5/13 Washington Post Lead Editoral (http://csua.org/u/7ba
"If you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American
citizen in control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a
bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45
minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or
a violation of the Geneva Convention?" ... "I would describe it as a
violation," Mr. Pace [vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]
said. "What you've described to me sounds to me like a violation of
the Geneva Convention," Mr. Wolfowitz said. ... Now Mr. Pace and Mr.
Wolfowitz have said the techniques approved by Mr. Sanchez would be
illegal if used on Americans; Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Myers say they are
fine as applied to Iraqis. But there are not separate Geneva
Conventions for Americans and for the rest of the world. We learned
this week that the Pentagon approved the use of hooding, stress
positions, sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs and prolonged
solitary confinement as legal under the Geneva Conventions.
\_ One thing I heard floated about is that Al Qaeda et al are not a
state, and certainly do not subscribe to the Geneva convention
themselves. Thus treating 'terrorist' prisoners by the Geneva
Convention would be nice of the US, but US is not required to do so.
Of course not all Iraqi prisoners are 'terrorists' by even
the most loose definition.
Incidentally, I heard the Geneva Convention requires that POWs be
paid a wage. I wonder who actually does this. -- ilyas
\_ I know the US did for German POWs during WWII.
\_ Yes, POWs are to be paid for work they do. Of course, if
you're naked for the majority of your stay with a bag on
your head, you probably aren't doing much work.
\_ What? Naked cheerleading practice doesn't count?
\_ I believe they are supposed to be paid their regular wage,
whether or not they are working.
\_ Iraqi citizens, terrorists or not, are covered by the GC.
\_ How so? If you fight a foe who does not subscribe to the GC,
you are not required to subscribe to the GC yourself when
treating their captured. Unless I am confused about how
the GC works... -- ilyas
\_ The GC governs how signatories must treat the citizens of
an occupied country. I don't know whether or not it
applies if the occupied country is not a signatory, and I
don't know whether of not Iraq is a signatory.
\_ Well, even if Iraq is ... it no longer applies because
(a) it has no legidimate government, and (b) some of
the guys ARE terrorists with no state allegiance. Maybe
we need a new convention to govern hostile non-state
entities. -- ilyas
\_ It absolutely applies if there's no legitimate
government. That's the whole point of protecting
civilians. Otherwise as soon as one country
conquers another, if could just execute all the
civilians because there's no signatory government to
protect them anymore. It also protects terrorists
if they are Iraqi civilians. If they are *not*
Iraqi, they need to be treated under the regular
criminal justice system in Iraq, whatever that is.
\_ Ok, so why would one sign? Say you are fighting
'partisans' or 'terrorists' who don't care about
the GC. Why should you treat them well if they
don't treat you well? It perhaps makes you
more humane, but it's not really a reciprocal
agreement anymore. What about a nation state
that didn't sign, like NK? -- ilyas
\_ You want a purely Utilitarian argument for
respecting the Geneva Convention? OK, imagine
we make a bunch of excuses and basically
ignore the GC for this war. The next time we
we get in a war, the enemy will have no
incentive to treat our prosoners well. They'll
just say "Look what those Americans did to
those prisoners! They deserve nothing but a
long painful death!" Ignoring the GC now will
cause future torture and execution of American
POWs.
\_ I think treating only signatory nation state
prisoners by the GC is reasonable... -- ilyas
\_ why is US in Iraq in the first place?
huh huh. Americans are weird. They
invade other countries, saying first
it's WMD, and then changing it to like
they want to bring freedom, human rights
to Iraq, and then they torture
Iraqis and justify it saying that the
country didn't sign GC. huh huh. Of
course, pseudo-intellectuals like ilyas
don't really care about these things.
He just wants a theoretical discussion
about when it's ok to violate GC in
his imaginary lala land.
\_ speaking of pseudo-intellectuals...
\_ You remind me of one my favorite
intellectuals -- Beavis. ("I don't
like things that suck, and I only
like things that are cool."). But
adding to Beavis' mental clarity is
your unusual grasp of the psychological
nature of your opponent. -- ilyas
\_ It's hopeless to argue with ilyas. I used to think
he is a troller, but by now I realize he has lost
his head without surgery or never had one. For the
rest of us, the Geneva convention stipulates that
coutry at war need to treat the POW they take
nicely, and when one side won and take over the
other, treat the nationals of the defeated they
captured nicely (nicely is defined there). If any
one violates this, he should (in principle) be
prosecuted for war crime. Now this is law, whether
you want to adhere to it or break it is another
matter. Anyway there is an advantage to US in that
US bars itself from being prosecuted for war crime,
so when US violates the Geneva convention, even
though it is illegal, nobody can (or dare to)
prosecutes it.
\_ This argument is moot, as Undersecretary of Defense for
Intelligence Cambone said the Geneva Conventions apply
"precisely" to Iraq. To back up another point you made,
both Cambone and Taguba said the Conventions do not apply
at Guantanamo Bay.
\_ Can you summarize your post in two words? (hint hint)
\_ I could, but I chose not to. I already edited down for key
points with appropriate supporting information. I do think,
though, that this one was hard to compress.
though, that this one was hard to compress. By the way, go
rent The Fog of War. Interview with 85-year-old Cal alum
McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense for a while.
\_ MASS GRAVES!!!
\_ POGROMED JEWS!!!
\_ Why don't you get a clue or are you still an FOB? Americans are
different from the dogs infesting the rest of the world. Have
you ever heard of the phrase "American Exceptionalism?" America
is the new Jerusalem and we are the real Israelites.
\_ eh, you should be talking to the Washington Post, not to me
\_ Missing the point that the GC is a treaty which doesn't apply to
everyone. Does cutting off some civilian's head violate anything?
\_ Do you think, if we catch the people who cut off his head, that
we *wouldn't* prosecute them? -tom
\_ "The Fourth Geneva Convention relates to the protection of
civilians during times of war and under any occupation by a
foreign power." -Wikipedia
\_ Rush Limbaugh told me there was no such thing as
International Law. |
http://csua.com/feed/