Say Anything Blog

I heard that the Chinese were threatening to cancel their massive Oil pipeline to Iran over the Iranian Human Rights violations in their treatment of the Brits.  Expect the UN Security Council to take real action over this.  The Blue Hats are massing their Navy right off the coast and threatening to get them back by force if need be.

There doesn’t appear to be any organ failure or death yet, so obviously there has been no torture.

I’d be willing to be that the English “detainees” are getting the finest treatment offered to prisoners.  I bet they have fine meals, access to bibles and lawyers, and exercise machines…

Right? 

They do, right?

Hawk,

True or False (Please justify your answers by quoting the relevant text of Geneva III.) :

The 15 Royal Marines and Royal Navy personel imprisioned by the Iranians are being treated in accordance with Geneva III.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being treated in accordance with Geneva III.

Well?

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

WOOF,

Mister Jones should go join them, if he really feels they are being well treated.  Perhaps he can even substitute for one of them.  Nah, that would require the courage of conviction, vice snark.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

True or False (Please justify your answers by quoting the relevant text of Geneva III.) :

The 15 Royal Marines and Royal Navy personel imprisioned by the Iranians are being treated in accordance with Geneva III.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being treated in accordance with Geneva III.

Both false. 

Articles 13 and 17

Hawk,

While better than average for the left around here, you’re only batting .500 at this point.

You answered:

Both false.

Articles 13 and 17

In response to my:

True or False (Please justify your answers by quoting the relevant text of Geneva III.) :

The 15 Royal Marines and Royal Navy personel imprisioned by the Iranians are being treated in accordance with Geneva III.

The detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being treated in accordance with Geneva III.

The correct response is false to the first (as per the articles you cite), and true to the second, as the articles you site pertain ONLY to Prisoners of War as defined in Article 4, and excludes those determined to be illegal combatants as per the tests of Article 4 and the procedures of Article 5 (which are entirely satisfied by the Status Review Tribunals held at Guantanamo Bay).

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Hawk apparently thinks that black masks and AK47s makes them legal combatants.

So because they weren’t wearing a uniform and weren’t fighting for a state we they don’t get the protections of the Geneva Convention even though many were taken from the field of battle.  It is an a distinction most people don’t make and don’t care to make.  And you wonder why we constantly lose the public relations battle.

So because they weren’t wearing a uniform and weren’t fighting for a state we they don’t get the protections of the Geneva Convention…

Hawk,

Exactly right!  If you’ll read the Geneva Conventions carefully, you’ll see that the applicability is very specific.

Of course, legalisms aside, there is a pretty powerful argument that those who engage in the deliberate murder of civilians, who bomb restaurants and markets and crowded buses, who gleefully slaughter their victims by torture and decapitation probably shouldn’t be entitled to much in the way of legal protection in the first place.

As for “constantly los(ing) the public relations battle,” as you so quaintly put it, who cares???

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

As for “constantly los(ing) the public relations battle,” as you so quaintly put it, who cares???

Obviously almost everyone on this site because they constantly complain about the MSM.

And the Geneva Conventions are not the only protections prisoners have.  Our country has laws banning torture.  That is why President Bush had to have Alberto Gonzales define torture as organ failure or death, so that techniques like water boarding could than be legal.  However, I would bet that if an American was ever water boarded by any other country, we would scream torture.

Obviously almost everyone on this site because they constantly complain about the MSM.

The MSM lies, distorts, and falsifies to change public perception.  If Bat 1 or others were lying about what the Geneva Conventions said, then I’d have an issue with that.

There’s a difference between doing something because it’s popular and doing something because it’s “right”.

Clinton led the country by polls, and while people might have felt “good” about his decisions, most decisions made by “polls” are the wrong decisions.

Polls take a sampling of feelings… which are often based upon the last headline you read on CNN.com. 

When you read the whole article and digest the information, you can make a rational decision… headlines only give you enough information to generate a “Feeling"…

Hawk said, And you wonder why we constantly lose the public relations battle.

We lose the public relations battle because people have an irrational hatred of America. Many around the world will take the Islamic bomber who uses children over the American soldier. It doesn’t matter what the circumstances are as long as it is against America.

The entire point of Rob’s post is to point out this hypocrisy.

Hawk,

My apologies for your misapprehension.  My opinion about those “laws against torture” is that they are little more than self-serving, PR crap.  I couldn’t care less if Khalid Sheik Mohammed had his eyes removed with a rusty soup spoon or his testicles slowly destroyed in a vise.  Fact is, I’d be perfectly willing to turn the handle.

In case you have been too busy moralizing to notice, we are the only ones in this conflict paying any attention to the Geneva Conventions, or any of the other international commandments on the treatment of captives.  It is a stupid and dangerous mistake to suppose that our enemies will be more amenable if we are nice to them.  History show that such behavior on our part only encourages their contempt.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hawk responds with:

So because they weren’t wearing a uniform and weren’t fighting for a state we they don’t get the protections of the Geneva Convention even though many were taken from the field of battle.

Article 4 allows for irregular forces and specifies the conditions they must meet to be considered legal combatants.  The fact that our enemies do NOT meet those conditions makes them illegal combatants.  Being an illegal combatant is, in and of itself, a war crime punishable by death.

That is black letter international law.

It is an a distinction most people don’t make and don’t care to make.

Most of the people I associate with can, care to, and indeed do make such distinctions.

And you wonder why we constantly lose the public relations battle.

No, I don’t wonder why.  The intersection of media ignorance and activism is sufficient cause for me.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Looks like they are being released.

Looks like they are being released.

Without so much as a peep from the media about Geneva Convention violations.  What a surprise!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I heard from the media that having them give speeches was against the Geneva Conventions.  How did you hear about it?

Are you trying to make a case for war with Iran?

Are you trying to make a case for war with Iran?

We don’t need to. Iran does a good job of that all by itself.

The country is headed up by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Muslim belonging to the Twelver sect of Shi’ism. Essentially, that means that he believes that he can bring about the return of the 12th Imam by bringing war to the infidels. (Other Shi’ite sects differ in that they believe the 12th Imam will return on his own schedule.)

This 12th Imam lives at the bottom of a well. You can visit this well by traveling down a new road leading to it that has been built by Mahmoud. If you so wish, you can do as other Twelvers do and toss a note down the well to the 12th Imam. I’m sure that he has fun reading those notes!

Mahmoud sits there and tells the rest of the world that he’s going to build nuclear weapons no matter what and there’s nothing we’re going to do about it. The sad thing is, is that the guy is right.

But hey,..case for war? Let’s just wait until he has those nuclear weapons. Let’s ignore the things he has said about bringing war to the infidels. Let’s roll the dice on this one. It’s only our survival.

Hawk opines:

I heard from the media that having them give speeches was against the Geneva Conventions.  How did you hear about it?

Being conversant with the Geneva Conventions, neither Bat One, nor I (nor anyone else familiar with the Customary Laws of Warfare) needed to be told that the Iranian media show of their hostages was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.  It was obvious on its face.

The issue was wether it would be mentioned by the press, and given the attention it deserves.

The press seems to be following your lead and is batting about .500 or so.

Are you trying to make a case for war with Iran?

Iran has been making war upon the West in general, and the United States and Israel in particular, for 28 years.

Persia Delenda Est

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

You just seem disappointed that they are being released.  Like you were hoping for a confrontation.

You just seem disappointed that they are being released.

Who?

From the San Francisco Chronicle an article about possible violations of the Geneva Convention http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/01/MNGMROVNMC1.DTL&feed=rss.news

From the AP:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran_134

What do you want the MSM to do.  Report the news of a possible breach of the Geneva Conventions, or have editorials on why this is a breach of the Geneva Conventions.  Because seems like they have done both.

Being conversant with the Geneva Conventions, neither Bat One, nor I (nor anyone else familiar with the Customary Laws of Warfare) needed to be told that the Iranian media show of their hostages was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.  It was obvious on its face.

Actually like most people who try to use fancy legal terms like “obvious on its face” without understanding the law, you are wrong. 

Like most legal disputes this comes down to the facts.  By invoking the Geneva Conventions Britain is making the claim that the taking of the British sailors is an act of war.  However, Iran is taking the position that the British sailors were breaking the law and that is why he pardoned them.  If they were breaking the law than they were not Prisoners of War and the Geneva Conventions do not apply, similarly to why they do not apply to enemy combatants.  This comes down to what the facts of the incident were.  If the British vessel entered Iranian waters, not only at the time of intercept, but at any time reasonably close to intercept, than Iran’s claim is not frivolous.  While Britain has said that GPS readins show that they were not in Iranian waters at the time of intercept, I don’t believe they have given proof of that fact for their entire voyage.  Its just not that simple.

Being an illegal combatant is, in and of itself, a war crime punishable by death.

That is black letter international law.

I know you must be a brilliant legal mind to use phrases like “black letter international law” but of course, you are totally and incontrovertably WRONG.  Being a illegal combatant is not a crime punishible by death.  It is a designation that takes you out from under the protections of the Geneva Convention and puts you under civil law in the jurisdiction you are in.  You still would have to commit a crime worthy of the death penalty in that jurisdiction.  Being an Taliban cook, would not be punishable be death.

I am so glad I have people conversant in the Laws of Land Warfare and international law like Bat One and Rodney Graves to explain these things to me.  How about this for a suggestion.  Do some research and stop talking out of your ass like you are some type of legal expert.

Hawk can you cite that claim that being an illegal combatant isn’t punishable by death?

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Hawk said, Being a illegal combatant is not a crime punishible by death.  It is a designation that takes you out from under the protections of the Geneva Convention and puts you under civil law in the jurisdiction you are in.

No. It means that we can shoot them on site. It’s a war, for crying out loud.

You still would have to commit a crime worthy of the death penalty in that jurisdiction.

Shooting at U.S. troops is a death penalty. Kill them all!

Hawk,

It almost sounds like you want others to regard you as some sort of expert on matters legal and/or military.  If this is so, why give us some idea as to the depth of your experience and training in either field.

As any of the veterans who comment here will tell you, the precise applicability of the Geneva Conventions, and virtually all manner of hypothetical situations are routinely part of any military training, regardless of the branch of service.  Those situations include the capture of others and a broad array of being captured scenarios.

If you are going to sit in judgment of the opinions of those of us who’ve received such training, perhaps you’d be good enough to detail any qualifications you might carry… beyond rhetorical wishful thinking.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hawk,

Educate thyself:

On Military Affairs: Why the “War on Terror” is, and should remain, a War

The Customary Laws of War

Both of which articles were linked on Findlaw, btw.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

If you are going to sit in judgment of the opinions of those of us who’ve received such training, perhaps you’d be good enough to detail any qualifications you might carry… beyond rhetorical wishful thinking.

I was a military intelligence officer for 10 years active and reserve and I have a J.D.

Hawk can you cite that claim that being an illegal combatant isn’t punishable by death?

If you want a history of enemy combatant status in the US here is a pretty good link. 

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31724.pdf

Hawk,
Educate thyself:
On Military Affairs: Why the “War on Terror” is, and should remain, a War
The Customary Laws of War
Both of which articles were linked on Findlaw, btw.

These are fine editorials.  However, the one discussing Hamdan v. Rumsfeld needs to be updated since the Supreme Court ruled on that case in 2006 and you wrote in 2005.

Hawk,

First and foremost, Thank you for your service!  It is interesting that we share a similar background in military experience.

As for the JD, I certainly wouldn’t disparage the time and effort spent to earn it, but the fact is this country is littered with persons of clearly modest intelligence who hold a JD.  Hell, just look at the US Congress.  There is a perfectly valid argument that ours would be a far better society if we had far fewer attorneys making work for themselves and the rest of us.

The current quibble over the status of “illegal combatants” is just such a situation.  After all, the entire argument starts with the fact that the admitted combatant was shot and killed in the first place.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

As for the JD, I certainly wouldn’t disparage the time and effort spent to earn it, but the fact is this country is littered with persons of clearly modest intelligence who hold a JD.  Hell, just look at the US Congress.  There is a perfectly valid argument that ours would be a far better society if we had far fewer attorneys making work for themselves and the rest of us.

You asked. 

I have no problem killing an illegal combatant, or a legal combatant in combat.  The question is how should we treat them after they are detained.  I don’t think we should torture them.  The intelligence is unreliable and frankly it is something that we shouldn’t do.  The people who actually do the torture often end up psychologically damaged.

Hawk,

You should well know that the Customary Laws of Warfare are neither limited to nor primarily informed by the American experience.  The traditional (historical) punishment for the war crime of being an illegal combatant is indeed death.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

You should well know that the Customary Laws of Warfare are neither limited to nor primarily informed by the American experience.  The traditional (historical) punishment for the war crime of being an illegal combatant is indeed death.

That may well be true.  And if a country makes that law it may be enforceable.  In the United States it would be unconstitutional.  You cannot make a law in the United States that says everybody who breaks this law must be executed.  You can be eligible for the death penalty, but we have a right to individual sentences.

I replied to the Hawk with:

You should well know that the Customary Laws of Warfare are neither limited to nor primarily informed by the American experience.  The traditional (historical) punishment for the war crime of being an illegal combatant is indeed death.

And he has replied in turn with:

That may well be true.  And if a country makes that law it may be enforceable.  In the United States it would be unconstitutional.  You cannot make a law in the United States that says everybody who breaks this law must be executed.  You can be eligible for the death penalty, but we have a right to individual sentences.

Why would the jurisdiction of U. S. Crimminal Law run to non U.S. Citizens not on U. S. Territory who perpetrate War Crimes?

War Crimes are pubishable under the Customary Laws of Warfare independent of national criminal codes wherever conflict occurs.  See Ex Parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld a Military Tribunal (a trial for war crimes, not crimes under the U. S. Code) for a party with a claim to U. S. Citizenship (Haupt).

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Military tribunals fall under US Code.  They fall under the UCMJ, which is part of the US Code, which is subservient to the US Constitution. 

Now whether we allow enemy combatants access to our courts to challenge that right is another issue.

Hawk,

The UCMJ and MCM make provisions for Military Tribunals because that was the convenient and logical way to enforce those international understandings without introducing them into our domestic system of crimminal law.

And as the law now stands, Congress has denied the courts (other than the Military Court of Appeal and the D.C. Circuit Court) from hearing appeals or challenges to the Tribunal system.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

You have to put them under some jurisdiction or you use common law principles.  The problem with using common law is there is not sufficient international case law to make that practical.

Hawk,

Note also that the Tribunals are hearing cases of violations of the Laws of Warfare, not of United States Code.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

We may have codified some of the Laws of War, but I would be the charging papers cite a violation of a code.

Hawk,

What shall we wager?

We’ll have charge sheets in the not too distant future as the tribunals start up.

Out Here
Rodney Graves

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”