Asks Thomas Sowell:
Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?
This isn’t the right set of questions, and is a distraction. First, no one is arguing that the reason why we should abide by the Geneva Conventions is because al Qaeda and their ilk will. There is a real argument about whether there are ramifications from other nation-states who might hold our soldiers in the future, but no one is arguing that this is about how terrorists will act (and if anyone is arguing that, they are clearly off the deep end). However, to pretend that the only salient issue about international perception of the US and the Geneva Conventions/prisoner treatment under whatever rules is how the terrorists themselves will react is ignore a substantial and important part of the debate. The general perception of the US and the way by which other government may treat our citizens when captured does matter.
However, that isn’t even the main issue. The main issue is how far the US is willing to go in terms of the treatment of persons under its control. As I keep stressing, the very values that make us the United States are under debate here.
There is also more false choices being offered up by the Sowell piece:
Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.
Here’s the problem: while nuclear-powered terrorists are a frightening prospect indeed, that is a distractor as it raises the stakes to genocidal levels. The truth of the matter is that we aren’t always talking about terrorists. We are sometimes talking about the innocent. As such, it seems reasonable that a country that is supposed to be the greatest democracy on the planet would want to exercise some modicum of caution in this arena.
Update: Glenn Greenwald’s comments on this column are on target.
Sphere: Related Content
September 19th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Stephen,
The question Mr Sowel needs to answer is the following:
Ten people are picked up in a raid. The authorities know that one of them has information on the location of a ticking bomb, but they don’t know which one. Are they right to torture all ten? Would Mr Sowel be happy for them to do this. And at what number would he say stop, no more? 200 to one, 2000 to one?
History shows again and again that the more atrocities you committ, the stronger your enemy becomes. Mr Sowel needs to start listening to those doing the fighting. Not even the CIA want this power.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Steven: I agree on what the real topic is, but disagree that “no one” is saying that we need to abide by the Conventions so that our enemies will — that is the implicit argument made by a large number of people, including Powell in his remarks. Neither side of that argument is relevant, however, to the main point.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I think Powell’s argument isn’t about al Qaeda, but along the lines of what I note: it sends a broad signal to national actors.
Although if he is making such a claim I noted:
and if anyone is arguing that, they are clearly off the deep end.
I will, however, go and look at his exact statements.
I only bring it up because many of the pro-administration counter-argument have been along the lines of “al Qaeda isn’t going to follow the GC, so what’s the big deal?”
Still, I agree that it is a tangential issue at best.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Relative principles…
Just a few weeks ago, two reporters were forced to convert, at gunpoint, to Islam… and they were viciously castigated by a number of noble conservative bloggers. (An excellent round-up is here.) Evidently, martyring oneself rather than converting…
September 20th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
The Geneva Convention simply doesn’t apply to the terrorists anyway, so why the fixation? I say belly slap away if it will save some lives.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
“The truth of the matter is that we aren’t always talking about terrorists. We are sometimes talking about the innocent. As such, it seems reasonable that a country that is supposed to be the greatest democracy on the planet would want to exercise some modicum of caution in this arena.”
And that would differ from the carpet bombing of Germany night and day; as well as firebombing mostly wood and paper Tokyo, not to mention Hiroshima, and Nagasaki ??? Something a lot of folks need to get a handle on: If we are at war, it’s because someone wants to kill ALL OF US, or convert us, and they don’t give a tinker’s dam how many “innocents” are killed – ours OR theirs.