|
|
|
|
11/20/04 Terror and the Geneva Conventions The Geneva Conventions have become one of the liberals' favorite weapons against the Administration of President George W. Bush and our armed forces. I have heard liberals criticize the Administration's determination that captured terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq are not covered by the Geneva Convention relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW), even though the Administration has declared that their treatment will be consistent with the protections afforded by that accord. On a recent news program a liberal pundit criticized Alberto Gonzales, the White House Counsel who has now been nominated by the President to succeed John Ashcroft as the U. S. Attorney General, for declaring the Geneva Conventions "quaint." As you might imagine, she took that word entirely out of context. What he had declared "quaint", in view of the character of the members of the Taliban and al Qaeda (the memo in question was written prior to the initiation of hostilities with Iraq) were "its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific equipment." Leave it to a liberal to argue that humane treatment of a man sworn to try to slaughter babies if he can requires that he be able to buy chocolate and study chemistry at the expense of our military budget. And now we have video of a Marine walking into what had twenty-four hours earlier been a hotbed of terrorist resistance in Falluja, being surprised to detect a terrorist feigning death, and shooting the terrorist in the head after he detected movement. The liberals are crying out that he executed a prisoner of war, which would be a war crime. Everyone knows, after all, that the Geneva Conventions prohibit executing prisoners of war without a fair trial. But the liberals don't seem to know that the GPW defines what a Prisoner of War is. And this man was not protected by that provision. To qualify as a Prisoner of War and thus earn the protections of the Convention, the relevant passage indicates, prisoners must be: 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. These "insurgents" or "terrorists" don't fulfill any of those conditions. There is no discernible chain of command (a), they do not carry standards or wear uniforms of a consistent style (b), they hide in the shadows and plant weapons and bombs secretly (c), and they violate every law and custom of war (d). Anyone who suggests any of these people are protected by the GPW display rank ignorance of the content of that Convention. But the act of that man lying on the floor of that room constitute perfidy, a war crime under the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The relevant passage is from Article 37 of the Protocol: Art. 37. Prohibition of Perfidy 1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. By feigning a state of incapacitation that did not exist, the man on the floor invited the immediate conclusion, confirmed by cool reflection after the fact as the only reasonable conclusion, that he had some evil intent. The marine bore no responsibility to wait for confirmation of that intent by waiting to see if he and his companions were going to be killed by the results of the war crime being committed before his eyes. His obligation to himself, his fellows, and his family, was to kill the man before any such action was possible. It is clear from the tape that the marine was alarmed and dismayed by the man's actions, and that he was reluctant to fire until he felt he had no choice. These are not the actions and reactions of a remorseless killer, but of a trained marine responding appropriately to the most inopportune of situations. Perhaps it is too much to ask a liberal to understand the Conventions and Protocols they use as raw materials to attack the Administration and the Armed Forces of the United States. After all, if they understood them, their argument would evaporate. The Taliban, al Qaeda, and the insurgents in Iraq do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions. Since they not only do not abide by any such Conventions, but flout all human morality and decency, there is no reason to treat them as any better than vermin. The only war criminals in this conflict are on the other side, and we are slaughtering them as they deserve. The marine who shot that prone war criminal deserves commendation, not condemnation. Modified: 01/18/2005 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|