US Has Lost Moral High Ground on Treatment of Prisoners
The US military has, understandably and correctly, condemned the coerced video of a US soldier taken hostage by Taliban in Afghanistan.
But I fear that the argument that the public humiliation of prisoners is against international law won't take the US very far after 8 years of Bush-Cheney.
After the evidence surfaced that the US military took all those humiliating pictures of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to blackmail them by threatening to make them public, the US assertion of support for this principle of the Geneva Conventions will be met with, well, let us say substantial skepticism.
In fact, as I was reminded by a former ambassador, the Bush-Cheney-Yoo-Addison gutting of US conformance with the Geneva Conventions really makes it difficult for Washington credibly to complain about the treatment of any of our captured soldiers. The Taliban could hold the soldier hostage forever if they follow the principle put forward by Sen. Lindsey Graham. They could (God forbid) put him in stress positions naked and threaten to release the pictures to his family, and they would have done nothing that Rumsfeld's Pentagon had not done routinely and on a vast scale.
The US refusal to so much as investigate American officials implicated in torture and breaking international law also does not help us gain credibility on seeing to it that those who mistreat our troops are tried on those charges. We even have Dick Cheney defending waterboarding, for which Japanese generals were tried and executed after WW II. It is disgusting.
And huffing and puffing that the Taliban are not a government won't get us very far either. They control 10 percent of the country.
You obey the Geneva Conventions and the rest of international law on the treatment of captives because it gives you the moral high ground with regard to the treatment of our troops. Not doing so endangers every single one of our men and women in uniform. The chickenhawks who called such international agreements 'quaint' and outmoded should be drafted and sent to the front.
What is really scary is that the shadowy set of secret military and intelligence teams charged by Cheney to break international law continuing to do so despite President Obama's orders to cease torture. Obama had better get a handle on this issue, because it could well blow up in his face, in fact, Cheney may intend it to do so. I think there are still people in the US government who take their cues from the latter rather than the former.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/22/2009 12:50:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Knowing the intended propaganda effect that the Taliban aimed for, I must point out that it's even harder to decry the "disgusting" portrayal of prisoners when they are sitting there having tea...
I'd say the Taliban know exactly what they are doing- and are attempting to reframe their image - fully knowing that the US has lost respect among many when it comes to detainee treatment/abuse.
Yes, the US has lost credibility because Americans tortured illegal combatants (not, by the way, because it detained them in the first place). However, the fact that the Taliban's US prisoner was captured in uniform, etc (in conformance with Geneva) stands for something. Also, keep in mind that conformance with Geneva means our soldiers can shoot illegal combatants in the field or simply execute them upon capture. That's part of Geneva, too. It's a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.
The American Soldier is definitely protected under the Geneva Conventions.
Bush-Cheney-Yoo suggest that as 'irregulars' no such protection is afforded to gitmo residents.
Whether that is correct in law, or not, does not matter. This is an excellent examply of 4th generation warfare.
The Taliban behavior would not change one bit even if gitmo or abu grahib never happened.
The mere fact that a professor of Dr. Cole's stature comments as he does is proof that the Taliban 'narrative' is
working.
Good for including Yoo! And good analysis of Cheney's tactics and possible strategy.
Juan: did you mean to write "...Bush-Cheney-Yoo-Armitage gutting..." or did you mean "Bush-Cheney-Yoo-Addington"?
Sometimes I feel like every problem we have on the war on terror would be solved if we followed the "Do unto others..." maxim.
Would America like foreign troops stationed in America? No. Do we like our prisoners mistreated? No.
great post.
Sean Hely dared to write : Also, keep in mind that conformance with Geneva means our soldiers can shoot illegal combatants in the field or simply execute them upon capture. That's part of Geneva, too. It's a bit more complicated than you're making it out to be.
This is absolutely false download this pdf document explaining the Geneva Convention from the ICRC website and read the second page of the section entitled "Rules relating to the conduct of combatants and the protection of prisoners of war" :
c) In exceptional cases, when required by the nature of the hostilities, a combatant can be released from the obligation to distinguish himself from the civilian population by wearing a uniform or distinctive sign recognizable at a distance during military operations. However, in such situations, these combatants must distinguish themselves by carrying arms openly during the engagement and during such time as they are visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which they are to participate. Even failing to comply with the obligation of carrying arms openly can deprive a combatant of his status, but not of the guarantees relating to it, in the case of his being prosecuted for carrying arms illegally either with or without other offences.
These provisions are not intended to modify the generally accepted practice of uniforms being worn by members of regular armed units of the Parties to conflicts. To avoid uncertainty and prevent any arbitrary measures at the time of capture, the Protocol specifies that any person taking part in hostilities and captured is presumed to be a prisoner of war and is treated as a prisoner of war, even in case of doubt as to his status. In the latter case, the question will be decided by a tribunal at a later date. A person who, having taken part in hostilities, is eventually deprived of his right to the status of prisoner of war, benefits not only from the provisions of the Fourth Convention applicable in his case but also from the fundamental guarantees laid down in article 75 of the Protocol (see Section Ill, point 6 at end, below page 31).[III, 5; P. I, 45]
(this last paragraphe means that if the person is not a combatant then it is a civilian and as such benefits of the protection due to civilians).
(Text in italic refers to the manual linked and text in bold italic are quotes from the Geneva Conventions).
Professor,
As others have indicated, you miss the point on the Bergdahl video. The Taleban is demonstrating, by showing a healthy well-dressed and unmarked prisoner, that they take a higher moral ground than the Great Satan, which in light of past events is not difficult.
In these kinds of wars propaganda, the fight for peoples' minds, is paramount. The Pentagon condemnation of such a benign video, remembering the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse photos, simply heightens the contrast and reinforces the video's propaganda value.
"In exceptional cases, when required by the nature of the hostilities, a combatant can be released from the obligation to distinguish himself ..."
[blah blah blah, explanation of Geneva conventions rules about ununiformed combatants]
The conventions are an agreement between signatories.
Under what signatory to the Geneva Conventions do Al Queda and the Taleban fight?
You're probably right, though, about the not allowing "execution on capture" (which we didn't do) if they were fighting under the banner of a signatory government (which they weren't). This is a different kind of war that the Geneva Conventions did not have in mind -- plus, like I said, who signed what?
As far as I can tell, nobody but nobody has defended, and in fact everybody has condemned what happened at Abu Garhib.
Under what signatory to the Geneva Conventions do Al Queda and the Taleban fight?
1) The US has signed the Geneva conventions and as such has engaged itself to apply its principles, this whether the other party did sign them or not.
2) The Geneva conventions include the basic chart/principles (derived from customary laws, the so-called law of war inherited from the Middleage) and additional protocols. These protocols have been added after important wars. The protection of civilians for instance has been added after WWII.
Other protocols protecting combatants of the national liberation movements and resistants have been added after the different wars of independance and also because the main wars nowadays are more often civil wars than traditional wars (with the exception of US invading Iraq). Several other protocols added concerns weapons (they forbide the use of cluster bombs near the place where civilians are living, for instance, they request the use of proportional force, etc..)
3) These additional protocols need to be signed one by one by each country and not all the countries have signed on them all. Some countries only signed the fundamental chart and a few other protocols. The European countries are those who signed the most additional protocols.
5) The US has not signed all signed all the protocols, far from that. Despite its grandstanding concerning freedom and democracy and fundamental rights, she has not signed more protocols than rogue states.
4) The main reason why the countries sign and apply the Geneva Conventions is "reciprocity" aka if you treat our prisonners well, if you don't attack our civilians, then we will treat you in the same way. There is no police or army force which will punish you if you dont' apply the Conventions. The ICRC can only use persuasion.
5) The problem with the US is that she believes to be the strongest and that her military personal does not stand at much risk. For this reason or another she didn't sign more additional protocols than those states she decries as rogue states (for instance North Korea and Israel). By contrast, Iran has signed almost all the additional protocols. (I'm quoting by memory here, the ICRC has a list of all the protocols and which countries signed them on its website).
6) In particular, the Bush administration has refused to participate in the creation of the International Criminal Court, the court which judge the crimes against humanity (if they aren't punished by the country where they have been comitted).
More signs that the Afghan Taliban are cleverly seeking to counter the U.S. on "morals" in war:
Taliban Issues Code of Conduct for its Fighters, Seeks to Minimize Civilian Casualties & Decrease "Martyrdom" Operations
Post a Comment
<< Home