The Bush administration, in violation of the Geneva protections to which fighting men are entitled, paraded eight Iraqi prisoners on television. This is a war crime: governments are not supposed to use pictures of prisoners in propaganda. The officials who approved this should be held responsible and put on trial.
Wait -- sorry for the error. It was the Iranian government parading British sailors for the cameras. But I'm sure the Left and our major media are going to go ballistic when they see this, right? Because they keep telling us that violating the Geneva Conventions is pretty much the worst thing a government can do. Because the media are so even-handed, they treat all prisoner abuse seriously.
I expect when I wake tomorrow and stumble out to my driveway, that photo will be on the front page of the Washington Post, along with a long analytical article and an outraged editorial. No, two outraged editorials. Maybe even three, plus a shot of a prisoner's family member dabbing at her eye with a handkerchief.
Otherwise, we might get the idea that the media are willing to look the other way when it's not U.S. soldiers committing abuse. Or that they are incapable of understanding the difference between officially sanctioned abuse and unofficial, punishable abuse. Or that the Left is so afraid of Islamic terrorism that it ignores or explains away abhorrent actions when radical Muslims do them, but not when Westerners do them.
Eric,
Can you understand the difference between a brutal Islamicist government like Iran and a Western democracy like the US? I don't see Iran doing bad, internationally illegal things is big news; we expect that sort of thing from them. We don't expect that from western countries. Now, I don't particularly think putting detainees on tv is that big a deal, and calling a war crime is kinda wacky, unless you allow for the existence of war misdemenors. But I find the "When those barbarians do it the media don't even bat an eye-lash, but when we do they won't shut up. Evil media double-standard!" line of argument a complete non-sequitur.
So let me get this straight, Coward: when a country has committed gross atrocities in the past, none of their subsequent atrocities are news? That's pretty warped. Or are you saying that news should only be about novelties?
The Third Geneva Convention states: "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Parading prisoners in front of cameras is the quintessential form of "public curiosity." If you do it, you're volating the law of war; doing that is a crime; therfore, if you do it, you're a war criminal. What is so "wacky" about pointing that out? Or in your world, do you have to blow up a village before you're a war criminal?
The Geneva protection against abuse is related to the protection against prisoners being used as propaganda: they both stem from the idea that prisoners have a certain level of dignity that should be respected, certainly above that of common criminals.
If you say that violating the Geneva Conventions is thus a gross violation of human dignity, you can't then dismiss it when it happens from a non-Western state without committing a gross hypocrisy. Contrary to what you say, I'm not saying that there is a double standard at work here: I'm saying there is one standard -- the West, particularly the U.S., must not only follow international law but go far beyond it, but that standard does not apply to non-Western countries. They can commit war crimes, kill, imprison and torture the innocent, and they get a free pass. They are the Darker People; they cannot be held to the same standards as enlightened Westerners.
Thanks for illustrating that point so nicely, Coward, as you frequently do.
Actually, gentlemen, we are the root cause for the Islamic terror now gripping the world........beheading is only a symbolic gesture demonstating to the West (and America in particular) just how depraved our culture has become........but not to worry.... we'll soon hear the sweet and sour notes of the call to prayer high atop our corporate towers bringing us back to the religion of peace.......we have indeed begun the fourth crusade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, boys, simmer down. Someone dig out their dusty old worn out copy of the Geneva Conventions and show me the part that applies to parties between which NO state of hostility exists. The Geneva Conventions don't apply here unless Iran and the UK started fighting and no one knew about it. If a defacto state of war existed between the Brits and Iran, my guess is that Al Jazeera and the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation would have said something about it.
Navigating a warship into foreign waters -- which is what Iran claims the Brits did -- is an act of war. The Geneva Conventions apply to any military action, and detaining servicemen acting on orders from the British government is a military action.
Mark, are you making the case that in peacetime, servicemen are entitled to a *lower* standard of treatment than during wartime? That doesn't make much sense, does it?
Eric,
Not at all. There are other elements of international law that fit better. There's a difference between intentionally sailing a warship into foreign waters with ill intent and straying across an invisible line in the water.
The Iranians held the Brits for a few days and then turned them loose. Let's be thankful of that at the very least. Don't forget, the Iranians were technically within their rights to send the Brits to Davey Jones' Locker if you assume it was an act of war. Can you imagine what might have happened if they'd strayed into Saudi waters?
Otherwise, we might get the idea that the media are willing to look the other way when it's not U.S. soldiers committing abuse.
I think the 'media' are not looking the other way, but it is not as newsworthy in the U.S. if the atrocities are not inflicted on Americans. IIRC, you pointed this out recently in another post where you decried the media from keeping deaths of Americans as headline news.
But, if you check the Italian version of Google news, you can see the front-page pictures...
Mark, why should we be "thankful" that the Iranians didn't do a horrible thing, they merely did a humiliating and illegal thing? I am not saying that the Iranians should have treated the incident like an act of war -- which is precisely what they did. I'm saying that if it were an act of war, they have to act according to the Geneva Conventions. If it they didn't think it was an act of war, they should have ordered the boats out of Iranian territory.
Jeff, I have castigated the media for using American casualties out of context, because nobody tries to figure out how many casualties we are causing. It's like knowing one team's score without knowing the other team's score. But I don't think I have ever said that American casualties are not newsworthy.
Eric,
Yes, I think there's room for being thankful that the Iranians confined themselves to an act of humiliation. Doing the horrible thing, in their part of the world, is often the instinctive reaction.
I'm thankful to God that the sailors are safe -- but I see no reason to be thankful to the Iranians. Maybe we can agree on that?
Deal
Eric, do you think that Iran's violation of the Geneva Conventions somehow justifies our use of torture?
***Righteous Posturing Alert!!***
When did we use torture as a matter of policy, Nathan?