Let’s face facts: most of us know what he know about the Geneva Conventions from watching Hogan’s Heroes. Beyond that we know that there is something in the document about uniforms/regular combatants (indeed, see Article 4 via of the Third Convention), which is not as clear as war movies make it out to be).
Here is the much-discussed Article 3 (also known as “common article 3″ as it is present in all four of the conventions)–emphasis is mine:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Where, precisely in this list are things that we, as citizens of the United States of America, should not assume would be true in the conduct of our armed forces? Are these not the kinds of things that we would assume would be in place for treatment of persons under our control?
Ultimately are some arguing that the only way to win the war on terror is to be able to torture those whom we detain?
I will say this: since it is unclear to me that the prisoners in question are from countries that have signed the conventions, it does make me wonder as to whether they are, indeed, legally applicable to them.
Still, I continue to fail to see why pursuing such standards hamper our ability to acheive our goals.
And it is not just me, some crank academic who is concerened about such things. Take, for example, the following from a letter written to Senator John McCain from Captain Ian Fishback, as published in WaPo almost a year ago (again, emphasis mine):
Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda’s, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.Others argue that clear standards will limit the President’s ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.
Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is “America.”
Indeed.
h/t for the letter: Andrew Sullivan
Sphere: Related Content
July 11th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Good post, Steven.
On signing and coverage, Harold Koh had a good line in his testimony on the Hill today: something like, “whales don’t sign the international whaling treaty.” The treaty doesn’t only protect individuals who have signed; it restrains those who have signed.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:15 am
[...] set about Hamdan didn’t even know that Article 3 had been in force in Iraq. Indeed, as I intimated yesterday, most of us really have no serious understanding about what applications of the Gene [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
[...] al Me
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 5:46 pm
A commenter informed me that my quip from this post was a trivia question on NPR’s The quiz can be found here, as well as an audio link. To h [...]