Comments on: Abu Ghraib

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:25:51 +0000

Bob – I probably responded too intemperately myself – while sticking to my guns on the main point of what kind of tone I’d like to see in comments, I certainly came off much more harshly than I should have with respect to your other comments – blame annoyance and grumpiness at what seemed to be a backtracking on your earlier statement. Apologies.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:36:01 +0000

Bob, don’t go too far in your apology. You overstated things, but I can think of a fair number of prominent Americans I’d like to see in prison for their role in massive human rights violations. It can make you a little crazy if you think about it too much, especially when we are endlessly subjected to people telling us we are engaged in a war of good against evil. I assume that people a hundred years from now will regard us with the same mixture of condescension and contempt we give to 19th century Americans who denounced savage Indian atrocities (which could be as brutal as a Hamas suicide bombing) while ignoring their own acts of land theft, ethnic cleansing and occasional genocide. There’s no good reason for taking comfort in that thought, but it keeps me from excessive ranting sometimes. Viewed logically, though, it just means we never seem to learn anything useful in real time, but have a firm grasp of what people did wrong three or four generations back.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:20:42 +0000

I regret those words, and the sentiments they imply. Your interpretation was more accurate than my own memory. I am observing my third episode of government sanctioned barbarity, and I tire. I suppose I do seek impractibly broad solutions to what are likely intractable problems, and choose my targets badly. I should abandon my outrage, but there remains some remnants of the 1960’s in me. Or simple immaturity. I try to determine what aspect of the American character repeats in these events, as if so determining I could then change the American character. Nothing of a less ambitious nature has seemed to be effective. Here we are again. “I can’t say that I find many of your comments useful or interesting – most of the time you seem to be using my posts as an excuse to tilt against your own particular windmills ” This is useful, interesting, and even kind. Thank you.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:14:09 +0000

But you have to have an initial hearing before you determine that someone is ineligible for the protections of the Geneva convention. We didn’t. More than that: if you say the main international law on the treatment of prisoners does not apply, and the domestic law on the treatment of prisoners does not apply, and that even if they did apply the President could override them and order torture, and you send away the JAG corps and the Red Cross, and you send in unaccountable civilian contractors to conduct interrogations however they see fit….the consequences are entirely predictable, and you bear a large amount of responsibility for what happened.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:29:43 +0000

Bob – Your original comment: bq. The right think they can destroy the system and create the Libertarian Paradise, but I am now hoping to seem them all on a gallows in my lifetime. I have never been so hopeful. Perhaps you can explain to me precisely how my summary of what you said is an “incendiary mistatement?” And where exactly do I say or even hint that referring to the return of Negroponte etc is outside the realm of civil discourse? I wouldn’t have had any particular need to reply to your comment to this post if it hadn’t been for the bit at the end where you used heavy-handed sarcasm to express your grumpiness at my previous rebuke. Let me say it again – if you want to tell everyone about how you’re “hoping” for the day when the right is on the gallows, then please do it elsewhere. If you want to post comments here, then behave properly. I can’t say that I find many of your comments useful or interesting – most of the time you seem to be using my posts as an excuse to tilt against your own particular windmills – but I’m not going to ban you for that as long as you keep to minimal rules of civilized discourse.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:12:47 +0000

“when all libertarians are strung up by the neck is not the kind of commenting that I’m prepared to tolerate under any circumstances.” A incendiary mistatement of my comment, which I will not repeat, but was directed at a Political Party, not a political philosophy. And certainly not the Libertarian Party. That the return of Abrams, Poindexter, Negroponte to positions of responsibility and that atrocities in Central America and current atrocities are mere coincidences and in no way reflects on the political organization that empowers them is not a position I can logically accept. Should that be beyond the realm of civil discourse I would submit then that our discourse is impoverished.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:05:03 +0000

Iron Lungfish and jr—thanks for your comments. I agree that most of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not terrorists but civilians, and as such the Geneva Conventions DID apply to them. My annoyance is with those, such as the quoted article, who confuse the issue of how terrorists/guerillas may be treated with the issue of how civilians must be treated; the 4th Geneva Convention applies in one case and doesn’t in the other. By confusing the two cases, illegal abuses of civilians can be justified by appealing to the fact that such treatment of terrorists might be justified and legal. Also, jr, your quote is misleading; the full quote is as follows: “(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Parts (b) and© eliminate almost all guerillas.

By: jr

jr — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:12:17 +0000

To second iron lungfish’s comments to Sam- many of the detainees at Guantanamo were not combatants, but were picked up in villages, often not by US forces but by the murderous thug Abdul Rashid Dostum, who got $5000 a head for them, no questions asked. And by the way, the Geneva Convention defines prisoners of war to include “members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied…” Sounds like guerillas to me.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:11:54 +0000

Bob – the snarky tone of your comments here about my moderating policy contrast with what appeared to be a sincere apology for your previous remarks a couple of days ago, but which apparently wasn’t sincere at all. Let me reiterate – saying that you look forward to the day when all libertarians are strung up by the neck is not the kind of commenting that I’m prepared to tolerate under any circumstances. If you want to make comments along those lines, there are plenty of other blogs that you can go to where those comments will go down a treat – I invite you to take yourself over to them. It’s not only deeply offensive but it kills serious argument – driving it out in favour of self-indulgent blustering by both left and right. Of which there is already too much in the blogosphere. If you want to comment on my posts, you’ll have to live by the rules – a minimum of politeness and respect towards people who you disagree with. If you don’t like that – well as I said, there are plenty of other blogs out there for you.

By: Iron Lungfish

Iron Lungfish — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:05:39 +0000

Sam, it’s widely acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the prisoners we’ve taken in Abu Ghraib were NOT terrorists. They were civilians rounded up in massive sweeps of entire villages. This isn’t an issue over whether the Geneva Conventions apply to al Qaeda. This is an issue over whether the Geneva Conventions apply to Iraqi civilians we’ve grabbed at random and throw in prison in the hopes that some of them might possibly have something to do with the insurgency.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:54:50 +0000

Chrisda—as I understand both the conventions and the history, the Conventions intentionally leave fighters who are not part of an army (spies, saboteurs, bandits, guerillas) unprotected. Soldiers get immunity for acts that would be crimes (murder, assault) under any normal circumstances; but ONLY soldiers get that immunity—civilians continue to be subject to ordinary criminal law. The goals are that all fighting be conducted by armies, the distinction between army and non-army be clear, and that all armies follow certain rules designed to protect both soldiers and civilians—hence the emphasis on uniforms and on “groups conducting themselves according to the laws of war.” Traditionally, non-uniformed fighters could be, and often were, summarily executed. In all the crimes that the Germans were tried for at Nuremberg, executing Resistance fighters did not enter in at all AFAIK; executing non-fighters in retaliation did, but that is quite a different issue.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:28:51 +0000

The Republican Party position that, in a combat zone, any armed person not in uniform (in the most generous examples, many were just “fingered”) may be considered an “illegal combatant” or whatever the term is….and thereby subject to indefinite waterboarding without any legal protections is way way beyond irresponsible. Henry, I suspect, will find my use of “Republican Party Position” offensive, but we are several years into a very public and widely understood policy. Anyone still supporting the Bush administration either give tacit approval to this policy, or in the case of those who say: ” Hey, no fan of torture here, but really like Republican trade policy.” has a mistaken sense of priorities. I leave before the King of Comity bans me.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:01:25 +0000

“they never envisaged a third category between civilians and uniformed military.” Actually I believe GC did envisage such a third category, which would include spies and saboteurs. This might pertain to the 16 9/11 hijackers. On the field in Afghanistan and Iraq, on the other hand, everyone should have been presumed to be a soldier or a civilian, and given whatever respective protections applied.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:00:45 +0000

mr. Jim Miller, where I live we don’t get the news from the same sources as you, and Abu Ghraib has more than enough independent verifications to be certain of your own dishonnesty. DSW

By: ChrisDA

ChrisDA — Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:47:17 +0000

Sam, I can’t understand your aggravation: it seems we’re talking about a spirit vs letter of Geneva Conventions issue. Yes, legally speaking, it is accurate to say that Bush was only reiterating the non-applicability of GC protections to non-uniformed fighters, rather than actually withholding the protections from such fighers. But if one looks at the spirit of the GCs, they never envisaged a third category between civillians and uniformed military. Bush’s position, that the GCs expect fighters to ‘earn’ GC protections by donning a uniform etc, is utterly incompatible with the spirit of the GCs.