09-12-2003, 04:42 PM
RE: Convention Article 2.b, the Taliban / Taleban (whatever) typically wear black headgear to distinguish themselves.
The Convention doesn't really have much practical use, though. It pretty much serves as a tool to justify some actions to the public. One of the first violations in the invasion of Iraq was by the U.S., when they televised pictures of Iraqi prisoners in contravention of Article 13, "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. ". That was not a harmless violation, either, as there were reports that the families of those who were identified as having surrendered were threatened, arrested or murdered. The declaration that this would be the case was made, and known in the U.S., before the invasion began, as a means to prevent Iraqi troops from surrendering.
Heh, your use of the term "Gitmo" threw me for a second, I assume you are referring to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. :) I don't recall having seen it referred to that way.
Anyway, the treatment of prisoners by the U.S. administration probably just comes down to something that will be judged by those concerned with basic human rights and ethics. The U.S. administration has been inflexible in it's resolve to not permit members of it's military to be judged by the World Court for war crimes or human rights abuses. It has been established by the U.S. courts that Guantanamo Bay is outside their jurisdiction. The U.S. military is left to police itself. You may trust them to do the right thing. As for me, I'll reserve judgment.
Finally, to use unfair treatment of prisoners by others to justify one's own injustices isn't "right". It sounds more like blind revenge.
-rcv-
The Convention doesn't really have much practical use, though. It pretty much serves as a tool to justify some actions to the public. One of the first violations in the invasion of Iraq was by the U.S., when they televised pictures of Iraqi prisoners in contravention of Article 13, "...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. ". That was not a harmless violation, either, as there were reports that the families of those who were identified as having surrendered were threatened, arrested or murdered. The declaration that this would be the case was made, and known in the U.S., before the invasion began, as a means to prevent Iraqi troops from surrendering.
Heh, your use of the term "Gitmo" threw me for a second, I assume you are referring to the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. :) I don't recall having seen it referred to that way.
Anyway, the treatment of prisoners by the U.S. administration probably just comes down to something that will be judged by those concerned with basic human rights and ethics. The U.S. administration has been inflexible in it's resolve to not permit members of it's military to be judged by the World Court for war crimes or human rights abuses. It has been established by the U.S. courts that Guantanamo Bay is outside their jurisdiction. The U.S. military is left to police itself. You may trust them to do the right thing. As for me, I'll reserve judgment.
Finally, to use unfair treatment of prisoners by others to justify one's own injustices isn't "right". It sounds more like blind revenge.
-rcv-