The Enemy in the Hands of the Enemy Two Observers Debate Adherence to the Geneva Convention

Author: Dayn Cambridge and Brian Vito

The United States Fails to Uphold Geneva Convention Stipulations

Ever since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, President Bush has constantly referred to the United States as the "brightest beacon of freedom" and as a "nation based on fabulous values." He asserts that it is these characteristics of America that the terrorists seek to destroy. These statements about American values could not be coming from a less deserving mouth than that of our president.
If anyone has challenged and attempted to destroy the values we so cherish in this country (e.g. freedom of speech, right to an attorney, writ of habeas corpus, human rights and basic civil liberties) it has been George W. Bush and his junta. One of the most pertinent examples of the Bush administration's hypocrisy in "defending" American values has been their treatment of prisoners and civilians during their massive assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.
A set of conventions were held to establish the proper treatment of civilians and Prisoners of War (POWs) during times of war. The Geneva Conventions ensured that, in the future, warring aggressors did not commit crimes against humanity and that people involved in these conflicts did not suffer any unnecessary damage.
Ever since the Bush administration has embarked on its "war on terrorism" the terms, conditions and agreements of the Geneva Convention (of which the United States is a signatory) have been dropped like a bad habit.
The Bush administration has been able to dodge certain conditions by introducing new military terms, relocating terror suspects and implementing military strategy that flies in the face of protecting and ensuring the safety of civilians.
First, the term "unlawful combatant" was specifically used by the Pentagon to omit Al-Qaeda and Taliban troops from receiving any of the rights that the Geneva Convention would grant them. By denying them "POW" status, the Pentagon is not required to seek guidance into how the prisoners are to be treated, because, as Donald Rumsfeld said, "technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention." With the introduction of this new term, international law pertaining to these prisoners is moot.
Second, why were the "unlawful combatants" shipped to and detained in Cuba of all places? By detaining the prisoners on non-U.S. soil, they are denied any rights American constitutional law would provide them. In addition, since Cuba is not voluntarily hosting the detention camp, the Cuban government has no say as to how the prisoners are to be treated.
This gives the Pentagon the power to treat the prisoners in any way they see fit without adhering to any law but their own - a situation that is in direct violation of the basic principles of the Geneva Convention.
In addition, according to diplomatic and intelligence sources, "Since Sept. 11, the U.S. government has secretly transported dozens of people suspected of links to terrorists to countries other than the United States, bypassing extradition procedures and legal formalities."
By transporting suspects to countries such as Egypt and Jordan, where the intelligence services have close ties to the CIA, suspects can be subjected to "...interrogation tactics - including torture and threats to families - that are illegal in the United States" (www.washingtonpost.com). This is a blatant violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, which states, "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties" (www.unhchr.com).
Finally, the "shock and awe" campaign waged against the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by the Bush administration was one of the most disgusting displays of their disregard for innocent civilians since their dropping of "moral killer" cluster bombs in Afghanistan.
I don't care how precise Donald Rumsfeld claims his precision guided missiles to be, when you launch an aerial attack of that magnitude on a flourishing, highly populated capital city, civilian causalities are obviously not of extreme importance.
If the Bush administration deplores the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime for their violent actions against aggressors, why do they then avert the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention so they themselves can employ similar tactics of torture and the killing of innocent civilians? Is this not blatant hypocrisy? When the Bush administration implements actions such as the ones I have listed above, it is a disgrace to even hear President Bush and his cronies abuse such words as value, freedom, liberation and justice.

Daryn Cambridge is an English/philosophy joint major from Arlington, Va.


Iraq Violates the Geneva Convention, Not the United States

Four Geneva Conventions adopted in 1949 today serve as the current codification of the law of war. These conventions encompass the three major issues of conflict regulation: the treatment of wounded military personnel, the treatment of prisoners of war and the treatment of civilians. The conventions deal mainly with traditional, limited warfare between states and mandate that wounded personnel must be allowed proper medical attention. They also stipulate that prisoners of war must be treated with a certain level of respect and dignity and must be offered certain fundamental rights and that civilians must not be the target of military operations.
Ultimately, those persons outside of combat, for reasons of sickness, wounds, detention, or simply those taking no active part in the hostilities, must not be subject to violence, murder, hostage situations, outrages upon personal dignity, humiliation or degrading treatment or the passing of sentence without a regular court trial. Finally, an international body such as the International Red Cross must be allowed access to all injured or detained personnel.
When looking at the United States' action against Iraq, a reasonable person could not argue that fallen Iraqi soldiers are not being provided with proper medical attention or that Iraqi prisoners of war are not being detained and treated in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. A quick glance at the New York Times or a similar newspaper will suggest that Iraqi prisoners of war held by the United States military are currently being allowed access to medical attention and proper registration with the International Red Cross.
Iraqi prisoners are also being treated in compliance with the requirements of the conventions and are given a hearing on their statuses as mandated by the conventions. U.S. troops are going out of their way to assist injured Iraqis and putting themselves in increased danger. Iraq, also a party to the conventions, has beyond all doubt horribly and heinously violated all the principles of the conventions.
So what about the civilian casualties in Iraq? The Geneva Conventions do not prohibit civilian deaths but prohibit the targeting of civilians. Traditionally, as long as the act that caused a civilian harm is a legitimate act in warfare had the civilians not been involved, the act is justified. This is provided that the act's main effect is securing a military objective and that its intention is not to cause civilian harm. Also, the military accomplishment of the act must compensate proportionally for the civilian harm it caused. Given these circumstances, the act is consistent with the aim of the Geneva Conventions, which was to prevent civilian-focused attacks.
Recently, some philosophers, Michael Walzer for example, have argued that there should be a moral effort to take due care, or additional risk, in avoiding civilian casualties, but even this added stipulation would not criminalize purely accidental civilian casualties. Even with the military technology that we have, accidents outside of our control still do occur and civilians are unfortunately the collateral damage of military operations. However, if these operations me
et the above criteria they cannot be illegal by the Geneva Conventions.
"The allies have not breached the conventions by causing civilian casualties. The rules do not speak of eliminating such casualties, upholding instead the principle that non-combatants should be spared as much as possible" (London Financial Times). Many of the civilian casualties are due also to Saddam Hussein's own plans: "Knowing Western public opinion correctly has little stomach for civilian casualties, the Iraqi regime has deliberately placed military hardware in residential areas of Baghdad, where it plans to exploit allied reluctance to kill or maim non-combatants by mounting a bloody street-to-street defence" (Australian Financial Review).
Another question is the recent outbreak of lawlessness in Iraq following the eradication of the former Iraqi regime. While it is the occupying nation's responsibility under the Geneva Conventions to ensure a state of laws and prevent chaos in the wake of an overthrown government, there is only so much 120,000 U.S. and British troops can do without the help of Iraqis - who must share the responsibility in recreating an orderly society.
The U.S. and British goal is not to occupy Iraq and run it as a militarily controlled and alien policed state, but rather to allow the Iraqi population to rebuild a free, representative government of its own, and it is this new Iraqi state that has the obligation under the conventions to establish order and laws and to police its own citizens in order to protect its population. It is the Iraqis' responsibility to create a legitimate, functioning state and government from within their own ranks, not the U.S. and Britain's responsibility to run their government for them.
Regardless of whether or not you support the United States and Great Britain's war effort in Iraq, the question of the United States and Britain's status as violators of the principles of the Geneva Conventions does not seem to be legitimate.

Brian Vito is a philosophy major from Needham, Mass.