1. Soldiers who act outside of uniform are, per the Geneva Convention, war criminals. (Though fighting as resistance within their own country might be a loop hole.)
2. Shooting prisoners is a war crime, too.
3. Broadcasting POWs being intimidated into making statements is a war crime.
Will we get demonstrations in London and San Francisco and Beirut about this? Will the ICC and the UN leap in to intervene? Three guesses.
By the way, targeting a hospital would be considered a war crime, I think everyone would agree. Lobbing munitions into an area where there is a hospital, not caring whether you hit the hospital or not, may or may not be a war crime, but it’s certainly not a nice thing to do.
Is jamming GPS guidance systems on incoming cruise missiles so that instead of hitting a military target they hit a hospital also a war crime? Will we see demonstrations about that?
UPDATE: I’ve seen questions as to whether the Article 13 prohibition against “insults and public curiosity” also apply to the film we’ve seen of Iraqis surrendering, or Iraqi POWs, en masse, under guard.
Showing films of surrenders does not strike me as applicable here, simply a reporting of facts. If POWs were being marched down the street for folks to throw rotten vegetable at, that would certainly be a breach of Article 13. Showing that (a) there are POWs, and (b) they don’t appear to be being mistreated does not seem to be a matter of “public curiosity” — indeed, it would seem to be a proactive defense against charges under Article 13.
As usual, you are right on. I suspect we’ll not see anyone taking to the streets to condemn Iraqs brutal and barbaric treatment of our soldiers. It’s deplorable. I suspect, instead, we will see nothing but whiny ass imbeciles blaiming President Bush for the treatment our soldiers have received.
Y’mean, like this?
Well, given the war crimes committed by the illegitimate Bush administration terrorist, how can you expect our poor, impressionable Iraqi brown brothers to know any better?
(Note: the above is not an actual quotation from anyone. Yet.)
One point to make: this is an undeclared war, yet we’re abiding by the Geneva Conventions, right?
Then how about Gitmo? That’s an undeclared war, too, yet we’re treating those prisoners completely different.
Double standards, and no, this isn’t whining, Tess — there’s no difference, ethically, between either situation, when it comes to POWs.
Interesting question, regarding declaration of war.
Does anyone do that any more? Was Gulf War I (fully approved by the UN, mind you) a declared war? Did Congress (and the related bodies of all the other Coalition members that time out) all pass resolutions of war and send them, by ambassador, to the Parliament in Baghdad?
I don’t think so.
Is an authorization of military force, and the exercise of that force, de facto a declaration of war?
On the subject of the Gitmo captives, they are not classified as POWs, but as “unlawful combatants.” This article has some interesting commentary on that, indicating it’s probably legal, though I share a number of the concerns expressed there.
Nevertheless, even there, we’re affording certain protections to the detainees there — including that protection aganist “public curiosity” — though, in this case, that has allowed folks to levy charges about mistreatment of folks there.
Interestingly enough, the recent court decision that the Gitmo folks had no standing in US courts because they are not on US sovereign territory, but Cuban, left open the question to me of whether they have any standing in Cuban courts. That would be something of a mess, if Cuba chose to press the matter.
I wouldn’t put it past Castro to use that, too. He’s a cagey old bastiche who loves tweaking the US.
Personally, I find Gitmo to be appalling, but then, the whole police state-like atmosphere surrounding counter-terrorism concerns me, as you’re well aware. 😉
Yes. I have concerns over a lot of the homeland security stuff (which this blurs into), though perhaps in a less, um, reflexive fashion. 🙂
An interestnig article is quoted here in which some released Afghanis describe life at Gitmo.
Or for the full unedited article here.
Good point — I was being lazy in my cites.
The article’s something of a mixed bag. There are abuses described, though they vary a lot, tend to be in response to lack of cooperation, a number of them are “well, I saw this happen to another guy,” and they are mainly reported by the two of the eighteen with the most direct Taliban connections.
Still worrisome, to be sure, though the majority of the releasees seem to have a fairly positive view of the facility and their treatment. And the ICRC and other visitors have not had any serious complaints about the treatment of prisoners there, though they may disagree with the enemy combatant designation.