In the ongoing effort to make the US government look like a vicious and evil regime, we have this lovely little piece of propaganda. Quite damning if true, you would think…
The problem begins in the second paragraph. Indeed, in the second sentence:
“The Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare require the United States to give the Red Cross access to prisoners of war and other detainees.”
Lets look at this one piece at a time, starting with the definition of 'prisoners of war.' Under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949), Article 4 terror suspects would NOT be categorized as POWs. While they could theoretically be grouped as “members of other militias… [or] of other volunteer corps” if they were taken captive in Iraq, they would violate all of the sub-subsections of Article 4, Section A, Subsection 2. Neither can they be regarded as “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units” because they do not follow the terms immediatly following of “…carry[ing] arms openly and respect[ing] the laws and customs of war.” (Art. 4 Sect. A Subsect. 6)
As they are not categorized as POWs, they must be 'other detainees,' right? And the Red Cross must be given access to said 'other detainees,' right?
Wrong. Article 9 says that the Convention cannot prevent the Red Cross from performing 'humanitarian activities' “…subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned… .” Doesn't sound like we have to let them do jack squat, at least in this case. Terror suspects are likewise not considered to be civilians under the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (August 12, 1949).
It seems more and more likely that the Red Cross either does not KNOW what their role is under the Geneva Conventions, or (and I believe this to be far more likely) are intentionally skewing and expanding what they are allowed and required to do in order to seize more political power from their roles. When this is combined with the desire to influence the political sphere of a country (in this case the United States), it moves beyond the bounds of what it is SUPPOSED to do, and moves into the realm of attempting to become a player in American politics. Neither of these options paints the Red Cross in a particularly rosy light.
One interesting idea derived from the above thought is that the Associated Press' correspondent (Ms. Naomi Koppel in this case) either does not understand the Geneva Conventions either, did not go to the trouble of checking the facts pertaining to the statements given her by the Red Cross, or wanted to influence American politics in the way that this article seems intentionally to do.
None of these three options make the news industry look good either.