We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Geneva Convention, anyone? The eight British sailors arrested by Iran have been paraded on television and forced to make public confessions. It just occurred to me that these are both violations of the Geneva Convention, which I believe applies in this case because the British sailors were in uniform, etc.
So why have I not heard any screams of outrage from the Usual Suspects? There are, after all, interest groups out there so enamored of the Convention that they want it followed in cases (illegal combatants, nonstate actors, etc.) where its provisions clearly do not apply. You would think they would be double-extra hot to have it followed where its provisions do apply, but apparently not. I guess we can file their complaints under Outrage, Manufactured Selective Partisan, Discount and Dispose of Soonest.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
…or maybe because no-one expects very much of a brutal bunch of backwards religious fanatics. Amnesty issue loads of reports on Iran & most other dictatorships. The reason they don’t cause a scandal is, we expect brutal dictators & religious fanatics to behave like assholes. I expect democratic governments which claim to have an interest in freedom not to, at least not too much anyway.
Also, a) the soldiers have no lack of representation from our government, and b) the mullahs are not known to be particularly swayed by protesting lily-livered westerners, so any effort made condemning them would be solely PR to try & bring the likes of yourself onside, & that’s not about to happen.
Actually, this is the first I’ve heard about forced public confessions. It is, of course, entirely outrageous.
But is also the way the enemies of the West are expected to behave by at least most of my generation. After all, Veitnam consistently required POWs to make such declarations. And Vietnam is the last major conflict with prisoners taken that we have to go on.
Bwahahaha…. Geneva conventions, thats rich!
RC Dean writes:
so enamored of the Convention that they want it followed in cases (illegal combatants, nonstate actors, etc.) where its provisions clearly do not apply.
So, if you are not fighting on behalf of the state, e.g. not wearing a proper uniform, you dont deserve humane treatment?
A_t writes
maybe because no-one expects very much of a brutal bunch of backwards religious fanatics
be careful A_t, someone might think you are refering to the US. 🙂 (ok, I admit, bad joke)
“…so any effort made condemning them would be solely PR …”
Sure, all demonstrations and complaints are PR.
The question is why are all the PR stunts only on one side of the issue.
By the way, R.C., you don’t expect the “usual suspects” to stage PR stunts for you ? They have their own agenda. If you want demostrations against this breach of the Geneva convention you will have to do it yourself.
Off topic somewhat – here is a fabulous tale of demonstration you should all read (if you haven’t allready, via instapundit):
standing up for free speech(Link)
I’m glad to see that i’m not the only who spotted this.
Nice try, Rob.
Unfortunately, events have proven annoying.
The British sailors had clearly commited a (minor) illegal act, i.e. entering Iranian territory without authorization. They haven’t been mistreated or tortured. They have been released after only a few days.
Now think of Guantanamo Bay. Different picture, isn’t it ?
Gee, it’s so hard to be a propagandist sometimes. 🙂
So, if you are not fighting on behalf of the state, e.g. not wearing a proper uniform, you dont deserve humane treatment?
You’re not covered by the Geneva Convention. Whether you deserve humane treatment is a different issue. The distinction between what’s legal and what’s right, you know.
By the way, R.C., you don’t expect the “usual suspects” to stage PR stunts for you ? They have their own agenda.
No, I don’t expect that. My point is that their real agenda (anti-American, tranzi, etc.) is not their professed agenda (pro-human rights).
The British sailors had clearly commited a (minor) illegal act, i.e. entering Iranian territory without authorization. They haven’t been mistreated or tortured. They have been released after only a few days.
Assuming that what they did was illegal (and I’m not sure it was, as the border along that riverbed is disputed and not easy to locate in any event), and crossing a border illegally does not lift the protections of the Convention, so this point is irrelevant. Regardless, they were “mistreated” under the terms of the Convetion.
Now think of Guantanamo Bay. Different picture, isn’t it ?
From a legal perspective, sure, because the Convention doesn’t apply to the illegal combatants in Guantanamo.
“Sure, all demonstrations and complaints are PR.
The question is why are all the PR stunts only on one side of the issue.”
yeah, but mobilising public opinion against Western governments often achieves results; elected governments have an interest in looking good… attempting to mobilise public opinion against the Iranian government probably raises “yep, we know they’re evil” from most people, & the Iranian government ain’t gonna change squat just because some people over here (or some people over there) think they’re doing bad things now, are they?
So, where was the hidden agenda?
Solution – Not in uniform, armed and beligerant? Shoot them.
A_t provides a textbook example of the bigotry of low expectations. Of course, failing to even go through the motions of protesting violations by dictatorships does, in fact, give them a pass on these violations, thus enabling and facilitating future violations.
Guys,
Technically, with regards to the conflict in Iraq, Iran is a neutral country, therefore:
Rules for prisoners of war are NOT applicable.
Rules for internment of belligerent forces in a neutral country ARE applicable.
Strict application of the Geneva Conventions would see the Marines and sailors as members of a belligerent’s armed forces interned in Iran in military custody for the duration of hostilities just as Sweden and Switzerland interned Allied personnel in WW2.
mike – I presume the protections for prisoners are largely the same, regardless.
You raise an interesting question, though – what is the state of play between Iraq and Iran these days? How was their war of the ’80s resolved? Are they at peace, or is it a very chilly ceasefire?
mike, technically, with regards to the conflict in Iraq, the war is over, it is now an occupation, and there are no “belligerents” as defined for an ongoing war. That there is an “insurgency” is an entirely different matter; that Iran is in fact a belligerent against the Occupying forces and not a Neutral should not be ignored. Soon, Iran will again be conducting war against Iraq, as it continues to attempt to undermine the interim govt., and as is usual, Iran will continue to violate the Geneva Conventions.
R C Dean,
Conditions for internees should be better than POWS. No interrogations. Decent accommodation comparable to interning countries own forces of comparable rank. Think of house arrest or confined to barracks.
Iran Iraq war ended summer 88, ceasefire, withdrawal to 1980 frontier, negotiations on POW repatriations dragged on for over 10 years. Always tension, Arabs and Persians been fighting on and off for 3000 years.
Steve,
I’ll meet you half way, there is a lot in what you write. Maybe it’s a judgement call, but until there is a final settlement with an Iraqi government and a formal end to the occupation, I’d say a state of war continues. Bush only announced an end to “major combat operations” (which I always understood to mean operations against organised regular military formations) not the end of the war.
As for Iran’s belligerent status, as I see it, their actions have been covert (although not unnoticed) the Coalition to date has not confronted them openly and therefore they remain technically neutral.
“Of course, failing to even go through the motions of protesting violations by dictatorships does, in fact, give them a pass on these violations, thus enabling and facilitating future violations.”
a) I’m sure our government has done a good job of protesting, for what good it’ll do.
b) As I said above, dictatorships are not renowned for their sensitivity to pansy-ass Western human rights types, or their responsiveness to demonstrations (apart from by shooting the demonstrators, that is)….so it’s hardly “enabling and facilitating”, as you could protest as much as you liked, it wouldn’t change how the mullahs thought.
If you really believe demonstrations or concerned Western citizens getting in a huff will change their minds, why are you not currently organising or at least advocating one or both?
A_T – I’m not sure how much good the protests would do, but then again I am not an organization whose very existence (not to mention fundraising) is based on the premise that protesting human rights violations makes a difference.
C’mon, do you really think these tranzi NGO types believe that they really can’t do a damn thing to help those really in need? Do you think it is really okey dokey for them to trade on their moral legitimacy obtained by reference to genuine oppression and suffering, merely to influence domestic elections in nations where human rights is not really a serious concern by prevailing global standards?
I mean, yeah, I think your average tranzi NGO type is either stupid or duplicitous enough to believe all of the above, but I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t have their snout in the NGO trough to go along.
The ‘tranzi NGO type’ is your local mythological creature; the equivalent of the old school left’s ‘ruthless capitalist’ who liked to see children worked into the ground for the sake of 20 cents’ profit. Both certainly have some roots in reality, but to use either as representative of their respective fields indicates a biassed, misinformed mindset & makes debate difficult, as one has to confront & attempt to dispel the mythological beast before sensible debate about real human beings can start.
Also, on the protest front, what do you want?
Demonstrations?
Hard to drum up against obscure 3rd world governments, except if the government in question does something particularly evil (eg Tienanmen square).
Newspaper reports?
Helps if there’s something genuinely newsworthy.. “Iranian Government is evil” hardly cuts it; most people knew that already. They’ll only be interested if the government gets spectacularly more evil, or reforms in a similarly spectacular fashion.
Letter-writing campaigns?
Dunno about this case, but Amnesty have had a fair few going out towards Iran in recent years if you check their site out. See also my point below.
So what would you like from these people? It’s not duplicity that motivates their silence on this issue so much as the realisation that most forms of highly public reaction will falter at the first post, because the public in the West really isn’t bothered. In the particular case of these soldiers, it would largely be a waste of resources that could be used to help others who might not have a powerful Western government to help them out; I don’t think the fate of these soldiers was ever in much doubt, or that Amnesty or any of the other “usual suspects” could have had much of a deciding influence relative to the UK government’s clout.