Geneva Conventions - not just for the US? - Granite Grok

Geneva Conventions – not just for the US?

Ever since the Supreme Court decision on Hamdan (non-uniformed combatantants belonging not to a nation-state but to a stateless orgranization) are now subject to the Geneva Conventions, I knew that problems were fast coming.

During this last bit of politicing about doing what the Supreme Court said to (Congress to pass a law concerning military tribunals), there was a lot of talk about the use of torture.  Actually, not really – it was a lot of hot air of what is and what is not torture, and again, I believe that this will only hurt us.

Why?  I am in the camp that says torture is ripping off body parts, clipping electrodes to genitals, bamboo under fingernails, mutilation, and harming other family members.  In short, stuff that does hurt, main, or kill.

Cold rooms, loud music, sleep deprivation, et al – these are not torture.

However, when posed with the ticking bomb scenario that will kill or maim lots of our citizens, too bad – it sounds unChristian to admit it, but wire that sucker up.  There are degrees of everything, including moderation.  Single, isolated instance of torture can do two things – get that information, and sends a message to our brutal enemies that we can, and we will, go to their level when required.  And when not, we won’t.

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments against it, that it will harm our folks.  Well, that didn’t work too well in WW I, WW II, the Korean Conflict, Vietnam, or Gulf 1 for us, did it?

Didn’t work for the Brits either!  From Captains Quarters is this:

IRAQI officers loyal to Saddam Hussain filmed their cold-blooded murder of two British bomb disposal officers who were captured after a roadside ambush.

An inquest was told that Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, 24, thought that they were being taken to hospital for treatment, but instead they were moved to a compound run by Saddam’s military intelligence.

The harrowing ordeal lasted for hours until Iraqi agents killed the pair. The soldiers were buried in a shallow grave.

The Geneva Conventions do not appear to have helped Allsopp and Cullingworth. Iraq entered into the covenant in 1956, and so operated under its strictures, at least in theory. Neither Iran nor Iraq bothered to fake compliance during their long war despite both having adopted the GC, and Saddam didn’t worry too much about it in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The British soldiers were captured during open hostilities and in uniform, and should have received POW status. Instead, Saddam’s officer corps decided to execute them, and to film their crime as well.

 

Here’s my problem – the analogy is that we are going in following Queensbury rules of boxing to a mixed martial arts bout.  Why are we literally putting ourselves in a position of ridicule and/or get killed?

I understand that "we should hold the high ground – it will help our soldiers".  Has it really?  It didn’t help those two Brits, did it?  Only political correctness blinds us to the reality of the situation.  If an agreement is not followed by all parties, is it really an agreement? 

War is brutal and savage – we in the West have tried to "civilize" it with the GC.  But is it working?

Another perspective – so why do we not punish, with all available force, those that break it?  Not the individual soldiers or officers only, but their governments?

Again, going back to my Changing Nature of War posts – are we too soft to adapt?  Or just too unwilling to see that other cultures will not play by our rules? 

 

>