Let’s look up terrorists’ “rights” in the Geneva Conventions
Rathergate.com
This one is a long one, kids, but if you’re sick and tired about hearing what “rights” terrorists have, stick around and find out the truth.
I’m not surprised anymore by the editorializing of the Reuters news service, but this Reuters story linked by The Unalienable Right in particular cheesed me off. With the endless huffing and puffing of the MSM and others on the “rights” of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, it’s time to set the record straight.
From Reuters:
<<<
The United States holds about 520 suspected Islamic militants at Guantanamo, most of whom were caught in Afghanistan. The detainees are denied rights accorded under international law to prisoners of war and many have been held without charge for more than three years.
>>>
Of course, there’s the obvious bias — the journalist is so sure of himself that he did not cite a source. But here’s the $64,000 question — what rights do terrorists have as prisoners of war under international law?
The answer? Very few. Sit down, kids, and take notes because there will be a test next period.
Every year, soldiers are required by regulation to receive a class on the Geneva Conventions and the laws of warfare. The task of training the company usually falls on me — not only because am I a smart cookie, but also because, apparently unlike a lot of MSM journalists, I have read every damned word of the thing.
It’s time to dispel some MSM myths and explain why the laws of war are the way they are.
(My source is the on-line copy of the conventions, ironically provided by the Society of Professional Journalists. At the very least, you’d think that would encourage journalists to read it.)
The four Geneva Conventions were approved in 1949, with two protocols (amendments) appproved in 1977. In a sentence, the main purpose of the laws is to protect the life and property rights of prisoners of war, noncombatants and the wounded. Its secondary purpose is to spell out combat rules that ensure that the dirty business of war is waged as humanely as possible among combatants.
The Geneva Conventions do not identify terrorists as legal combatants deserving of prisoner of war status.
Convention I, Article 13: Non-traditional combatants, such as militias or resistance movements, must, among other things, have “a fixed sign recognizable at a distance,” they must “carry their army openly”, and they must themselves follow the laws of war.
Combatants who deliberately endanger or kill civilians violate the purpose of the conventions and are no longer entitled to their protections (click here, look under “international rules about soldiers“).
globalissuesgroup.com
The Reuters article indicated that most of Gitmo’s detainees are from Afghanistan, meaning they are likely either al-Qaida or Taliban who know where al-Qaida members are laying low. Even if terrorists were covered in the conventions, al-Qaida would be exempt because of numerous and grievous violations of the laws of war on Sept. 11, 2001 (a date that a lot of MSM apologists have long forgotten). The Taliban could have fared better — they were an Afghan militia in a country that signed the conventions — but their tactics and lack of distinct insignia also exempt them.
Terrorists were left out for a reason.
The Gitmo story will sputter out and sooner or later the MSM will undoubtedly look for a way to revitalize it; look at how long Abu Ghraib was kept on life support. Bet hard cash on it — some editor or talking head somewhere will start spinning the lack of terrorist rights as an oversight on the part of the convention’s authors. Changes will be called for.
But the lack of status for terrorists was not an oversight. It was intentional, and for a damned good reason — the very nature of terrorism defies the conventions’ main purpose:
The conventions require combatants to have uniforms or insignia, and brandish their weapons openly to help identify combatants from civilians. An enemy that looks like civilians and can melt among them increases both the odds of civilian casualties as well as reprisals against civilians by the occupying army.
Armies tend to follow the laws of war because of the belief that the other side is doing so — a soldier will treat enemy prisoners humanely because he wants the enemy to do the same to him. As al-Qaida has shown with televised beheadings and two demolished skyscrapers, they are unwilling to do so.
But besides being unwilling to handle POWs, al-Qaida is unable to do so. The conventions grant POWs many rights, from medical care to Red Cross access to medical attention to sending and receiving mail. Beheadings aside, terrorist networks without territory or the logistic capabilities of an armed force cannot accommodate these requirements.
Finally, recognizing terrorists as legal combatants would violate the very spirit of the convention, which is to protect civilians. The word “terrorist” itself strikes down the concept as stupidity. Al-Qaida cannot defeat the U.S. through force of arms, hence their bombing attacks against Iraqi civilians, not to mention their planning for the next Sept. 11, to generate ill will and force an early exit of coalition troops.
Aah, yes, what about torture?
Now, this is not to say that captured terrorists do not have any rights. Countries that have signed the convention cannot use detainees, regardless of status, for medical experiments, human shields or similar grievous abuses.
Now, of course this brings us to the touchy subject of “torture,” depending on your definition of inhumane treatment. Numerous articles of the conventions forbid physical and mental torture and coercion.
My argument is hinged upon the “vanilla” torture we have been reading about at Gitmo, such as sleep deprivation, cell temperature, loud music, prolonged standing, etc. No solid evidence has been offered to lend credence to accusations of beatings, suspension from ceilings, etc. — remember that al-Qaida operatives are trained to make outrageous accusations.
Regardless of the Geneva Conventions, torture is still prohibited under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as federal law. However, the United States’ definition of “torture” under U.S. law and these treaties is extreme physical or mental angush, i.e. true Nazi, Soviet, Pol Pot stuff. This definition leaves a little wiggle room to play Christina Aguilera to a devout Muslim or keep a terror suspect standing for four hours.
Conclusions
I think we have spelled out the reason why terrorists are not covered under these laws of war. And even if they were, our main antagonists in the War on Terror abrogated their right to protection with the destruction of the World Trade Center, and using civilians and an unmarked plane to attack the Pentagon.
This blog and others have made it abundantly clear that Guantanamo inmates are being fed, clothed and housed humanely, and any talk of updating the conventions or granting its inmates POW status should be vigorously opposed.
If you’re not yet convinced, I’ll remind you of who terrorists consider to be legal combatants.
We fight an enemy that intentionally targets civilians.
Given the choice between killing a handful of GIs with a roadside bomb or killing thousands in an American city with a chemical weapon, al Qaida will always opt for civilian casualties. In their minds, our nationality alone makes us legitimate targets.
The detainees at Gitmo may know something that staves off the next attack. Binding ourselves to the conventions regarding their interrogation would limit us to asking only name, rank, serial number and date of birth (Convention III, Article 17). Given al-Qaida’s desire to kill civilians, I find extending them full prisoner of war status to be abhorrent.
As for MSM coverage, I chalk 90 percent of their babble about terrorists’ rights to ignorance of the military and international law, such as the Washington Post editorial claiming that Iraq soldiers pay more in taxes than the rich, when in fact soldiers in a combat zone pay no federal taxes.
But I have two humble requests for any journalist who wants to pontificate about terrorists and international laws of war.
Make your first stop this collection of pictures.
september11news.com
Then read about the lives of these people who died as the pictures were shot.
september11victims.com
If that’s not graphic enough to sate you, you can see terrorists in Iraq beheading a prisoner here.
cshink.com
And if you think your status as an impartial “citizen of the world” will save your captured ass, click here for a graphic reminder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
en.wikipedia.org
UPDATE: If you’re a cartoon person, Day By Day today is a shining example about what rights and privileges the passengers of United Airlines flights 93 and 175, and American Airlines flights 11 and 77 enjoyed on Sept. 11, 2001, to say nothing of their intended targets.
daybydaycartoon.com
I mean, if you’re going to defend these monsters, it’s only fair that you check out what it is you are defending. A long look in a mirror to determine what you have become in the name of an agenda is also recommended, but not required.
Secondly, do your goddamned homework and read the damned treaties rather than what Amnesty International, MoveOn or other advocacy groups feed you. If you’re too busy to take the time to know what you’re talking about, then write about something else.
Or just shut up. That’s just as good.
rathergate.com
news.yahoo.com
federalistjournal.com
genevaconventions.org
globalissuesgroup.com
globalissuesgroup.com
globalissuesgroup.com
globalissuesgroup.com
www1.umn.edu
globalissuesgroup.com |
