Former (?) liberal hawk Michael Ignatieff reviews Sy Hersh’s Chain of Command in the New York Times:
The war on terror began as a defense of international law, giving America allies and friends. It soon became a war in defiance of law. In a secret order dated Feb. 7, 2002, President Bush declared, as Hersh puts it, that ”when it came to Al Qaeda the Geneva Conventions were applicable only at his discretion.” Based on memorandums from the Defense and Justice Departments and the White House legal office that, in Anthony Lewis’s apt words, ”read like the advice of a mob lawyer to a mafia don on how to . . . stay out of prison,” Bush unilaterally withdrew the war on terror from the international legal regime that sets the standards for treatment and interrogation of prisoners. Abu Ghraib was not the work of a few bad apples, but the direct consequence, Hersh says, of ”the reliance of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld on secret operations and the use of coercion — and eye-for-an-eye retribution — in fighting terrorism.”
Can you have liberal hawk?
The Geneva conventions are clear that combatants (especially un-uniformed) who target civilians for political goals are not protected in any matter what so ever. Explosive or unjacketed bullets, poison gas, torture, killing after surrender. Those are all at the descretion of those fighting the terrorists.
So if the Pentagon, the world’s largest knowledge base on the geneva conventions, says it is technically internationally legal, it just might be so.
But I understand everyone’s dilemma. How do we know the military is properly seperating the sheep from the goats? Any civilian interaction would lead to leaks and a press nightmare, and end their ability to treat terrorists differently. Any internal method is no more legitimate than their current set up. So you think the obvious answer is to make it public and treat the terrorist the same. But when the Geneva conventions were being made, terrorist were handed a pile of dirt on purpose. There should be consequences for breaking the rules of war. Using the death of civilians as a tool should strip you of any right to any amount of fair treatment.
Ever since I saw the footage of the assasination attempt on Karzai, I was sure lots of innocents were getting hurt. In the assasination attempt, a gunman threw away his cloak and started to machine gun Karzai’s car. A random civilian, moments before cheering his new leader, tackled the guy knocking his gun away. A US Spec Ops rushed forward and sprayed them both. Total suckage.
If they are not breaking the letter of the geneva conventions they are breaking the spirit. The spirit being that no matter how dangerous and deplorable your actions, you still have certain rights. This is of course particularly the case when many of the detainees were not actually taken in combat and whose guilt is therefore not at all immediately obvious.
jdsm, I think you are mis-interpreting the conventions. They were written in a much harsher time when much harsher behavior was acceptable. The “spirit” of the conventions was to make terrorism as dangerous as possible and not bar any country from doing whatever it pleased to the terrorists.
There have probably been treaties afterwords that contradict this, but the original intent of the conventions was to leave no legal protections for terrorists.
And anyone who targets school buses of children because he doesn’t like his political reality or the religion he’s forced to bare deserves hollow point rifle rounds laced with pig blood, and summary execution upon capture. And the signers of the geneva convetions held that exact same world view.
And it isn’t like the Taliban regulars, or Iraqi insurgents have been following the conventions. So besides making us at home feel warm and fuzzy and morally superior, we have only taken a (what used to be thought of as valueable) tool away from our soldiers.
But maybe that’s all for the better and the Afghanistan and Iraqi insurgents are growing to respect our restraint and value of human life and dignity. Maybe our much more humane treatment of their captured is sowing a seed of mutual understand in their hearts. Maybe after enough of our captured soldiers are exectured, and enough of their captured are detained in prisons safer than most US state pens, they’ll come around to our way of thinking. Yeah, and maybe aliens will land and enlighten us with technology and social science enough to solve all our problems.
“The Geneva conventions are clear that combatants (especially un-uniformed) who target civilians for political goals are not protected in any matter what so ever.”
I think that’s incorrect. As far as I can see, violations of the laws of war do not forfeit the violator’s normal rights as a prisoner of war (or its equivalent) even though they can cause the “prisoner of war” status to be lost. Here’s the text, from Article 44 of the Additional Protocols:
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ©.
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
Dominic, you’ve certainly shut me up until I can do more research. Thanks for the info.
Jet said,
“Using the death of civilians as a tool should strip you of any right to any amount of fair treatment”
Of course, that would strip a pretty much everyone who’s ever been involved in a serious bombing campaign of fair treatment under the geneva convention, but since it seems unlikely that this was what the parties were agreeing to, it seems unlikely that this is a correct interpritation of the convention.
There should be consequences for breaking the rules of war. Using the death of civilians as a tool should strip you of any right to any amount of fair treatment.
Nonsense. It is the civilized treatment of prisoners which, among other things, separates decent human beings from terrorists. Certainly, there is justification for using lethal means to capture them or put them out of operation — the protection of innocent human life. But once you have captured a terrorist, and they no longer pose an immediate threat and danger, there is no justification for stepping outside the bounds of decency which are well-established in international law. Once you reduce the matter to a level of a blood feud, in which the acts of perpetrator justify some corresponding violations of human dignity, you are completely outside the rule of law, and well on the road to becoming the very thing you say you are fighting.
do unto others as you would have done unto you. the rest is commentary.
So this “do unto others as you would have done unto you” only works one way? Why is that the best solution? Shouldn’t we be placing consequences on undesireable actions?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review