The Geneva Conventions: Not Just for Signatories Anymore
Is there a better U.S. Senator serving today than John Cornyn? Not for my money. He's got an excellent piece on NRO today on the Geneva Conventions:
Let me also address the issue of those utterly ignorant of military history who forward the argument that Americans must extend maximum protections under Geneva to anyone we fight, as failure to do so endangers our troops should they become prisoners-of-war.
Ahem.
"THEY'RE ALREADY TORTURING AND MURDERING THEM!"
I think these people need to turn on "The History Channel" and turn off "Hogan's Heroes."
When its Geneva position was first announced, however, the administration was harshly criticized for failing to extend prisoner-of-war privileges to al Qaeda fighters — and those same criticisms are now being repeated by some opponents of Judge Gonzales's nomination.
These critics misunderstand the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Under the convention, only lawful combatants are eligible for POW privileges. Notwithstanding the contention of some critics, even the Red Cross's own guidelines make clear that, to earn POW privileges, combatants must satisfy all four conditions of lawful combat: being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Do Judge Gonzales's critics honestly believe that al Qaeda complies with the laws of war? After all, al Qaeda's sworn purpose is to terrorize innocent civilians — in flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of the laws of war.
Not surprisingly, then, the Bush administration's legal interpretation of the Geneva Convention enjoys overwhelming support. It is not only well grounded in the text, structure, and history of the convention — as documented in authoritative international-law treatises — but has also been affirmed by three federal courts across the country and endorsed by the 9/11 commission and the Schlesinger report, as well as numerous legal scholars and international legal experts from across the political spectrum.
Let me also address the issue of those utterly ignorant of military history who forward the argument that Americans must extend maximum protections under Geneva to anyone we fight, as failure to do so endangers our troops should they become prisoners-of-war.
Ahem.
"THEY'RE ALREADY TORTURING AND MURDERING THEM!"
I think these people need to turn on "The History Channel" and turn off "Hogan's Heroes."

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home