
GITMO????
Have you seen the latest Disney cartoon? its called Gitmo and his Mommy in amongst the flowers and butterflies.
Gitmo is a baby bunny who has lots of nice cuddly friends.
The place is
GUANTANAMO BAY
and it is Americas everlasting shame.

Minister of Truth
09-27-2009, 02:31 PM
I can't help but notice that Lehnert refers to the prison as Guantanamo Bay. Thats the prison built by the American government on a corner of Cuba, an independent nation that American ignorance has decided remains a threat to The US national safety.
However, the thread starter, one Socrtease, prefers to sanitise the name to hide the shameful way that America treats innocent non-Americans yo GITMO.
GITMO????
Have you seen the latest Disney cartoon? its called Gitmo and his Mommy in amongst the flowers and butterflies.
Gitmo is a baby bunny who has lots of nice cuddly friends.
The place is
GUANTANAMO BAY
and it is Americas everlasting shame.

Guantanamo Bay has been a US naval base for decades, and has always been abbreviated as "Gitmo." Hell, if you've ever seen the movie A Few Good Men, with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson made in the early 90s, one of the Marines on trial refers to it as Gitmo.

The detention center was not built until 2001. It is the detention center that has drawn all of the attention due to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. If you have a problem with the entire naval base, that's one thing, but to pretend that the nickname of "Gitmo" has only existed for 8 years is just that - pretense.

Lowaicue
09-27-2009, 04:45 PM
Guantanamo Bay has been a US naval base for decades, and has always been abbreviated as "Gitmo." Hell, if you've ever seen the movie A Few Good Men, with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson made in the early 90s, one of the Marines on trial refers to it as Gitmo.

The detention center was not built until 2001. It is the detention center that has drawn all of the attention due to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. If you have a problem with the entire naval base, that's one thing, but to pretend that the nickname of "Gitmo" has only existed for 8 years is just that - pretense.

There was no 'time' mentioned in my post.
It was merely that the word 'Gitmo' sanitises the whole concept and makes it sound all cuddly. It wasnt cuddly when it was first built. It wasnt cuddly when the ridiculous rent was agreed. It wasnt cuddly as a US naval base and it sure ain't cuddly now.
Military bases cuckooed in foreign territories are an insult to the citizens of that country, particularly when you treat the owners of the land as enemies. It's just another euphemism and it's been there so long that you no longer recognise it as such.
Anyway your president is in Washo and all's right with the world.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-27-2009, 07:23 PM
please tell us exactly in what manner the geneva conventions apply to the terrorists....

belme1201
09-27-2009, 10:23 PM
please tell us exactly in what manner the geneva conventions apply to the terrorists....

Ask Alberto Gonzales for his definition of "quaint".
Do you ever consider, beyond treaties, that sometimes rules of humanity govern how one man treats another?

cancel2 2022
09-28-2009, 12:10 AM
If the past is anything to go by they will most likely ignore this thread completely especially TuTu, and Ice Prancer.

Yep, I was right!!

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 07:14 AM
We still have the moral high ground. I don't recall the CIA beheading anyone.

Socrtease
09-28-2009, 07:16 AM
We still have the moral high ground. I don't recall the CIA beheading anyone.Oooo so as long as we don't behead people we have the moral high ground? I don't know if you are aware of this, but the lesser of two evils....is still evil.

Lowaicue
09-28-2009, 07:17 AM
We still have the moral high ground. I don't recall the CIA beheading anyone.

Greatest per capita polluter on the planet. Greatest warmongering nation on the planet. Greatest arms dealer on the planet. Greatest producer of pornography on the planet. Greatest exporter of dangerous drugs on the planet. Most violent first world nation on the planet.
I would suggest that your high ground is way below the water table.

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 07:44 AM
Greatest per capita polluter on the planet. Greatest warmongering nation on the planet. Greatest arms dealer on the planet. Greatest producer of pornography on the planet. Greatest exporter of dangerous drugs on the planet. Most violent first world nation on the planet.
I would suggest that your high ground is way below the water table. Thank you for that ill-informed, hate filled rant against the US. :)

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 07:45 AM
Oooo so as long as we don't behead people we have the moral high ground? I don't know if you are aware of this, but the lesser of two evils....is still evil.

Sometimes you have to climb into the gutter to clean it out. That's reality, and it doesn't make the cleaner evil.

Lowaicue
09-28-2009, 08:05 AM
Thank you for that ill-informed, hate filled rant against the US. :)

Then correct the inaccuracies.

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 08:10 AM
Then correct the inaccuracies. Better to keep haters ignorant. :)

cancel2 2022
09-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Sometimes you have to climb into the gutter to clean it out. That's reality, and it doesn't make the cleaner evil.

You don't write the scripts for Steven Segal films by any chance?

cancel2 2022
09-28-2009, 08:18 AM
Greatest per capita polluter on the planet. Greatest warmongering nation on the planet. Greatest arms dealer on the planet. Greatest producer of pornography on the planet. Greatest exporter of dangerous drugs on the planet. Most violent first world nation on the planet.
I would suggest that your high ground is way below the water table.

Low, I suspect you mean importer not exporter of drugs.

Lowaicue
09-28-2009, 08:34 AM
Low, I suspect you mean importer not exporter of drugs.

You may well be right there, Tom

DamnYankee
09-28-2009, 08:47 AM
You don't write the scripts for Steven Segal films by any chance? There's no script to write. :)

99E16w0PxCA

Cancel 2018. 3
09-28-2009, 09:27 AM
Ask Alberto Gonzales for his definition of "quaint".
Do you ever consider, beyond treaties, that sometimes rules of humanity govern how one man treats another?

the OP mentions the geneva conventions, hence my discussion of it

TuTu Monroe
09-28-2009, 09:43 AM
please tell us exactly in what manner the geneva conventions apply to the terrorists....

The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists in any way. They are not qualified for the rules of the Convention. The end.

Cancel5
09-28-2009, 04:33 PM
The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists in any way. They are not qualified for the rules of the Convention. The end.
Why not? Are you sure they are terrorists, must we ask these questions, again?

Cancel5
09-28-2009, 04:35 PM
The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists in any way. They are not qualified for the rules of the Convention. The end.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

It appears there are those that are not in agreement with you on this legal matter.

Cancel5
09-28-2009, 04:40 PM
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

It appears there are those that are not in agreement with you on this legal matter.
PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

Cancel 2018. 3
09-28-2009, 05:49 PM
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

It appears there are those that are not in agreement with you on this legal matter.

great link....i wasn't aware of that new development, my understanding was that the GC applied in a guerrilla warfare capacity, eg., not uniforumed enemy combatants, i did not realize hamdi spoke of common article 3, i thought that case was just about habeas corpus

Socrtease
09-29-2009, 12:40 PM
Sometimes you have to climb into the gutter to clean it out. That's reality, and it doesn't make the cleaner evil.so if I find litter in the gutter I can inflict pain on people until they tell me who threw the trash? No. I don't know if you served, but they taught us that beating information out of people was not a valid means of extracting information and they we were as likely to get lies as truth. Waterboarding is EXACTLY that kind of treatment that the military taught me was a faulty means of extracting information. That behavior is anti-thetical to what the US stands for. It gives our enemies valuable ammunition against us. It says that we will resort to torture (no debate as to whether it is or not we both know that we disagree) against Moslems, regardless of what they know or don't know. It LOOKS enough like torture to be considered that and that harms our image in the world. When our nation behaves this way, the 9-11 conspirators succeeded. They made us so scared that we reject basic principles that we have abided by since WWII. That makes us the loser.

Cancel5
09-29-2009, 02:54 PM
please tell us exactly in what manner the geneva conventions apply to the terrorists....
Military men says it does! It is all I need.

WinterBorn
09-29-2009, 06:59 PM
In the Geneva Convention of 1949, the following was signed into international law:

"Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war."


I will read and research more, but I believe there is no distinction made between combatants in a regular army and combatants that have taken it on themselves to act.

I am also thinking that those who agreed to abide by the Geneva Convention did so with the understanding that they must abide by the rules, even if their enemies did not.

Annie
09-29-2009, 07:44 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_re_us/us_marine_guantanamo

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. – The Marine commander who built the Guantanamo Bay prison said Thursday the U.S. lost the "moral high ground" with its brutal treatment of prisoners, and the facility should be closed as quickly as possible.

It was the first time Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert publicly acknowledged his doubts, although he said he did make his concerns known through the appropriate chain of command.

Lehnert, 58, was commander of Joint Task Force 160 when it was assigned to build prison cells in 2001 at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba to hold designated "enemy combatants" from Afghanistan and elsewhere.

He said he was given little guidance from the Pentagon, but he did have his staff read the Geneva Convention, the international agreement governing treatment of prisoners.

"I wanted to run it close to Geneva Convention rules," Lehnert said. "Our job was to take them out of the fight, and once we had done that, I felt we had a moral responsibility to take care of them."

However, another task force was put in charge of interrogating detainees, and there were disagreements over their treatment, Lehnert said.

"I think it is extraordinarily important how we treat prisoners," he said. "Obviously, there were other views."

"I came to the conclusion very soon that this probably wasn't the right way to go," said Lehnert, who served just 100 days at the base.

"Probably before I left Guantanamo, I was of the opinion it needed to go away as soon as possible," he said.

The general said he didn't feel the U.S. would get much useful information by using the techniques.

"I think we lost the moral high ground," he said.

President Barack Obama has ordered the prison to close by January 2010, but it's unclear where about 200 remaining prisoners would go.

Lehnert is opposed to sending some to stateside military bases, including Camp Pendleton.

"It would fundamentally change the mission of that base," he said. "The entire focus would shift to long-term incarceration of detainees."

Lehnert now oversees seven West Coast Marine bases. He retires Tuesday.

Seems to me the builder was the problem. If such a dilemma he should have put up a stink then, but he didn't. So false target. It was the whiner that should be up for trial.

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 07:08 AM
Military men says it does! It is all I need. And the hundred for every one who disagrees? :pke:

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 07:09 AM
so if I find litter in the gutter I can inflict pain on people until they tell me who threw the trash? No. I don't know if you served, but they taught us that beating information out of people was not a valid means of extracting information and they we were as likely to get lies as truth. Waterboarding is EXACTLY that kind of treatment that the military taught me was a faulty means of extracting information. That behavior is anti-thetical to what the US stands for. It gives our enemies valuable ammunition against us. It says that we will resort to torture (no debate as to whether it is or not we both know that we disagree) against Moslems, regardless of what they know or don't know. It LOOKS enough like torture to be considered that and that harms our image in the world. When our nation behaves this way, the 9-11 conspirators succeeded. They made us so scared that we reject basic principles that we have abided by since WWII. That makes us the loser. You are denying the obvious, that the CIA obtained useful information.

TuTu Monroe
09-30-2009, 07:13 AM
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

It appears there are those that are not in agreement with you on this legal matter.

The Geneva Convention clearly states the rules to determine if someone is a POW. Terrorists are not POWS.

Lowaicue
09-30-2009, 08:02 AM
The Geneva Convention clearly states the rules to determine if someone is a POW. Terrorists are not POWS.

Neither were they terrorists. The most you can say is that they were detainees.
Unless you know better than your own people, of course, in which case I am sure you will be asked to appear at the trials.

Socrtease
09-30-2009, 08:04 AM
You are denying the obvious, that the CIA obtained useful information.REally? Example? What good useful intell did waterboarding get us?

Socrtease
09-30-2009, 08:05 AM
You are denying the obvious, that the CIA obtained useful information.And so in the attempt to defeat evil men, it is acceptable to behave in an evil way? The ends justifies the means comrade?

christiefan915
09-30-2009, 08:10 AM
The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists in any way. They are not qualified for the rules of the Convention. The end.

They were "detained" on suspicion. They weren't convicted. Not that anybody should be tortured, no matter what name we call them.

christiefan915
09-30-2009, 08:21 AM
The Geneva Convention clearly states the rules to determine if someone is a POW. Terrorists are not POWS.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 08:42 AM
REally? Example? What good useful intell did waterboarding get us?


The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/28/AR2009082803874.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009082804015


And so in the attempt to defeat evil men, it is acceptable to behave in an evil way? The ends justifies the means comrade? Again you equate what they did with what we did, an indefensible position at best. :)

WinterBorn
09-30-2009, 08:45 AM
I have heard repeatedly (and accepted) the statement that the Geneva Convention does not provide protections for terrorists.

Does anyone have a link for this? And is this the original GC or the most recent (and therefore the correct) GV?

TuTu Monroe
09-30-2009, 03:40 PM
I have heard repeatedly (and accepted) the statement that the Geneva Convention does not provide protections for terrorists.

Does anyone have a link for this? And is this the original GC or the most recent (and therefore the correct) GV?

Click here (http://jb-williams.com/11-27-06.htm) for just a sample. There are many, many more.

christiefan915
09-30-2009, 04:17 PM
Click here (http://jb-williams.com/11-27-06.htm) for just a sample. There are many, many more.

LOL, pull the other one, it's got bells on. This was written by a blogger. He could be you or me, and certainly has no authority behind him. Furthermore, he wrote the paragraph below, yet his entire site is dedicated to praising conservatism and bashing liberals. It's also comical that his criticism of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is the number of pages in the opinion. Something tells me he never actually read it.

"If you are looking for regurgitated Republican or Democrat rhetoric, you are in the wrong place. I write what I think, based on what I know, supported by facts I can prove, and stated in simple common sense terms anyone should be able to comprehend. I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a son and a brother, a conservative, an entrepreneur and a writer, in that order. I don’t vote for (R)’s or (D)’s, but instead for individuals. Not on the basis of what they promise to do for me, but on the basis of who I believe will protect real American values worth protecting."

http://jb-williams.com/

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 05:27 PM
Its always easy to attack the messenger.

christiefan915
09-30-2009, 06:00 PM
Its always easy to attack the messenger.

When the messenger lies, true.

WinterBorn
09-30-2009, 06:41 PM
Click here (http://jb-williams.com/11-27-06.htm) for just a sample. There are many, many more.

What the blogger at that link is quoting is the original Geneva Convention. The later GC covered far more (due to the atrocities of WWII).

"Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war."

That is clearly not restricted to military personnel.

"Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."

This clearly means the USA is responsible for the actions of those in charge of the prisoners at Abu Graib.

"Part I. General Provisions

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

The bold printed material directly refutes the information given in the link to the blog. It does not matter whether the other party is bound by the Geneva Convention. We are bound by it.

The above quotes came from: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

DamnYankee
09-30-2009, 08:27 PM
When the messenger lies, true. Unless you dispute his facts, you can't logically make that statement.

WinterBorn
10-01-2009, 06:45 AM
Unless you dispute his facts, you can't logically make that statement.

While the facts were not solidly disputed when Christiefan made the statement, they have been now.

DamnYankee
10-01-2009, 08:39 AM
Shove it up your ass Solitary: attacker of innocents.

WinterBorn
10-01-2009, 02:05 PM
Shove it up your ass Solitary: attacker of innocents.

:rofl:

Stick with the topic, beantownboy. Or is that too difficult?

DamnYankee
10-01-2009, 03:15 PM
Look who's talking: Solitary. LOL

WinterBorn
10-01-2009, 06:01 PM
Look who's talking: Solitary. LOL

Whatever. If you can't keep up with the conversation, try to sit quietly until you figure it out.

Damocles
10-01-2009, 09:06 PM
What the blogger at that link is quoting is the original Geneva Convention. The later GC covered far more (due to the atrocities of WWII).

"Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war."

That is clearly not restricted to military personnel.

"Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."

This clearly means the USA is responsible for the actions of those in charge of the prisoners at Abu Graib.

"Part I. General Provisions

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

The bold printed material directly refutes the information given in the link to the blog. It does not matter whether the other party is bound by the Geneva Convention. We are bound by it.

The above quotes came from: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

WinterBorn
10-02-2009, 05:19 AM
if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

Yes, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. If you signed on as a party who obeys the Geneva Convention, you apply those laws regardless of whether your enemy does so.

Damocles
10-02-2009, 08:47 AM
Yes, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. If you signed on as a party who obeys the Geneva Convention, you apply those laws regardless of whether your enemy does so.
No, the latter. The "said power."

If they accept the provisions then you are bound to do so as well, even if they are not a signatory. If, however, they do not accept or adhere to the provisions...