A Very Good Question from Captain Ed
Captain Ed asks a simple question: Since When Has Geneva Protected Our Troops?
We have yet to fight against a wartime enemy that followed the GC with any consistency at all. The Germans routinely violated it even before Hitler began issuing orders to shoot captured pilots, and the massacre at Malmedy only crystallized what had been fairly brutal treatment at the hands of the Nazis for American prisoners (the Luftwaffe was one notable exception). The Japanese treatment of POWs was nothing short of barbaric, both before and after Bataan. The same is true for the North Koreans and the Chinese in the Korean War, and McCain himself is a routine example of the kind of treatment our men suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese.
In this war, this argument seems particularly despicable. We have been treated to images of broken and tortured bodies of our soldiers on television and the Internet, courtesy of the animals who oppose us in this war. No one suffers under the delusion that captured soldiers will ever return alive, let alone receive Geneva-approved treatment. Our enemy doesn’t even fight according to the GC, so why should they treat our soldiers any better than they treat the civilians they target for their attacks?
If Powell and Levin and McCain can name one modern conflict where our enemies gave POWs treatment in accordance with the GC, I’d be glad to post it right here on my blog. Don’t expect that kind of an update any time soon.
This seems like a pretty devastating riposte to anyone who says we must follow the Geneva Convention against nonsignatories who don’t obey it, like Al Qaeda, because we need to ensure that our other more civilized enemies do.
Usually, our enemies are our enemies because they are the type of folks who don’t live up to agreements. If the Geneva Convention has never protected us in the past, why should we worry about applying it to nonsignatory terrorists now?
UPDATE: Dafydd ab Hugh asked the same question a while back. I remember reading Dafydd’s piece and intending to link it, but for some reason I never did. In any event, you should read his take on this issue as well.
UPDATE x2: This L.A. Times piece claims that Common Article 3 actually did protect an American soldier in a battle against Somalis:
In 1993, the United States invoked Common Article 3 protections for Chief Warrant Officer Michael J. Durant, who was captured by Somali warlords. Because he was not the prisoner of a government and because Somalia was embroiled in a civil war, traditional Geneva prisoner-of-war protections did not apply. Although Durant had been roughly treated initially, the militants ultimately decided to observe Common Article 3 and allowed the Red Cross to visit Durant.
Interesting. I don’t know whether it’s true or not.
Those in favor of extending more rights to “illegal combatants” and “suspected illegal combatants” have four quite separate arguments.
1. It’s the right thing for us to do. It’s about our own sense of ourselves; how we treat others defines what kind of civilization we actually are.
2. It’s a treaty obligation. Since we have signed the Geneva Conventions, they are the Law of the Land.
3. It’s an obligation under International Law. Decent people around the world will think less of us if we disregard the consensus of civilized people everywhere.
4. By the principal of Reciprocity, treating terrorists well will improve the treatment of captured American soldiers.
I’ve listed these arguments in order of their persuasiveness to me. #1 deserves consideration. #2 as well–we should review which protocols we’ve actually acceded to and what they require in terms of the treatment of nonstate combatants who conduct themselves as the jihadis do. Then we should conform to those GCs, or withdraw from them. We sign treaties to advance policy, not the other way around.
#3 is a lousy argument. People persuaded by it have a hard time deciding what to do when they find a “kick me” note pinned to the back of their shirt.
To even contemplate #4 requires ignorance of the historical record or willful indifference to it. It’s a contemptibly stupid talking point. For the reasons you and Captain Ed note.
AMac (08648b) — 9/15/2006 @ 9:30 pm#1 doesn’t convince me. I don’t see how a nation need be involved in such touchy-feely, feel-good moralizing, especially with regards to THESE sorts of stakes.
#2 actually has some pull with me, but that is only because I am not yet convinced treaties are ignored by national actors in such a manner.
Then again, I am convinced they aren’t scrutinized in the way the self-important lecturers for whom the moral high ground is the only high ground they can reach of our nation scrutinize them.
OHNOES (3b3653) — 9/15/2006 @ 10:27 pmOHNOES, #1 doesn’t convince me either (nukes, anyone?), but it strikes me as an argument that is substantive and sincere. Cf. #4.
AMac (08648b) — 9/15/2006 @ 10:57 pmI think Captain Ed’s framing of the issue is a bit ridiculous. Just because there has always been violations of Geneva, you can’t say it doesn’t raise overall protection for our troops. The question is, how much worse would it have been for our troops if there were no international treaties or standards in place?
For example, many of our troops were certainly killed and mistreated by the Nazis, but on the whole they were treated fairly well (considering the context of all out war for survival), especially in comparison with Russian prisoners. This was largely because the Nazis knew their own prisoners would be treated pretty well by the U.S., which tried to comply with Geneva, while they knew that those captured by the Soviets would be in for a world of hell, as it only paid lip service to Geneva. If there were no international treaties or standards followed by either side, our troops would have been treated like the Soviets, or even the Jews, or just killed on the spot.
No country in war has 100% Geneva compliance, even the U.S. (you are naive if you think every surrendering German ended up alive in a P.O.W. camp). But WWII is compelling evidence that countries that do the best in complying with Geneva (USA) will see their prisoners generally treated better than countries that do not (USSR) even by the most evil of regimes (Nazis).
The questions are, (1) how much has Geneva generally helped our troops captured by enemies who only half-heartedly comply; (2) how much more torture and suffering will our troops be subject to if the U.S. does not try to scrupulously avoid torture and mistreatment of those we capture; and (3) is whatever intelligence gain we might get from coercive mistreatment of captured combatants worth the increased suffering of our troops in point (2)?
aplomb (b1076c) — 9/15/2006 @ 11:58 pmHere’s a famous quote by one American held as a POW by the North Vietnamese: “I am certain we all would have been a lot worse off if there had not been the Geneva Conventions around which an international consensus formed about some very basic standards of decency that should apply even amid the cruel excesses of war.”
So even without North Vietnam agreeing to application of the Geneva Convention until 1970, our adherence to it and international consensus has a constraining effect.
Macswain (2aadc0) — 9/15/2006 @ 11:58 pmAs to #1, allow me to quote Col. Potter of the 4077th: “Horse hockey!”
Seriously, the argument that we need to play fair because to do otherwise changes who we are as a nation is simply untrue, if we look to the historical record.
Our GIs and Marines killed Krauts and Japs by the bushel, at times (in the Pacific, especially) taking no prisoners. Then they came home, put away the medals and uniforms, and went to college on the GI Bill, got married, had kids, coached Little League, Pop Warner, led kids in Indian Guides and Boy Scouts, played softball, golfed, worked, drank, retired and played with the grandkids.
We all know vets of WW2 and Korea, many of whom participated in savage, hand-to-hand combat with no quarter shown. How many have been damaged goods — at least on the outside — as a result of their four years of combat? How many were turned into bloodthirsty savages?
This holds true for the Civil War, too, and I’d reckon most other wars throughout history. The warriors come home, lay down the shield and the sword, and become civilians once more.
If “how we treat others defines who we are,” then Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nakasaki favor a vastly different conception of the U.S. than I and most other Americans share.
Unless you’re a leftist, in which case America is little more than a thugocracy, anyhow.
If the brutality of WW2 changed the essential nature of who we are as a nation, I’d say it changed America for the better. Jim Crow was doomed after the war, as was most overt racism (although it took time). But America was a vastly more tolerant nation after the war than it had been before. Oddly enough, America had not been turned into a savage, violent, unforgiving nation — and neither had its veterans.
#2 is of no moment, either, inasmuch as the Geneva Conventions offer no protections to non-state actors, i.e. unlawful combatants. To offer then the same protections as are afforded signatories defeats the whole rationale for signing and agreeing to be bound by the strictures of the treaty.
If you buy in to #2, then the jihadis can be as animalistic as they please in their treatment of our troops, knowing that they’ll be coddled by the inexplicably weak Westerners.
The appropriate treatment for any unlawful combatants who survive combat and fall into our hands is summary execution. Don’t forget, we executed German spies caught wearing U.S. uniforms, and the Geneva Conventions expressly provide for this severe penalty, as a means of persuading nations to abide by the rules of war.
Want to be treated like a P.O.W.? Fight by the rules.
#3 & 4 are simply risible, ridiculous in every way, and deserving of no response at all.
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/16/2006 @ 12:06 amI don’t recall any POW mistreatment during the Kosovo conflict, although having to meet with Jesse Jackson may qualify.
Have to agree with AMac’s points #1 and #2. Observing GC is the right thing to do, and sometimes “right” makes “might” rather than the other way around. (For any geeks out there, read the short Melian Dialogue from the Thucydides’ “Peloponnesian Wars,” c. 431 BC).
Unlike other nations that approve treaties and then ignore them, in the US a treaty carries the weight of law. The president negotiates, but the Senate approves. Any decision not to comply with GC must go back through the legislature.
Jal (81f420) — 9/16/2006 @ 1:37 amaplomb (#4) and Macswain (#5):
There is a major distinction made in the Geneva Conventions between soldiers in the service of a State who wear a uniform/badge and carry arms openly, and combatants who do not. Here, we are talking about which restraints imposed by the GCs ought to apply in the case of guerillas and terrorists in the service of jihadi NGOs like al Qaeda. (It’s more general than simply Militant Islamist movements, with the Tamil Tigers being the oft-cited non-Muslim NGO.)
The debate here is not about the US relationship with States concerning POWs, though as pointed out in #4, #5, and #6, the historical lessons of that issue are not cut and dried. The Conventions are plural. Some articles are directed to NGOs and combatants who don’t meet those standards, The US has signed some of those articles and not others. Re: the point #3 I raised in the first comment, a common anti-Gitmo (etc.) argument is that these NGO provisions have the force of International Law and Recieved Universal Morality, even where the U.S. is not a signatory.
Mike Lief (#6) squarely addresses the first point, that GC compliance determines “who we are.” It’s true, at least to an extent. Then again, Best Years of Our Lives did win 7 Oscars. But how far does Mike Lief want to take his argument? Is it applicable to SS soldiers, NKVD gulag guards, the Imperial Japanese Army (Nanking, Bataan, Siam Railroad), Hutu militiamen with machetes, Vladko Radic’s troops in Srebrenica, and Zarqawi’s beheaders? An ambitious claim to answer ‘yes.’ But to stick to the ‘no’ guns will take more than a quote from Col. Potter.
aplomb wrote,
In the case of NGOs that rely on terrorism and guerilla tactics (al Qaeda, LTTE), I’d respond,
(1) Our captured troops are not helped at all;
(2) Torturing of our captured troops is a function of the ideology of the NGO and the personal inclinations and circumstances of the captors. Can anybody cite a relevant instance where US adherence to a GC protocol had any effect?
(3) Is a two-part question. If “coercive mistreatment” means something annoying, threatening, manipulative, anxiety-producing, degrading, humiliating, deceptive, or offensive, we are left with name, rank, and serial number, and with voluntary conversations that end on, “I’d like to see my lawyer now.” The inevitable result will be very little information. If Torture means something far more extreme, than far less is at stake. For my part, I think rules of interrogation and imprisonment are necessary (rule of laws not men and all that; also legal and ethical protections for our interrogators), but I would like to see much more aggressive questioning under conditions that are much less restrictive than full compliance with all articles of the GC would permit. Especially given the interpretation of key terms by the lawyers of Amnesty International and company.
Sooner or later, a militant Islamist group will succeed in pulling off something bigger than 9/11. Whatever Rules of Engagement the US comes up now with ought to be solid enough to hold in its aftermath, rather than tossed in a justly-outraged spasm of “No More Mr. Nice Guy.”
AMac (b42904) — 9/16/2006 @ 5:11 amWhat a lot of s***. This assinine question of GC (NB, “GC” is also another way of referring to another scourge of the world, gonorrhea.) compliance continues to hobble us.History notes that after a complete violation of the GC , the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a brutal, viral and fanatic enemy was brought to heel.
paul from fl (464e99) — 9/16/2006 @ 6:03 amYou don’t think that the Japanese of the day wouldn’t have flown airplanes into buildings? They floated incidiary bombs over our country for the purpose of untargeted mayhem.
This ‘civilizing’ of an essentially uncivilized (yet sadly, often necessary)activity is ridiculous. We need to learn that in the theater of war you must always bring a Gun to a knife-fight. War is not about fairplay, it is about survival.
“War is barbariy, you cannot refine it.” (General Sherman?) As a general proposition, I consider war except in self-defense to be one of the worst crimes against humanity. The Geneva Conventions, from that viewpoint, promote war because they protect murderers, arsonists and enslavers simply because they are wearing a uniform. I think we should withdraw from the Geneva Conventions altogether and pass a law that makes waging war against the United States a crime punishable by death. Other nations may do as they see fit for their respective national interests. Vae victis.
nk (2e1372) — 9/16/2006 @ 6:07 amNot so. The germans had some geneva violations. But they didn’t treat our prisoners the way Stalin treated german POWs. IIRC, they got red cross packages and stuff.
And wasn’t Malmedy at least in part an attempt to spark retribution by the americans?
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 6:42 amactus (#11),
Germany was a State. It makes sense to talk about the GCs promoting reciprocity in State-to-State relations in ways that are beneficial to us (a non-zero-sum game).
al Qaeda is an NGO. The prospects of reciprocal benefits accruing to our side as a direct result of treating their combatants according to the GCs strike me as just about zero.
Is there any evidence that NGO treatment of US POWs has ever been favorably influenced by US adherence to GC protocols, signed or unsigned?
AMac (491e52) — 9/16/2006 @ 7:01 amHave anymore reason why we should pull out of this wretched UN and have absolutly nothing to do with it from here on? and did those vietcong ever abide by the geniva convention ever especialy in the infamous HANOI HILTON?
krazy kagu (fb44c4) — 9/16/2006 @ 7:03 amYes, how much worse would it have been?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 9/16/2006 @ 7:05 amIt has always seemed to me that trying to apply the Geneva Convention standards to groups that had not signed the Convention undermines the Convention. If you know that your enemy is daft enough to treat your people with kid gloves no matter what YOU do, you have no incentive to be at all civilized.
We should, therefore, (for any number of reasons) televise images of captured terrorists being deep-fat fried in pig lard with the message that as soon as the terrorist organizations adopt uniforms and sign the Geneva Convention we will stop.
C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21) — 9/16/2006 @ 7:35 amThere are some aspects of these conventions that are just common sense, and have nothing to do with our morality or that of the enemy.
For example:
LTEC (f88d1c) — 9/16/2006 @ 9:11 amIt makes good sense for us not to shoot surrendering enemy, or to torture or kill them later. The reason is that as soon as word gets out that we are doing this, enemy fighters will stop surrendering and will instead fight to the death.
Why is that the only concern? How we treat prisoners will influence how others treat prisoners. Whether those others are al-qaeda, iran, china, or the LAPD.
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 10:12 amactus (#17):
Refer to comment #1. Reciprocity is not the only concern. It is a rationale that’s being rebutted because it has been raised by those who support granting NGO terrorists the similar standing as POWs of signatory States. For reasons discussed in the post and this thread, I think it is specious. The answer to the riddle “How many heads can a head hacker hack” isn’t changed by the GC status imputed to the hacker’s chums at Gitmo.
Have any arguments or facts to support your opinion?
Let’s hear them.
AMac (491e52) — 9/16/2006 @ 11:44 amMoral is as moral does. You can come up with a laundry list of practical reasons to ignore something this country has sworn to, and abided by for over 50 years. But being the more moral side of the aisle, you wouldn’t consider practicality a persuasive argument to abandon your core principles, right?
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/16/2006 @ 11:58 amMorality is what you do when no one is looking.
Not really no. It’s about standards. We can help to undermine them or we can help to promote them. We can spread democracy or monarchy.
Of course bad people can go ahead and do bad things. But they sometimes are convinced to do good things. Like when an amnesty international letter writing campaign works.
But the point I’m making is about more than reciprocity — we don’t treat the captives of group according the treaties we’ve signed so group X will be nicer. But so that all can be. Thats not reciprocity.
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 12:15 pmYou folks keep missing the point. If the Geneva Conventions are the guiding light of the international community, the moral high-water mark, then you need to recognize that the Conventions expressly provide for DENYING unlawful combatants the protections afforded to signatories.
It’s about making war, killing people and breaking things, not about making ourselves feel good as we raise a glass to toast our moral superiority.
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/16/2006 @ 12:42 pm“the Conventions expressly provide for DENYING unlawful combatants the protections afforded to signatories.”
And there’s the rub. Defining unlawful combatants in a war where the war is called the “War on Terror”. That’s not a specific enemy, that’s a war declared on a tactic, one that’s existed since war has. The right has employed the “slippery slope” argument before, but now conveniently ignores it. If you allow it now, where is the line drawn tomorrow?
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/16/2006 @ 12:53 pmI thought it was about spreading democracy and civilization. But maybe thats just the afterthought.
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 12:54 pmActus —
Do you really have such a difficult time sussing out the difference between the casus belli and the actual combat itself?
Whatever the reasons for declaring war, victory comes only when the enemy has been on the receiving end of sufficient death and destruction to realize that surrender is preferable to extinction.
Even the Japanese, to whom the very idea of surrender was abhorrent, threw in the towel when the butcher’s bill became too high to pay.
Until we are willing to fight with the requisite ruthlessness, we are merely dilettantes in the eyes of the jihadis, morally dissolute, offering scant resistance to the new Caliphate.
Christopher Hitchens, no conservative he, recently wrote that the West needed to relearn the lessons of War, to regain the will to fight with the ruthlessness required of victors.
Hitchens has it exactly right, don’t you think?
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/16/2006 @ 1:14 pmAsk the average Israeli citizen what it’s like to live during a “war on terra”. You’ll find people who are resolute and not apt to piss their pants every time the color code changes. America is now experiencing what most of the world has for decades, if not centuries. And just like we passed our adolescent stage (slavery) we will grow up, adapt, and the rest of the world will recognize this. Until then they will envision us as we currently are: petulant, argumentative and willing to fight over anything.
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/16/2006 @ 1:50 pmIts not just the cause. But the goal.
Almost. We do need to listen to experience. Ruthlessness? We’ll leave that to the sentimentalists that want their bloodlust fulfilled.
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 2:38 pmActus nailed it succinctly. America is an idea, not a means to an end. When you get away from that you stop being America and start being something way different.
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/16/2006 @ 3:21 pmIt isn’t bloodlust to recognize that history has a very long list of relatively peaceful civilizations that are subsumed by their more ruthless neighbors.
And the reverse happens… less often.
Al (2e2489) — 9/16/2006 @ 3:43 pmWhich would explain why America ceased to be the world’s leading democracy in the aftermath of WW2, its ideals having gone up in flames — along with the German and Japanese civilians who perished during our bombing raids. And so we live in the dessicated husk of what once was the America of our forefathers’ hopes and dreams.
Not.
Al has it right: peaceful civilizations are more often than not defeated by their more brutal, warlike neighbors. But there are also examples of nations mobilizing for war, vanquishing their enemies, and returning to the pre-war standards of behavior.
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/16/2006 @ 4:05 pm“Which would explain why America ceased to be the world’s leading democracy in the aftermath of WW2, its ideals having gone up in flames — along with the German and Japanese civilians who perished during our bombing raids. And so we live in the dessicated husk of what once was the America of our forefathers’ hopes and dreams.
Not.”
The incessant comparisons to WWII may make you feel better about this arrogant, misguided mistake of a foreign policy, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation. WE weren’t attacked by Iraq. WE weren’t threatened by Iraq, nor did Iraq declare war on us. This action did NOT make us safer, in fact it probably made the situation worse; time will bear that decision.
And then to pile on to the mistake, we decide to re-define the definition of torture, knowing full well that decision could backfire when our brave men and women face an enemy that can say with complete “truthiness” that they do it to us, so it’s perfectly acceptable to do it to them. It’s shortsighted, it’s against the parameters we’ve set for ourselves for over 200 years, and it’s just plain stupid.
Once again, the 101st drops their wisdom from their Barca-loungers, and the grunts will pay the price.
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/16/2006 @ 5:15 pmYou’re confusing the issues. My “incessant” references to WW2 are a response to the contention that total war will change our nation for the worse.
WW2 is the most recent and best example of our soldiers’ ability to fight a massive, savage war and then return to being citizens who have an appreciation for traditional American freedoms.
As to you second point, it is the left that has redefined torture down, essentially eliminating it as a useful description of conduct. When techniques that are experienced by American aircrew in SERE training — with no lasting ill effect — are deemed “torture,” well, what’s left to be said? Now, anything that might cause any discomfort — physical or mental, or even emotional — is deemed “torture.”
And, given the point made by Capt Ed, that our enemies are not currently respecting the Conventions, it’s disingenuous to claim that our conduct will cause them to treat our GIs any worse than they’ve been treated in the past.
I’ve no interest in debating the reasons for our being in Iraq; your position is not one that’s open for discussion. Either you get it or you don’t, and I can see that you can’t — or won’t — accept what seem like prefectly reasonable reasons for our having moved against Hussein, with the concurrence of Congress, too.
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/16/2006 @ 5:42 pmWas there a debate about acceptable uses of torture during WWII, when we knew American detainees were being tortured by the Japanese?
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/16/2006 @ 6:25 pmHow about the Korean War, when we knew there were American detainees being tortured by the North Koreans with the help of China?
Was there a debate about acceptable uses of torture during the Vietnam War, when we knew there were American detainees being tortured by the North Vietnamese with help from China and others?
I’m 37 years old, so I honestly can’t tell you if the talk around the water cooler centered around any of these subjects. I’m betting not. Americans believed they were above that sort of bs, and they were right.
I’m not going to change any minds here, but I thought I’d leave you with a little historical perspective. We’ve never had this debate before. NEVER. We’ve conducted ourselves on the world stage with dignity and moral rectitude. And now the country I love is actually debating whether or not the behavior we consider abhorrent in others is acceptable to us.
I’m finally speechless, and will now go to my echo chamber to find solace.
mmm…lemonheads (#30)–
How do you feel about England and France declaring war on Germany? After all:
THEY weren’t attacked by Germany. THEY weren’t threatened by Germany, nor did Germany declare war on them. This action might NOT have made them safer if things had turned out badly. (If the Nazi apologists held sway here and Germany didn’t declare war on the US, things might have turned out very badly indeed.)
And if things had turned out badly, this would have retroactively unjustified mistreatment of prisoners?
LTEC (f88d1c) — 9/16/2006 @ 7:19 pmI’m not so sure about that.
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 8:42 pmSure explains the cold war.
actus (10527e) — 9/16/2006 @ 8:43 pmSo far, we’ve got Saddam Hussein in jail and Libya’s nuclear weapons program in Oak Ridge, TN. We’ve also got no attacks on American soil in 5 years.
How are we worse off?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 9/16/2006 @ 9:31 pmLemonheads,
One of the (few) areas where I find a lot of merit in stereotypical Leftist arguments is where they counter Righty triumphalist revisionist history with sobering instances of actual American conduct in the past. I think in most respects, our behavior has been better than that of most countries, but that’s setting the bar pretty low.
Relevant to your comment #32 and this conversation, contrast the ideals of the GCs with the suppression of the insurgency in the Phillipines in the aftermath of the Spanish American War, or the US assitstance to Magsaysay in defeating the Communists after World War 2. Links if you want ’em (Wretchard at The Belmont Club had a recent URL-rich essay on the subject).
I was also struck by an online official Dept. of War history of D-Day (this link, alas, I can’t find). The regimental historian noted that just inland from the beaches, the key footpath went over a bridge that was defended by Germans, actually mostly Eastern European conscripts. In the melee, many of the enemy soldiers surrendered, and thus had to be marched back across that footbridge to the beach at the same time as GIs had to advance–all under fire. To clear the path–in the confusion–the row of prisoners was machine-gunned.
I point this out to provide a counterpoint to your implicit claim that in the Happy Past, the U.S. always played by Marquis of Queensbury rules, on the battlefield and off, and that there is something especially loathsome about contemplating the merits of that piece of received wisdom on Fair Play known as The Geneva Conventions.
The sentence that begins, “There was no debate on this subject in the past” oughtn’t end with the clause “because there was nothing to talk about.”
AMac (1d8e48) — 9/17/2006 @ 8:47 amAMac, your point is well taken. I’ve never lived in a fantasy-land where all battle engagements are by the rules, and all POWs and civilians are treated with some sort of human dignity.
mmm...lemonheads (a9d53b) — 9/17/2006 @ 9:12 amI do, however, vehemently reject the idea that the official policy of this country be re-interpreted to sidestep the terms of the GCs. S*it happens in war, and I’d be a fool not to notice. But the civilized world came to a point where it said we need some rules of engagement, and we know they will be disregarded by certain parties, but as civilized societies we still need to codify these ideas, and not to do so would be to condone the very behavior we find abhorrent. This was a bold step, and not without the risks of circumstance, and they knew that when they came up with it. But they did it anyway, in the hopes that societies that valued human rights would be a beacon to those that didn’t. These ideals can live on in our words and deeds, or we can “revise” them at will. I prefer the former.
Fair enough, lemonheads. You are arguing point 1 I outlined in Comment #1 at the start of this thread, which I find the most compelling line of reasoning.
I’d highlight the use of the third person plural in your comment #37. Since WW2, a good part of the “they” you referred to (“the civilized world”) has become progressively more unmoored from reality, or sees it in too-abstract terms. There is an element of schadenfreude among many first world elites, who view the current struggle between elements of the West and the forces of jihad from the perspective of “let’s you and him fight.” I care more than they do if American soldiers or civilians die, who didn’t need to.
So while I agree with your sentiments, I see that as one of the interests we must balance in determining which GC Articles we should accede to, and to whom their protections should be granted. And by we, I mean “The United States,” not the abstract conglomeration of “the civilized world,” which sometimes acts from the highest moral principals, and at other times is drearily parochial and cynical.
AMac (1d8e48) — 9/17/2006 @ 10:49 amGreat metric. We went from 93 till 01 without an islamist attacks.
actus (10527e) — 9/17/2006 @ 12:11 pm[…] I read this post on Patterico’s Pontifications and totally agree. All of the members of Congress that are against changes should ask, when was the last time our POWs been treated correctly under the Geneva convention? Ask Senator McCain if when he was a prisoner, he was treated under the provissions correctly? […]
Since When Has Geneva Protected Our Troops? « A Conservative Techie (b543cc) — 9/17/2006 @ 12:47 pmAs others have pointed out above, the Geneva conventions did protect American prisoners of the Nazis. Certainly American (and British) prisoners were treated much better than Soviet prisoners in part because the US and Britain adhered to the Geneva conventions while the Soviet Union refused to.
I recall a TV series “Hogan’s Heroes” which I doubt would have been produced if the Nazi treatment of American prisoners had been all that brutal in context.
James B. Shearer (f78c06) — 9/18/2006 @ 7:09 pmJames B. —
I think the criticism is that the Conventions incur no protections for our GIs when expanded to include unlawful combatants.
We don’t disagree when it comes to the treatment of our POWs by the Nazis; as I pointed out on my blog:
But we gain nothing for including the jihadis within the purview of the Conventions, other than their bemused contempt at our weakness and lack of resolve. And that results in more attacks on us.
Mike Lief (e9d57e) — 9/19/2006 @ 9:10 am“I think the criticism is that the Conventions incur no protections for our GIs when expanded to include unlawful combatants.”
As I understand it, the debate isn’t really over whether or not to “expand” the GC’s to cover non-POWs, as they are already covered under Common Article 3. The real issue is “should those accused of terrorism be excluded from such protection?”
rick (ea2ac3) — 9/20/2006 @ 6:15 pm