In the hostage thread, I heard a lot of people putting forth something along these lines:

"In war, it's inevitable that someone will violate the Geneva Convention occasionally, so we should just ignore it when it happens."

That just sounds completely crazy to me. The purpose of the Geneva Convention is to serve as a guideline for Americans forces to follow, and when's broken, we shouldn't say "oh well, stuff happens," we should prosecute the indviduals responsible like we would with any other law. If someone broke the West Virginia penal code by, say, stealing some cigarettes from a convience store, we wouldn't say "oh well, minor violations of our penal code are inevitable, let's just forget it," we'd arrest the guy.

The Geneva Convention is a guideline for us to follow in war, just like the penal code is a guideline for us to follow in peace. They're different guidelines, and of course the Geneva Convention is much more loose than the penal code and allows for more things due to the extrenuating situations war produces, but we signed it for a reason: we agreed to fight a clean war. And if we're not prepared to prosecute those that break the Geneva Convention, then we might as well just admit we're not prepared to fight a clean war, and we just need to abuse some people's human rights sometimes.

The Geneva Conventions are pretty broad. They do not define the context in which certain actions are allowable. For example, when does a situation change from "detainment" to "kidnapping", or from "self defense" to "murder"?

There are specific precedants and court rulings which tell us these things in the US. They fall into the gray area in a chaotic war situation.

I voted "other" since I do not believe that an intentioned and serious breach of the Geneva Conventions should be blown off.

But as I have stated before, there are "War Crimes" and then there is what the US is accused of.

Keep in mind that a "convention" is " a general agreement about basic principles or procedures". Using it too specifically is an incorrect usage. It is not a "law", there are no specific penalties associated.

While I am at it, I would define "War Crimes" as the specific and continued use of tactics which violate the Geneva Conventions. One incident does not qualify (although one incident may indeed be a crime).

The reason it's broad is because the chaos of ar produces so many "grey areas." It's the job of the courts, preferrably the ICC or a US Court Marshall, to determine if the situation really violated the Geneva Convention or not.

When the Iraqi military surrendered in droves during the first Gulf war, we were forced to house them outside for a time, because we had no place to put such large numbers of people. I believe that was a technical violation, but there was nothing we could do under those cicumstances....Extenuating conditions require a bit of leeway.

I would vote no, assuming that your question is based on the strict understanding that the Geneva Conventions must be a guideline, and enforced to the greatest extent possible under reasonable circumstances.

Keep in mind, though, veracity to your enemies is not a requirement under the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, a lie doesn't necessarily classify as a warcrime.

To what level must it define context, before it would be considered acceptable? Obviously there are always going to be unanticipated circumstances and differences of interpretation, even if a thousand pages are devoted to defining when a particular law does or does not apply. In any justice system, including ours, cases will occur which were anticipated in neither statute nor precedent. Amazingly enough, though, courts often manage to reach decisions without needing to gaze into the past for every answer. The problem here, as I pointed out in another thread, is that we just can't bring ourselves to trust anyone - or even ourselves - to address abuse at the time it occurs. Our insecurity takes the form of demanding that all possible abuse be anticipated and ruled out for our benefit beforehand, which is of course impossible, before we'll deign to participate.

International cooperation is a two-way street. If we're going to accuse someone of being evil because they've violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Geneva Conventions against chemical weapons, we must be prepared for others to consider us evil when we violate other parts of those very same treaties and conventions. We have signed them. We have ratified them. If we refuse to be held to them, if we insist on rationalizing every transgression retroactively as in the Iraq hostage-taking case, then we as a nation have broken our word. Maybe some people don't take that seriously, but I for one resent my government making me (by association, as a citizen) party to a broken promise.

edited to add the following...



Actually, some forms of dishonesty - e.g. masquerading as a civilian, false surrender - are disallowed by the Geneva Conventions.

That kind of thing is understandable, we simply had no choice in the matter, they surrendered in numbers we couldn't have possibly forseen. And we corrected the 'violation' as soon as we could.

Now taking combatants, sticking them in prison camps without charges, denying them access to council, etc... that's not right and we shouldn't be permitted to get away with it.

That's true. Good point. My bad. Hiding behind medical symbols, too is against the rules, which would be a form of deceit...
I was thinking of a certain note of contention on another thread which inspired this topic.

There are times when the Geneva Convention needs to be tossed out the window so that troops can make their job a lot easier and make themselves safer.

Do you really mean "thrown out the window," as in utterly discarded? Then why have them at all? The Conventions don't describe grey areas, but they are pretty clear on the more extreme abrogations of ethics. I can see that there should be (and is) some "grey area," but that wouldn't necessitate throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We should remember that we are discussing an issue which is dealing with human interaction, in a life-and-death context. One of the most precious (and yet fragile) developments of humanity in the last centuries is that we have more of a tendency to err on the side of caution when dealing with the rights of all people than to disregard such things utterly. The very notion that we're having this type of discussion is a positive thing. Let's not lose sight of that.

If Americans become known for violating the rules of the Geneva Convention every time it suits them, it will take no time at all for America's enemy of the moment to escalate the brutality against American captives. That should be reason enough for us to follow the rules, if honor isn't.

(edited)

Goamerica, what's the purpose of having laws if you discard them when it will make things easier for you? I know a few laws I could break to make life easier and safer for me, but it's immoral to break them, so I don't do it. It may be easier and safer to wage dirty warfare, but it doesn't bode well for the soul.

Since they are going to lose, and losers do get tried for war crimes, they would be doing so at their own peril. The 800 lb gorilla does not have to play fair.

It is in the gorilla's best interests to watch out for her babies when they wander into baboon territory (to carry your metaphor to extremes).

Your post is calloused and I only hope that our military does not give in to your kind of self-serving, short-sighted reasoning. Even the bully on the block gets bad karma from time to time.

We need to be honorable people. We need to consider what goes on when an American is taken prisoner by an enemy force. We do not need to instigate further atrocities by not keeping our word.

(edited)

Hugo, might does not make right.

I think that our position as the strongest country in the world gives us a definitive and distinctive opportunity to be the leaders in the areas of ethics and human rights. It is the powerful who "set the tone" for others. If we view our place at the top as an invitation to become the most progressive and just of people, we can set the tone for the whole course of human events.

Of course, I might win the Nobel Prize for Physics someday, too...

The fact the left is making such a stink over a family being held for a whole two days in Iraq tells me that the 800 lb gorilla is pretty much playing by the rules, as well as any other nation in a time of war. No one believes the US Army should be involved in genocides or mass killings. There are those who would rather see American soldiers killed than Iraqis inconvienienced. It is callous not to allow our young men to protect themselves.

Hugo, please stay on topic. You're free to dredge up that thread again if you want. No one disagrees that they should be able to defend themselves, we just say they shouldn't be allowed to break the Geneva Convention.

We are not talking about genocide here. If some marginal formality of the convention is disregarded by one soldier, his intent should be taken into account and unless he maliciously hurt or starved someone, it should be given a slap on the wrist.

In an ocean of soldiers, some deviation is inevitable just from confusion alone, and as Rattlesnake says, they ARE just "guidelines."

When you have insurgents shooting at you daily, you have to take steps to stop that. Whether it be knocking down the door and taking everyone's weapons to taking the wife and child of a Baath loyalist who is organizing gurreila attacks on our guys so he will give himself up.

55(?) troops are dead in post-war iraq because of insurgents. Breaking the Geneva convention just one time won't scar us for life just because we hold a family for 2 days or break down a door

Goamerica, so you support our release from the Geneva convention? I mean, you don't seem to have any intention of following it.

The Geneva conventions are the basic rules of humanic warfare.

The winners make their own.

Regards...Alan

Nope.


Alan Wood:



I didn't see saddam follow the geneva convention
Wounded U.S. soldiers recall Iraq soldiers in civilian clothes





EDITED TO ADD LINK

He didn't win so he couldn't alter the rules.......... or did he ???

For the third time (that I recall), two wrongs still don't make a right. It seems you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, applying Convention-derived principles of crimes against humanity to Saddam even as you claim that those very same principles do not apply to King George. Which is it? Are the Conventions (there are several, BTW, not one) valid, or aren't they? Yes, there's an excluded middle between those two answers, but that middle encloses only a double standard that deserves to be excluded.

I wasn't making it look like saddam won. I was pointing out that also the losers change the rules. Saddam is the loser and will always be the loser

Goamerica if you are prepared to accept that America can break the Geneva Convention, how can you rightfully condemn anybody else for breaking the Convention?

Or are you a subscriber to the might is right theory of realpolitik? in that case you forsake your right to condemn others and don't start crying when anather great-power takes revenge in the future.

These posts are beginning to sadden me There seems to be an assumption that we are breaking the Geneva convention from all sides. I disagree. I DON'T believe that it is okay to break them, except under the most extenuating, unavoidable circumstances. I DO believe that our soldiers are abiding by those rules, almost entirely, as they should.

You all can pretend that might does not make right. I will say this, no one except the US has the might to try US citizens unless we grant them that right. Secondly, no one can stop the US from trying Iraqi citizens. It may not be fair, it is reality. Having said that even the 800 lb gorilla, especially in a world where terrorism is prevalent, should practice diplomacy and follow treaties they are signed on to. I expect no gross violations of the Geneva convention, I expect Iraqi civilians to be occassionally harassed and killed. War is not pretty and it is difficult, if not impossible, to comply 100% with any rules applying to war.

Civilian deaths are avoided whenever possible. The problem I find with the mindset here is the concept of psychological warfare is lost. If the enemy is uncomfortable, shown bright lights, doesn't get enough Zs, has to listen to chanting on the radio, he's being tortured and we are violating the Geneva conventions. It isn't so (or not necessarily). Psychological warfare is a technique we employ, and it doesn't violate the rules.

It is very hard to be diplomatic to a bunch of thugs who blow things up just to see how many civilians they can kill



I don't expect violations either. I wouldn't go as far as the killing citizens part when it comes to harrassed. Maybe harrassed as in frisked and searched and all but not killed. And you are right. it's hard to comply fully to rules of war except the POW part.

I voted 'No.' The United States is just as bound to the Geneva Convention as any other nation. I agree with Mrs. Pigpen however, that the American military plays by the rules.

America is supposed to be the example of democracy and freedom to the world. The US is the "great experiment". If we don't adhere to the Geneva Convention, then why should anyone else?

Well, the current administration does have the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Hang on a minute here...

No one in the administration has said the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the US. This is a hypothetical question, not an actual one.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that an Iraqi could go to the Hague with "war crimes" charges against the US. It is also possible that the Hague will decide to prosecute. We signed no agreements before going into Iraq limiting our culpability for war crimes and we have never said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply in Iraq.

“Under the Geneva convention it is illegal to do things with Prisoners of War that are humiliating to those individuals. The U.S. avoids showing photographs of Prisoners of War” -Donald Rumsfeld

He said that America never shows photos of POW’s, however photos of the "detainees" have appeared ALL OVER the TV and in our newspapers. American propaganda....

The hypocrisy of this administration's war against Iraq and the snub at the Geneva Convention is obvious when the administration's reaction to the news that GIs have been captured. Rumsfeld screamed "Geneva Convention!" at the Iraqis for showing footage of US soldiers taken on the battlefield. He said it was Iraqi propaganda.

The US administration has shackled, gagged and blindfolded some 600 Muslim prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, while they are detained without trial, without charge, without legal representation and held in open cages, exposed to the elements. Not only does the administration not treat these prisoners in accordance with the Geneva convention, but they do not even accept that they are prisoners of war, rather they call them “unlawful combatants”, yet we want our troops be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention?

http://www.counterpunch.org/olivier0411.html

http://irregulartimes.com/genevaconvention.html

Amlord writes:


That's true, they *COULD* file charges, but the Bush administration would simply ignore them. That's the problem with having an 800-lb gorilla, they really don't have to pay attention to anything they don't want to. What could anyone do to us if we were found guilty? Invade us? Declare economic sanctions? The rest of the world needs us more than we need them most of the time.

That doesn't change the fact that we are guilty of war crimes. Just because we change the name from 'prisoner of war' to 'detainee' doesn't change the fact that we're violating the Geneva Convention with regard to people we are holding against their will and in violation of the law.

Billy Jean writes:


It's called hypocracy and Bush is good at it. The 'detainees' are no more unlawful combatants than if you captured Saddam in his underwear and declared him an unlawful combatant because he wasn't in uniform. In fact, most of them aren't combatants in any way, they were simply people in the wrong place at the wrong time when the US went around and 'swept' them up. These 'detainees' are being tortured, denied legal representation and even charges! If they don't know what these people are guilty of, LET THEM GO!

Unlawful combatants are not covered under the Geneva convention. This holds true for our soldiers as well. American mercenaries which are captured by the enemy have no rights under the Geneva conventions, and our government does not ensure their wellbeing, or hold those governments accountable for their ill treatment.

I believe an example of this was the war in Laos, which went on during the same time as the Vietnam war. Soldiers volunteered to serve over there, but were not offered the same security as Americans serving in Vietnam. It was a secret war.

In order for the Geneva Conventions to apply to an individual, they themselves must adhere to the Conventions. Terrorists, by their very nature, are a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Hence, they lose their right to any protection under such.

The Geneva Conventions apply to the rules of organized combat. They do not apply to ununiformed, criminal suspects.

Does the LAPD beating of Rodney King (which was humiliating, since it was taped) rise to the level of a war crime? I would not be surprised to find some that would think that it does.

Holding people (legally, or illegally) is not a war crime, it does not violate the Geneva Conventions, UNLESS it occurs in a war zone.

The Japanese of WW2, by today's standards, would be considered terrorists for bombing Pearl Harbor, but we treated the Japanese prisoners we captured well.

They attacked our soldiers. They were NOT terrorists. The Geneva Conventions applied.

Of course not. We weren't at war with LA.



Is Iraq not a war zone? Was Afghanistan not a war zone when the people at Camp X-Ray were captured? Has the Amazing Self-Replenishing Cake made yet another appearance?

Platypus,

I refer you to the above posts, which detail why combatants who are not in uniform and not part of an organized army are not subject to the Geneva Conventions.

As one who complains about continuing an argument in the face of hard evidence to the contrary, you should re-examine your post.

How do you define an organized army? Are the rebels who brought down the regime in Liberia an organized army? Is a special forces team in civilian dress in a war zone part of an organized army? Obviously Al-Queda is a large organization, can you say that it has an organized army? If you have to be a recognized country to have an organized army, does Cuba have one? We don't recognize their government after all. If someone invades your country and you, as a civilian, take up arms to defend your home and nation, are you somehow giving up your rights under the Geneva Convention?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The following link provides a fairly good summary regarding illegal combatants, as well as a bit of historical context. There are many details that I am unaware regarding this issue.

I asked Mr P about war crimes and adherence to the conventions a few days ago, and he indicated that there are many different rules regarding different scenarios which would define a war crime, and they don’t always make a lot of sense from the outside (which is why military leaders require the legal experts). For example, a POW cannot harm any enemy soldiers in his attempt to escape- and violent action performed during the process of escape is a war crime, and prosecutable offense. Once he/she rejoins his/her ranks, they are free to kill the enemy again.

illegal combatants

Al-Queda is not a governmental body. It has no system of a government. It is an organization. Therefore, there is no way that they can be classified as POW's.

Cephus:


The rebels in Liberia are not an organized army because don't have a President to rally behind and defend. They are just a bunch of street guys fighting the Government Forces who rallied behind Charles Taylor. The same with Al-Queda. They had no President to rally behind. They are just a bunch of thugs who were hypnotized by a psychotic terrorist. The Taliban, on the other hand, had a President to fight for when we invaded Afghanistan. They had Mullah Omar. A leader of a Government. Osama is not the leader of a government but a leader of an unorganized army of terrorists.

According to Bush, at least, the Taliban officially supported Al-Queda, thus making them a possible arm of their military. So how are the 'detainees' now not POWs again? They were taken in a war, in enemy territory, fighting for the government in power.

The Taliban gave Al-queda a home to set up it's terrorist shop. Al-Queda is it's own entity. No one else's. Bin Laden is their leader....not Omar.

WRONG.

It doesn't sound like you've even read the Geneva Conventions so here's a link: Fourth Geneva Convention

You're also classifying every one of these prisoners as terrorists with no kind of backup to support such a claim. None of them has been charged with any crime at all. Charging them as terrorists would require the US to make a case that they most likely can't make.

They were not picked up while attempting to carry out terrorist attacks...they were picked up during a military conflict and that's why the Conventions apply which not only cover combat but other situations, as you would see if you read them.

The basic rules of distinction in International Human Law stipulate that:
Only combatants can take part in hostilities.
A combatant is a member of an armed force. He or she has the right to directly participate in hostilities and may not be punished for such participation. (See feature on POW status and Art. 43 of Additional Protocol I ). All combatants must respect the rules of IHL. If a combatant violates IHL, this does not result in loss of combatant status nor of prisoner of war status if captured by the enemy. The only exception is that if a combatant violates the rule of distinction at the time of capture or surrender, he or she loses prisoner of war status. This means inter alia that such person may be punished for the mere fact of participating in hostilities.
Civilians are not allowed to take part in hostilities and are protected against attacks. In contrast to combatants, civilians are prohibited from directly taking part in hostilities. If civilians take part in hostilities, they can be punished for their participation.

Civilians joining the armed resistance in a levée en masse acquire combatant status even though they do not belong to the regular armed forces or an associated militia.
In very particular circumstances, civilians may become combatants and obtain prisoner of war status if captured by the enemy. This exception is called levée en masse and concerns inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who take up arms spontaneously to resist invading forces as they approach. As combatants, they may be attacked until they surrender. To satisfy this exception, they must:
- not have had the time to form regular armed units;
- carry their arms openly; and
- respect the laws and customs of war. (See Art. 4 (A) (6) of the Third Geneva Convention ).
These particular combatants do not need to distinguish themselves from civilians, apart from carrying their weapons openly. It should be noted that the term levée en masse denotes a collective movement against an invading party and cannot be applied to isolated individuals taking up arms.
In case of doubt, the status of POW will be conferred on all individuals taking part in hostilities until a competent tribunal can determine their status.
IHL

There have been no tribunals. There have been no official charges of any specific crimes, they were picked up during our war, so they would automatically be categorized as POW's until someone can make a case they should be considered something else...be it combatants or criminals or terrorist's. And no, the word of the President is not a tribunal or, IMO, enough by itself.

The Conventions state in more than one place that just because (and even IF) one side breaks the rules it does not give the other side the freedom to do as it pleases. We are still beholden to the rules ourselves. So much for the semantics.

So, what do you think about this:


It is beyond me how anyone can condone the attempts the Whitehouse has made to skirt every Constitutional and International law when it comes to dealing with these prisoners. (Not to mention the refusal to follow the Constitution or the courts in the Mousaoui case). Where is the sense of outrage that our most basic principles of justice are being treated with such arrogant contempt?

How do we know who is being held in Gitmo, or why, or if they are all actually prisoners picked up from the conflict in Afghanistan? Without any kind of transparency or cooperation no one can say for sure who's there at all. Sure, you will scoff and assume there is nothing bad happening but you certainly don't KNOW for sure.

HEY...maybe they have bin Laden and are just too dim-witted to figure it out. Maybe they should let a few lawyers and human rights advocates in there to help them sort it out since they admit they are incapable of getting even the most basic information themselves. They might even get more info that will HELP us fight the 'war on terror'.

Who is responsible for the oversight and judicial responsibilities we have towards these prisoners, Cuba? Is that what the Whitehouse is implying? Everyone just finds it acceptable that they can abuse their power on a technicality and not have to answer to anyone at all?

It is completely un American to allow prisoners, regardless of the reasons or allegations, to be thrown into some black hole that has no transparency at all - in which anyone can make claims stating laws are being followed or broken and no one is able to find out the truth. This is why they make laws in the first place...the alternative is abuse of power or anarchy...it's not justice.

Holding people in secret, even in a military situation, for 577 days with no information about who, what, or why they are being held isn't allowed under any laws that I know of...please post it here if you think you can find one. I'd love to see it.

This is a slap in the face to justice and everything good I once believed about America.

It is also UNHUMAN to kill 3000 INNOCENT people who are just going to WORK in the morning

But that's a scary kind of logic, goamerica! We cannot make excuses for our criminal behaviour, merely because the enemy's behaviour is worse. Someone else's violence does not justify and excuse our own - we have to carry the whole burden of it.

American pilots firebombed the German city of Dresden, knowing full well they were killing men, women, and children who were obviously not combatants. SHould such an act of violence be dismissed merely because the Germans killed 6 million Jews?

We broke treaties with the Native Americans, too. We did it because we found it expedient, and we had dehumanized the Indians in our thinking, not considering it worth our while to be honorable in our dealings with them.

So you might say it is a pattern. Each generation has to decide whether it is worth it to behave in an honorable way, especially toward our enemies. If we are not willing to change our behavior towards them, how can we hope to change their behavior toward us, short of genocide?

There are consequences in everything we do. The problem is, many in our Western civilization have rejected the Judeo-Christian morality teachings that were the basis for our civilization at one time. If we could at least fill that intentional ideological void with the Eastern teachings of karma, our behavior might improve. To hope to abide by an honor system when honor is not valued, though, appears to be useless.

If we don't keep our word, should we expect anyone else to? We agreed to the articles of the Geneva Convention. We should keep our word.

(edited)