Ranting to /dev/null

I'll agree on being bothered by the "immediate and radical politicalization of this whole mess." For everything else,as least as far as I'm concerned, you're on your own. As to the comparitive morality between Abu Ghraib and Saddam, I've already stated my position in the last comment I left: I think they're the same.

Now on to war crimes. First, you haven't maintained the same reason for why what happened at Abu Ghraib should not be considered a war crime. In the original post it was due to the nature of the crime; in this post it is due to the qualifications of the victim (admittedly, this point alone does not nullify your position).

After quoting a part of the Convention, you conclude that since terrorists are offered no protection from the Geneva Convention, then what happened to them is not a war crime. It's a valid conclusion, but your premise is wrong. Terrorists are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is about the protection of civilians. They are considered in Section III, Artlicle 68, paragraphs 1,2:

"Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

"The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began."

Specifically, the terrorists that you seem to have had in mind, the hotel exploding kind, are covered under "intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons." Note that, simply by virtue of being nationals of the occupied country and in it at the time of occupation, they are already protected persons and do not lose this protection upon commiting terrorists acts.

The point in the Third Convention of stressing uniforms, organization, and good conduct is not to imply that those who do not follow these guidelines are offered no protection at all. They are still afforded all rights and protections in regard to the dignity of their person. They are not, however, afforded any privileges of rank, nor are they immune from prosecution for murder if they have killed a soldier.

I admit my argument shifted thrust a bit in this post, but I maintain my position: what happened may have been criminal but is not a violation of the Geneva Convention. Your quotation actually supports my argument, not yours. Note that the people interred have indeed committed offences which constitute "an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration", "a grave collective danger", and have "seriously damage[d] the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them", and are thus excluded from the provision you named.

These people are not civilians. Being nationals of the occupied country would provide them with some protection, but I do not see anything you have brought to light that would suggest that they keep these actions after engaging in terroristic activities which are well outside the scope of war as conceived by said Convention. Furthermore, the terrorists themselves have blatantly and repeatedly violated the Convention by intentionally targeting civilians. They are outlaws, and having chosen to operate outside civilization, have precluded themselves from protection under the guidelines of that civilization.

I do believe that the implication of the Convention is that if you operate within the bounds of legal war you are offered protection as a civilized human being engaged in what is in inherently unpleasant activity. But I also believe that it is the intention of the Convention to exclude from its protection any and all persons who leave civilization behind.

My focus was on the second paragraph quoted. The exceptions mentioned in the first do not exclude them from the protections of the Convention but from consideration for the death penalty. Those protected in this Convention are defined in Art. 4: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Exceptions are then mentioned. "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it." [Still, Part II of the same convention offers general protections without regard to nationality (Art. 13).] Two other groups are excluded from protection because they already have it from another source. 1) Nationals of neutral or co-belligerant states are not protected so long as "the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are." By implication, the cessation of such diplomatic relations would place them in the category of protected persons. 2) Anyone protected by the other three Geneva Conventions are not protected (by this one).

Art. 5 restricts some rights based on "activities hostile to the security of the State." Terrorists would seem to fit into this category. The restricted rights are limited to those that "would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." Specifically applicable to the current situation is the statement in the same article that "such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity."

Art. 8 states, "Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be." This is because, although the rights are theirs, the contract securing these rights was made, not with them as individuals, but with the state of which they are nationals. The only way that the Geneva Convention could "exclude from its protection any and all persons who leave civilization behind" is if the state of which these persons are nationals has revoked their citizenship.

Whether or not what happened at Abu Ghraib is a war crime (assuming that we limit the definition to violations of the Geneva Convention) is not based on the activites, but the national indentity of the victims. Iraq became a party to the Geneva Convention by accession on 2/14/1956.

It's just not that simple. First of all, the issue of the national identity of the detainees is in question. We've apprehended dozens of Iranians, Syrians, and other foreign nationals. These nations are not involved in the conflict. What of them?

Secondly, the more I read the Conventions, the more I tend to think that the requirements are intended to be mutual, and that violation of the rules of war excludes the violating parties from the protections of the convention. For example, if civilian hospitals, which are given extensive treatment in Convention IV, Articles 18-23, are used as bases for military action against the occupying power, they can be declared outside the protection of the Convention if given sufficient warning. Hospitals are really important, and if terroristic activities are in question, they are outside the law. Furthermore, the rules for both sides are clearly laid out. If anything, the terrorists are guilty of war crimes, but no one seems to be complaining about that. Targeting civilians is a war crime, and they've done that. Targeting soldiers while disguised as civilians is a war crime, and that's all they ever do.

Third, there is the question about the identity of Iraq. The state which joined the Convention in 1956 is not the state we deposed. Saddam is without question a war criminal, and flaunted the provisions of Geneva for decades. Was Baathist Iraq a member of the Convention? I don't know. I do know that they used chemical weapons on the Serbs. I also know about the mass graves. So is Iraq a member of the convention? If it was, it shouldn't have been.

Still, something new has entered the picture which makes some of my initial points moot. The Pentagon has indicated it is investigating the deaths of 33 or more detainees. This would add a whole new level of seriousness to the debate, and elevate it from frat-boy inappropriateness to homicide. I don't think that terrorists are protected by the Convention, at least not protected from interrogation, but I also don't think that they can be executed without trial. That's just bad.

If the detainees are nationals of a country that is not a member of the convention, they are not protected by the convention. If they are nationals of a country that has diplomatic relations with the occupying power (in this case, the US), they are not protected by the convention. Nonetheless, the occupying power would do well to treat them as though they were; otherwise, their country of nationality breaks off diplomatic ties, in which case, they are protected by the convention (provided that their country is a member). The only people with no protection at all are those who are nationals of countries that are not members of the convention and that have no diplomatic ties with the occupying power. Even then, they seem to be afforded some protection under Part II of the 4th Convention.

You may have something with the mutual requirements, but I'm not sure. Warring countries that are both members of the Convention have a mutual obligation to uphold it. But does this mean that the obligations of one party are nullified when the other party breaks theirs? I can see how this would have to be the case if it would lead to an unfair advantage. I am hard pressed, though, to see how denying such basic human rights can lead to such a disadvantage. My problem is in the interpretation of a phrase found in Art. 2 of all four Conventions. "They [countries that are members of the Convention] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power [a country that is not a member of the convention], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." The obligations of the member country exist only as long as the non-member country applies the provisions of the Convention. But does this imply that the obligations of one member country towards another member country are only valid so long as the other country applies the provisions; or is it the case that the obligations of each member country are based solely on the fact of being mutual signatories? As a practical matter, except where there is an apparent and unfair advantage, I would think that each country is bound simply by it membership in the convention. Otherwise, it's too easy for the provisions to break down due to retaliation over a minor infraction or, what is worse, a misunderstanding. I mean, war may be acceptable, but petty bickering is ridiculous.

Iraq was still a member of the Convention at the time that Saddam was deposed. Although it had undergone a number of changes in government since becoming a signatory, these were all internal. For purposes of foreign relations it retained its identity. As late as March of 2003, when it had taken some POWs, Iraq said that it would abide by the terms of the Convention. I can't find any references to Iraq using chemical weapons against the Serbs. Did you mean the Kurds? In any event, as far as the Kurds go, Iraq was not in violation of the Covention. It never signed on to the 1977 Protocol that extended the protections of the Convention to internal conflicts. For that matter, neither did we. But let's say that Iraq has been guilty of violating the Convention in the past. This doesn't mean that it gets kicked out once this is discovered. If it did, not only the protections of the Convention, but the responsibilities thereof would be nullified. There would be no legal basis for holding it guilty of War Crimes.

Ryan, I have no idea what your point is.

Were you there when each of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were captured? Nope. So there's no way you know who each of these people were, or if they were wearing proper military garb, or bearing a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, or carrying arms openly, or operating in accordance with the laws and customs of war, or even if they were found rolling down a sand dune covered from head-to-toe in peanut butter.

If you'll kindly take a look back with me (through the magic of memory) to some of the earlier days of this war, you might recall that uniformed Iraqi troops were turning themselves in to the U.S. in droves, some of which had never fired a shot. These Iraqis became P.O.W.s.

So, how is it that your'e so sure that all of the P.O.W.s at Abu Ghraib are terrorists? Do you think everyone in Iraq is a terrorist? Do you think all of them run around detonating themselves? Sure, you don't. That would be ridiculous, right?

I was not attempting to "get all technical and shit" or "pull fancy lawyer bullshit." I did, however, "read the whole damned thing first."

I still hold that the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib are war crimes as spelled out by the Geneva Conventions.

Don't agree?

That's fine.

Remove the panties from your head and go home.