Iraqi Prisoners Abused, Humiliated, Tortured.

[rmcrobertson]

One doesn't think it useful to disentangle the network of inaccuracies completely, but "utilitarianism," and "pragmatism," are indeed modern philosophies.

Before that, the primary emphasis was upon various forms of moral choice--partly on the grounds, oddly enough, that the moral state was the well-run state.

That is, of course, one of the fundamental blindnesses about relying on a binary opposition between, "merely moral," and "rationally pragmatic." As in martial arts, it's the immoral practitioner who ends up stuck at primitive levels.

Our torturing prisoners--and cut the crap; beating people to death, running dogs at them, shooting prisoners, running sadistic little sex games, and all the rest is torture, as defined by the Geneva Accords, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and about 93 others agreements to which this country is signatory--is not merely wrong. It's extremely stupid.

One finds it depressing to see this country continuing to squander its moral advantage.

 

[PeachMonkey]

It's depressing enough that people are such poor readers that they can't see how the Geneva Accords apply to people regardless of whether they wear uniforms, fight as irregulars, or act as "illegal combatants". It's even more depressing that people at this level have become Attorney General.

 

[Adept]

No offense, Adept, but that attitude is probably part of the problem here.

No offense taken.

I personally believe a martial art that does not instill the warrior spirit --- encompassing such quaint little "esoteric eastern" stuff like compassion, humility, discipline, honor, common decency --- in its adherents isn't worth the time of day.

Just my opinion. Of course. :asian:

And you are, of course, entitled to it. Discipline is required to be a decent martial artist. Without discipline no one would force themselves out of bed at 05:00 for that morning run, or push themselves through one more set of basics. The rest makes a good person (in general). But one does not have to be a good person to be a good fighter.

It's depressing enough that people are such poor readers that they can't see how the Geneva Accords apply to people regardless of whether they wear uniforms, fight as irregulars, or act as "illegal combatants".

The Geneva convention does not cover (for the most part) the insurgents in Iraq. They do not follow the guidelines necessary to be recognised by the GC. The whole idea of the rules of war is one of reciprocity. If you play nice, so will we. The GC allows for this and outlines what can be classed as a legitimate military action or group. If you are in one of these groups then you are covered by the GC. If you do not fulfill the requirements, you are not covered. You are considered to be playing too dirty.

 

[Adept]

One doesn't think it useful to disentangle the network of inaccuracies completely, but "utilitarianism," and "pragmatism," are indeed modern philosophies.

New names for age old ideas.

That is, of course, one of the fundamental blindnesses about relying on a binary opposition between, "merely moral," and "rationally pragmatic." As in martial arts, it's the immoral practitioner who ends up stuck at primitive levels.

Not at all. A dedicated martial artist will rise to the highest possible level regardless of his morality.

Our torturing prisoners--and cut the crap; beating people to death, running dogs at them, shooting prisoners, running sadistic little sex games, and all the rest is torture, as defined by the Geneva Accords, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and about 93 others agreements to which this country is signatory--is not merely wrong. It's extremely stupid.

Fair enough. I shall just have to note in future that our definitions of torture may vary wildly.

 

[heretic888]

But one does not have to be a good person to be a good fighter.

This has not been my experience.

Unless, of course, by "fighter" you mean "brawler". Then sure. But, you don't need discipline or even formal training to get good at that. Just gotta be a big guy that spends lots of time in seedy bars.

If you are referring to the actual masterful warriors out there, however, then there does indeed seem to be a correlation between martial skill and moral consciousness. I personally think the reason for this is that to become both a moral exemplar and a great martial artist the ego must be conquered and submitted. When this occurs, such niceties as unconditional compassion for all and mushin tend to result.

Not at all. A dedicated martial artist will rise to the highest possible level regardless of his morality.

Uhhh... no.

The very highest levels of martial arts --- where we are talking about things like mushin, kanjin kaname, spontaneous flow, wa, or whatever term one wishes --- are directly accompanied by an internal development of characters and ego. I personally don't think that "morality" is a requirement for such levels of martial arts, but that it is an accompanied correlative line of development (along with things like spatial-temporal cognition, kinesthetic ability, creativity, and so on).

One can acquire great athletic ability and perhaps even strategic wisdom without really working on "self-development". But, neither of those are anything vaguely similar to the highest levels of martial arts.

 

[heretic888]

The whole idea of the rules of war is one of reciprocity. If you play nice, so will we.

Hrmph.

I thought the whole idea of "war" --- at least from the American ideal of the concept --- is self-defense. Didn't know "eye for an eye" passed as self-defense these days.

 

[michaeledward]

I thought the whole idea of war is to kill as many of those aligned against you as possible, in the most violent manner, in the shortest time possible. The end result should be the opponent crying 'Uncle' (aka Unconditional Surrender).

Anything less is an injustice to those who serve.

This is also why it should be very difficult to start an offensive war.

 

[heretic888]

New names for age old ideas.

Errr... sorta.

You could probably trace these concepts back to some long-dead philosopher-dudes in ancient Greece (although I'm sure the likes of Plato and Pythagoras would be apalled at these philosophies).

But, really, being in the book of some elite philosopher-sage doesn't mean it has been a wanton policy of any governing institution. We don't see things like that until the latter 'Age of Reason' time --- around 1500 on. Yup, its the ugly side of formal-rationalism. Darn tootin'.

For the most part, however, 'pragmatism' and 'utilitarianism' have taken a back seat to things like 'Manifest Destinies', 'holy wars', or 'divine ordainments'. Translation: I can do this because Gawd want me to.

Ta ta.

 

[heretic888]

I thought the whole idea of war is to kill as many of those aligned against you as possible, in the most violent manner, in the shortest time possible. The end result should be the opponent crying 'Uncle' (aka Unconditional Surrender).

Anything less is an injustice to those who serve.

This is also why it should be very difficult to start an offensive war.

Mwah!! Now that's pragmatism!!

 

[Flatlander]

The Geneva convention does not cover (for the most part) the insurgents in Iraq. They do not follow the guidelines necessary to be recognised by the GC. The whole idea of the rules of war is one of reciprocity. If you play nice, so will we. The GC allows for this and outlines what can be classed as a legitimate military action or group. If you are in one of these groups then you are covered by the GC. If you do not fulfill the requirements, you are not covered. You are considered to be playing too dirty.

I previously posted a link to this, but its seems that you must have missed it. Let's have another look:

From: GENEVA CONVENTION
RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
OF AUGUST 12, 1949 (GENEVA CONVENTION III)


Quote:

ARTICLE 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring
in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors
de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall
in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth
or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at
any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the
above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating
and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which
are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

I have highlighted the bits to which I would like you to pay particular attention. Note that this must necessarily include any person who is being held captive. This is detailed explicitly. There is no other qualifier.

 

[Adept]

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring
in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors
de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause

1 - this conflict is of an international nature.

2 - The captured insurgents are not members of armed forces.

3 - The captured insurgents are clearly not prisoners of war, as outlined in the section I posted much earlier.

 

[heretic888]

Slippery slopes are, like, totally off the chi'zain. F'shizzle.

 

[Flatlander]

1 - this conflict is of an international nature.

2 - The captured insurgents are not members of armed forces.

3 - The captured insurgents are clearly not prisoners of war, as outlined in the section I posted much earlier.

OK, Let's try Article 5 :

GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR OF AUGUST 12, 1949 (GENEVA CONVENTION III)

ARTICLE 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article
4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their
final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Clearly, their status has not been determined by a competent tribunal, and therefore are legally entitled to the protection as laid out in Article 4.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/FAQS/02-GuantanDetainees.pdf

 

[Flatlander]

Tom, we're discussing Iraqi insurgents, not the Afghani Gitmo prisoners. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

Ahh...OK. I think you would get the same reply though.

 

[Flatlander]

Ahh...OK. I think you would get the same reply though.

Nay, I disagree. The justification given in your referenced article was that the Gitmo folks were illegal combatants, ergo, not covered by Geneva article 4 (however, article 5 assures them coverage anyway) however, the Iraqi insurgents do not fit that description.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah, your probably right there. Personally, I think that as prisoners of the US, any detained person should be treated humanely. The Abu Graib stuff clearly overstepped some bounds. Im not against some physical/psychological manipulations (sleep/feeding/lighting/time distortion etc. stuff) to get necessary intell. I have a hard time justifying outright physical abuse....

 

[PeachMonkey]

The Geneva convention does not cover (for the most part) the insurgents in Iraq.

If you believe this, you must either be deliberately not reading the Geneva Conventions, or suffering from some sort of issue that prevents you from properly interpreting them. Even illegitimate combatants are covered by the GC.

 

[Adept]

If you believe this, you must either be deliberately not reading the Geneva Conventions, or suffering from some sort of issue that prevents you from properly interpreting them. Even illegitimate combatants are covered by the GC.

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Article 4[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

As posted by myself earlier. If the insurgents do not meet these criteria, they are not prisoners of war, and are not covered by any part of the Geneva convention which refers to prisoners of war. Very, very few insurgents meet these criteria.

[/font]Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

There is no doubt. A tiny minority of the Iraqi insurgents may have been doing the following:

[font=Arial,Helvetica](a) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](b) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](c) carrying arms openly;[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica](d) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

But most of them were quite clearly not. When confusion arises, then yes, give them the benefit of the doubt. But there is no confusion here.
[/font]