Much has been said of our actions in Iraq as being against the Geneva Convention. The following observation was made by a fellow biker on another site. With his permission:
"I have a bit of a problem with the term "War" as it seems to be used today.
Our Congress seems quite willing to fund "Presidential things" but will not go on record as having authorized/declared War.
I know we attacked Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq; all with Congressional funding but without "declarations."
As far as I know, the Yugos, Afghans, and Iraqis all attempted some sort of defense but they did not "declare" War.
"Since the Formal War-process seems to be un-used, what is all this business of Hague and Geneva Conventions? These are part of a "formal" War. What we have done is outside the formal process and seems to fit the term "agression?"
Should we be surprised if any of our people fall into the hands of those we assaulted, that they are NOT treated/protected by the Hague and Geneva Conventions?
Is formal War an antique concept and we're back to barbarism? " Y4806
Conventions
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Those conventions are hardly ever followed by our enemies even in instances where we 'declared' formal war.
I think they are really more about us feeling good about ourselves, like patting ourselves on the back saying 'Look at us, we're more civilized.'
Yet when the need arises we're all about doing what it takes....'Firebomb the whole city, that'll change their minds!'
I think they are really more about us feeling good about ourselves, like patting ourselves on the back saying 'Look at us, we're more civilized.'
Yet when the need arises we're all about doing what it takes....'Firebomb the whole city, that'll change their minds!'
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/Innocents-X.gif
Seriously though... Zuruck, that's a complete and total straw man. Whether it's 6 Americans killed or 6 Iraqis killed, I care just the same.
But, here's the thing: innocents sometimes get caught in the crossfire. Innocents are sometimes pushed into the crossfire, too, by an enemy that doesn't care about them. When that happens and innocents die, there's not a lot you can do about it except to try to minimize the amount of crossfire, and try to take out the enemy as quickly as possible. When an innocent of any nationality gets caught in the crossfire, it's a mistake and a tragedy, and we all treat it as such.
What makes Abu Ghraib so much bigger than "all the poor dead innocents" is that it was intentional. That's the reason we treat it as an abomination, and that's the reason it got media coverage. What makes 9/11 so much worse than any innocent Iraqis killed is that 9/11 was intended to kill innocents, while the war in Iraq was intended to minimize dead innocents.
You see, there's a difference between innocent Americans being killed because terrorists intentionally went after them, and innocent Iraqis being killed because sometimes they were between the people shooting at each other, and possibly-guilty Iraqis being tortured for entertainment value. The difference is not in the nationality of the people involved, it's in the intentions of those causing the problems. War is tragic no matter how you look at it, but I at least take some pride in knowing that our soldiers are not out there intentionally killing civilians -- they're shooting at those who are shooting back, and at the same time, they're doing their best not to hit anyone who isn't involved.
--------------------
But, back on topic: what's the point of "rules of war"?
The main reason for such things is to draw a distinction between civilians and military forces. There is this idea among most civilized nations that the military is a legitimate target, while civilians are not -- it's OK for us to shoot at the people with guns who are shooting at us, and it's OK for us to shoot at whoever is giving them orders, but it's not OK for us to shoot at your citizens who are just going about their daily lives trying to feed their families. War is nasty, and lots of people get killed, but I think we all have the understanding that you just plain shouldn't shoot at people who aren't a part of the conflict.
The Geneva conventions and other rules of war are designed for this purpose: to tell nations on both sides that civilians are not a legitimate target, and to tell nations on both sides to make sure their military and their civilians can be told apart. This is why, for example, enemy prisoners who were in uniform have more rights under the conventions than enemy prisoners who were armed but not in uniform -- it encourages nations involved in war to keep their soldiers in uniform, which makes them distinct from the civilian population. If the other side can be trusted to do the same, it means both sides have the ability to avoid killing civilians.
Now, we're up against an enemy that doesn't particularly care -- those we're fighting don't care to avoid killing civilians; they'll take any kill they can get. And they don't much care about protecting their own civilians either. This means they don't follow the conventions at all, which makes them more difficult to deal with, especially since one of our objectives is to minimize civilian deaths. But the fact that our enemies does not follow them in no way means we should not -- we still care about protecting our own civilians, and we still care about giving our enemy the option (if they so choose) of avoiding killing our civilians, even if the enemy will not (for the most part) take that option.
Seriously though... Zuruck, that's a complete and total straw man. Whether it's 6 Americans killed or 6 Iraqis killed, I care just the same.
But, here's the thing: innocents sometimes get caught in the crossfire. Innocents are sometimes pushed into the crossfire, too, by an enemy that doesn't care about them. When that happens and innocents die, there's not a lot you can do about it except to try to minimize the amount of crossfire, and try to take out the enemy as quickly as possible. When an innocent of any nationality gets caught in the crossfire, it's a mistake and a tragedy, and we all treat it as such.
What makes Abu Ghraib so much bigger than "all the poor dead innocents" is that it was intentional. That's the reason we treat it as an abomination, and that's the reason it got media coverage. What makes 9/11 so much worse than any innocent Iraqis killed is that 9/11 was intended to kill innocents, while the war in Iraq was intended to minimize dead innocents.
You see, there's a difference between innocent Americans being killed because terrorists intentionally went after them, and innocent Iraqis being killed because sometimes they were between the people shooting at each other, and possibly-guilty Iraqis being tortured for entertainment value. The difference is not in the nationality of the people involved, it's in the intentions of those causing the problems. War is tragic no matter how you look at it, but I at least take some pride in knowing that our soldiers are not out there intentionally killing civilians -- they're shooting at those who are shooting back, and at the same time, they're doing their best not to hit anyone who isn't involved.
--------------------
But, back on topic: what's the point of "rules of war"?
The main reason for such things is to draw a distinction between civilians and military forces. There is this idea among most civilized nations that the military is a legitimate target, while civilians are not -- it's OK for us to shoot at the people with guns who are shooting at us, and it's OK for us to shoot at whoever is giving them orders, but it's not OK for us to shoot at your citizens who are just going about their daily lives trying to feed their families. War is nasty, and lots of people get killed, but I think we all have the understanding that you just plain shouldn't shoot at people who aren't a part of the conflict.
The Geneva conventions and other rules of war are designed for this purpose: to tell nations on both sides that civilians are not a legitimate target, and to tell nations on both sides to make sure their military and their civilians can be told apart. This is why, for example, enemy prisoners who were in uniform have more rights under the conventions than enemy prisoners who were armed but not in uniform -- it encourages nations involved in war to keep their soldiers in uniform, which makes them distinct from the civilian population. If the other side can be trusted to do the same, it means both sides have the ability to avoid killing civilians.
Now, we're up against an enemy that doesn't particularly care -- those we're fighting don't care to avoid killing civilians; they'll take any kill they can get. And they don't much care about protecting their own civilians either. This means they don't follow the conventions at all, which makes them more difficult to deal with, especially since one of our objectives is to minimize civilian deaths. But the fact that our enemies does not follow them in no way means we should not -- we still care about protecting our own civilians, and we still care about giving our enemy the option (if they so choose) of avoiding killing our civilians, even if the enemy will not (for the most part) take that option.