60th Anniversary of Geneva Conventions

Al Qaida (0.00 / 0)

consists of Unlawful Combatants and does not fall under the Geneva Conventions. So giving them protections is not exactly following the Geneva Conventions. Saddam's regulars and possibly the Taliban are a different story, but AQ clearly fits the bill of Unlawful Combatant.

Of course seeing that the last war we actually won was before the Geneva Conventions went into effect, maybe the Geneva Conventions are irrelevant.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 14:21:53 PM CDT

More thoughts (0.00 / 0)

The Conventions, as honorable as they are, leave much to the imagination.  Your words about "unlawful combatants" is an example, and I wouldn't know how to clarify that.

But this is from the actual Conventions text:

Art. 4........
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

And...

Art. 5...
Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

I'm not capably engaged in legal-speak, but these Conventions articles could turn some heads.  And unfortunately, most of these kind of documents say many things to many people.

Of course I don't advocate torture (whatever THAT means) but there are many gray areas at play here.  And remember, this whole discussion is about getting Bush and Cheney anyway, so interpretation of actual Conventions wording and deeds is a matter of political persuasion (note the "Chickenhawks" comment in this discussion).

As a whole, the USA does not torture as a rule (torture being defined as .... what exactly?).  Anecdotal instances existed, but again, they were anecdotal.  It's been said many times in many places, "if I were held as a POW, I'd rather be held by the Americans than anyone else."  That says a lot.

---

by: E. Redding @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 19:18:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear (0.00 / 0)

International Law did not bring down the Communist Empire, International Law did not stop the Nazis or the Japanese, International law did not take down either the regime of Saddam or the Taliban,
International Law did not stop Wahhabi perpetrated genocide against the Shia in Iraq or the Hazaras in Afghanistan
International Law has not stopped the Saudis from continuing to finance AQ and Co.
International Law did not throw the Soviets out of Afghanistan

In fact I would be inclined to say that International Law has done more to protect capricious dictators than anything to actually stop them.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 14:41:08 PM CDT

The circumvention of the Geneva Convention has helped to (0.00 / 0)

spread all that you object to.

The Nazis and the Japanese that you refer to happened before the Geneva Convention. The POWs that the US extended better than humane treatment to during WWII made the peace that followed much more successful.

You left out the Korean War that gave birth to SERE training. Circumventing the Geneva Convention allowed the use of those techniques that we so objected to to be used for interrogation, yada by us.

I have to agree with Richard, that sadly some soldiers and vets fail to recognize the need for the USA to follow the spirit and letter of the Geneva Convention. I would add that even more sad is the fact that many Chickenhawks chose to justify such behavior.

Laws may deter crime, but they don't stop crime. Laws just define the line between the acceptable and unacceptable, the legal and illegal behavior.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 17:45:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, Kayla for giving credit to Richard instead of you. (0.00 / 0)

It was a knee-jerk.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 17:47:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was actually talking about International law (0.00 / 0)

in general on that one but no, I am not a big fan of the Geneva conventions either. Not that there are not some good points in the Geneva Conventions, but the Geneva conventions are a part of International Law and there is no effective International law enforcement body capable of enforcing International Law or the Geneva conventions.

Let's think about this one for a minute. Things like I mentioned have been going on long before the Geneva Conventions existed and I have seen no hard evidence that passing international laws such as the Geneva conventions have had a profound deterrent effect on things such as Communist invasions, AQ attacks, genocide, etc. There is a certain strain of Western logic that may think that the legal approach served as a deterrent, but I bet their logic is based on the false notion that Communists and Wahhabis think exactly as we do. What really stopped Communism was ass kickings, the US possessing Nuclear weapons, and the fact that life under Communism really, really sucked.

At the same end, the Geneva Conventions being international in scope put us in a rather precarious position.  I can guarantee that many, if not most real potential allies(Shiites, Serbs, Tribal fighters, Sufis, etc.) against AQ and Co. do not and are not going to abide by the Geneva Conventions. So do we tell them that they can't be our allies against AQ and Co? I would most certainly hope not. At the same end, seeing that there is no effective international law enforcement agency for enforcing such laws, do we really want to be the World's Policemen?

Now we did generally grant Nazi/Japanese POWs quite humane treatment. However, we also made it quite clear that the alternative to surrender was us giving them a serious asskicking, which we gave them on numerous occasions. The impact of the Soviet Union is also not to be discounted here either. Had the Germans and the Japanese not eventually cooperated with us after the war, they would have probably been easy pickings for Communism. But on the other hand, in spite of publicized gaffes such as AG, I highly doubt that the overall rate of detainee abuse in our current war would be any higher than the rate of World War II, and we clearly have not shown ourselves willing to dish out any sort of sustained asskicking to AQ and Co or their supporters. Simply put we are not fighting anything near the way we fought in World War II.

Of course I am not advocating that we engage in wanton torture and sadistic behavior, such as beheadings, eyegougings, etc. But at the same end, war is inherently uncivilized and I just don't see where legalistic attempts to make it more civilized accomplish anything, save ensure that we are engaged in protracted conflicts that we don't end up winning.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 20:59:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some thoughts on the Geneva Convention in the 21st Century, (0.00 / 0)

the subject of this diary:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...

A little insight into the very unqualified buffoons who developed the 'harsh interrogation' program that experts say does NOT produce reliable or actionable intel:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32...

Do you  really think that we can asswhup a large portion of Africa, most of the Middle East, South Asia, Indonesia, and the Philippines while maintaining a force strong enough to be a deterrent to Latin America and N Korea while keeping us in a position of strength to deal with China and Russia?

---

by: deMeme @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:53:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

but lucky for us, we don't have to ass whup everybody. We only have to take down the bad guys whom pose a threat to our national security. Even better for us is the fact that the AQ/Wahhabi/Sunni Islamist gang has no shortage of enemies around the world.

Unfortunately I just don't see where concepts such as international law and universal human rights would aid us in reaching that end. Many potential allies are anti-government and don't exactly value human rights.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 20:28:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]