“Failure of your enemies to adhere to the conventions does not release you from their strictures.”

Yes, but only to the extent that any such failures are supposed to be prosecuted by the other side as war crimes. If they sign on to the conventions, then they must prosecute those on their own side who breach them, or order them breached. And non-signatories are only covered if they nevertheless obey the conventions.

However, a signatory who does not prosecute abusers is in breach of it, and a non-signatory who does not obey it is not protected by it. This was of course a practical measure to ensure one side did not gain a perfidious military advantage by claiming its protection while ignoring its limits themselves. Without this, there would have been no incentive for anyone to sign the thing.

Nowadays, having been brought up on Hollywood, we seem to believe that so long as you’re more virtuous than the other side you’ll somehow always win despite them cheating. Or that it is somehow better to lose than to lower yourself to the other side’s level of barbarism.

Cooperation requires reciprocation. Otherwise you’ll just lose.

Regarding your point about Japanese vs. German prisoners. Yes, the Japanese were not treated as well as the Germans, but that wasn’t because the Germans “look like us”. Japan had not signed on to the Geneva Conventions and didn’t feel obligated to follow them. That meant torture, summary execution, forced labor, etc. If captured by the Germans you had a 95% chance of surviving to the end of the war. If captured by the Japanese it was only 75%.

Officially the Allied policy was to adhere to the strictures of Geneva even given facts on the ground, but it would be a difficult policy to enforce with any uniformity, human nature being what it is. There’s plenty of credible evidence supporting the proposition Allied soldiers weren’t all that interested in prisoners.

Also, there’s a misconception floating around here. Failure of your enemies to adhere to the conventions does not release you from their strictures. I think this was a practical measure to prevent one act of barbarism from leading to a policy of brutal treatment by both sides.

But the Conventions do draw a bright line between uniformed and non-uniformed combatants. A country is perfectly within its rights to execute non-uniformed combatants after a short military tribunal.

I also might remind you that the hostages are British and not American, so we don’t really even have a dog in this fight just yet.

The hell we don’t. They’re the uniformed soldiers of an ally of ours, illegally abducted while carrying out perfectly-legal activities in support of a joint operation.

I can see who our dog is just fine, thanks.

And I’m still waiting for some anti-war goof to condemn the Iranian kidnapping, unequivocally. Is it wrong or isn’t it, yes or no? It’s like trying to get CAIR to call the 9-11 attacks or the Ma’alot bombing wrong. Like trying to get a Klansman to unequivocally denounce the school bus bombing. All I hear are crickets.

The Iranian regime (due to its interpretation of Islam) has been at war with the United States and the United Kingdom (among other nations) since 1979.

It may be true that there has been no formal declaration of war, but the regime is at war with us – as the deaths of many hundreds of Westerners (inculding, oddly enough, large numbers of French citizens, for example in 1983) testify.

Nor is it just the President of Iran – although he was one of the hostage taker leaders in 1979 and has been deeply involved in terrorism ever since. The Supreme Leader of Iran and the Council of Guardians are also fully in favour of the struggle against infidels – although they may not agree on tactical matters from time to time.

The present operation has already netted the regime large amounts of money due to higher oil prices. This money will be used to help maintain the regime in power (by various subsidies to the Iranian public) and to finance the killing of British and American people in Iraq and in other places.

Other people will also be killed. It must be remembered that the Iranian regime is even prepared to support some Sunni groups in Iraq in spite of their killing of large numbers of Shia. This is because the judgement is that sacrifices must be made in order to defeat the West.

It is true that some radical Shia hate Sunni (just as some radical Sunni hate Shia) but those who interpret Islam in the way that the radical Shia Iranian regime does (or the way that the radical Sunni groups do) hate infidels far more. Our extermination or enslavemnt is not really an optional matter (although there may be disputes over timeing and tactics), it is a religious duty.

In terms of theology the Iranian regime are what, in Christian thought, are called “voluntarists”. This is nothing to do with believing in voluntary interaction or anything like that, it means that they believe that the commandments of God are good BECAUSE they are the commandments of God.

“Good” is God’s will, it is not a matter of God’s commandments being judged by some external standard (some Calvinists held to this opinion, although they had different commandments to work with).

So, for example, it did not really matter that the young children that the present President of Iran sent off as suicide bombers in the Iraq-Iran war went to Paradise. Even if they had gone to Hell his (the current President) action would still have been good – because he was acting in line with the will of God.

This is because good and evil (to someone of this point of view) have no independent meaning. “Good” is obeying the will of God (whatever it commands) and “evil” is opposing the will of God (whatever it commands).

This is a quite a respectable theological point of view(although I do not share it), but it can have some irritating practical consequences.

There is an odd simularity to some of Lenin’s opinions (this would not please either Marxists or the Iranian Counci of Guardians and so on, but there we are). Lenin held that “good” simply meant the project of the Party, and (therefore) any tactic (lies, murders and so on) that where in support of the Party was, by definition, “good”.

Just as any action that was against the party was, again by definition, “bad”.

It is quite consistent and logical.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/story.html?id=12326

Saddam’s capture and detention was a legitimate act of war. A casus belli for war against Iraq existed in light of Saddam’s genocidal actions against the marsh Arabs and the Kurds – it was not “illegal”. Saddam’s execution was not an act of war – it was a matter for Iraqi civilian authorities.

The British soldiers were seized in what looks to be Iraqi waters and are being held by a foreign power not at war with Great Britain. Most international law pundits would describe this as an illegal act.

Now where’s the double standard here? I’m not seeing it. The two scenarios are not remotely comparable.

The Conventions were supposed to protect prisoners from ill-treatment, and did not originate in the era of TV. What the mischief the “no public display” rule is intended to address is, I suggest, putting prisoners in fear by parading them before baying crowds.

The other question that is worth asking more clearly is do the Conventions apply in absence of war? Stuart’s answer doesn’t help unless he can identify a relevant armed conflict. If these people are not prisoners of war, but either border violators or kidnap victims, why would the Conventions apply to them?

That said, the Geneva Conventions are pretty well outdated, by now. Not that I’m opposed to their intent, but I think it rather obvious that they were written for Western armies and Western nation-states.

The trick here, I think, is “uniformed.” That doesn’t mean that soldiers look nice…it means the distinction between enemy combatants. UNIFORMED soldiers would and should be given GC respect and treatment…however “fighters” that are not uniformed blur the distinction between who is a combatant and who is not and therefore put the general population in jeopardy. In a sense, they are criminals, not soldiers and thus are not due GC respect.

As for holding without charges, remember that most of (I’m speaking to Americans, here…but this probably applies in the UK, too) our laws assume civil society. When civil society has broken down, many of the finer points of the law are suspended. Take for example the suspension of Habeas Corpus during Lincoln’s administration.

Similarly in situations of rioting and mass chaos, the legal system does not have the resources to charge and give trial to everyone seized. Many people arrested in those circumstances may well have been at the wrong place at the wrong time, but until the general rule of law is re-established, they’re giong to be held.

My two cents. (What’s that worth in pounds?)

Well if that so per absurd now UK can start shooting any Iranian captured since doesnt have to obey GC until war is declared?

The fact that military were arrested at gun point isnt that and act of war?

On the subject of the Argentinians ‘observing’ the conventions, does anybody else remember the attack on the Marine barracks in Stanley before dawn on the outset?
They went from room to room with grenades and MPIs to kill any occupants while they were sleeping.
It was undeclared and murderous, and in no way followed Geneva.

I never heard that, but it would have been a legitimate military action regardless. Nothing in he GC says you cannot attack a sleeping enemy, so long as you are part of an organized military force and in your own side’s uniform while you do it.

Does the Geneva Convention even apply if we are not (technically) at war with Iran?

Yes. Iran instigated the armed conflict and is therefore a party to that conflict, whether war is officially declared by either side or not. Think Korea, circa 1950…..

Its very nice to hear from you too.

Most of the old Tacitus gang is now at TheForvm.org, Ken White included, and its about as active as it ever was. In fact Ken White has an excellent front page post there right now.

We conservatives at Theforvm need some reinforcements actually, so your return would be very welcome.

A lot of this debate revolves around the definition of torture. If we used the same definitions of torture in WW II, then having an SS officer be interogated by a Jewish American would qualify as torture. Since he is obviously being humiliated.

The interrogation procedures that some Europeans and others define as torture would be consider mild treatment in the average French commisariat.