AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Are Geneva Conventions outdated?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
In this article, entitled Rules of War Enable Terror, Alan Dershowitz (a professor of law at Harvard University, an author of numerous books, and the savior of von Bulov and O.J.Simpson) argues that the Geneva conventions, originally intended to protect the population from war, became a tool of protecting terrorism.

Quote:THE GENEVA Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
The war by terrorists against democracies has changed all this. Terrorists who do not care about the laws of warfare target innocent noncombatants. Indeed, their goal is to maximize the number of deaths and injuries among the most vulnerable civilians, such as children, women and the elderly. They employ suicide bombers who cannot be deterred by the threat of death or imprisonment because they are brainwashed to believe that their reward awaits them in another world. They have no "return address."

Dershowitz suggests the following changes:

Quote:The time has come to revisit the laws of war and to make them relevant to new realities. If their ultimate purpose was to serve as a shield to protect innocent civilians, they are failing miserably, since they are being used as a sword by terrorists who target such innocent civilians. Several changes should be considered:

First, democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians, so long as proportional force is employed. Civilians who are killed while being used as human shields by terrorists must be deemed the victims of the terrorists who have chosen to hide among them, rather than those of the democracies who may have fired the fatal shot.

Second, a new category of prisoner should be recognized for captured terrorists and those who support them. They are not "prisoners of war," neither are they "ordinary criminals." They are suspected terrorists who operate outside the laws of war, and a new status should be designated for them - a status that affords them certain humanitarian rights, but does not treat them as traditional combatants.

Third, the law must come to realize that the traditional sharp line between combatants and civilians has been replaced by a continuum of civilian-ness. At the innocent end are those who do not support terrorism in any way. In the middle are those who applaud the terrorism, encourage it, but do not actively facilitate it. At the guilty end are those who help finance it, who make martyrs of the suicide bombers, who help the terrorists hide among them, and who fail to report imminent attacks of which they are aware. The law should recognize this continuum in dealing with those who are complicit, to some degree, in terrorism.

Fourth, the treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.

Is it time to scrap them, or substantially revise them to take the new reality into account?
He's not the only one to suggest this. John Yoo, Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights, also states pretty much the same thing.

It is becoming obvious that those who create terror and then hope to fade into the civilian population need to be ferreted out and treated differently from regular combatants who serve their countries military.

I, for one, totally agree here.
Arrgh, interesting, (and thanks for the link). Both are coming to the same conclusion at the same time.
I insist we start a real "Mission Impossible Force" (if we haven't already), where we trick 'em out of their secrets. Is it in the Geneva conventions to drug a terrorist, then wake him up in a staged heavenly harem with 72 virgins, and an angelic scribe who needs to take down the precise details of the earthbound happenings to ensure the terrorist a continuing place in the harem room? If he volunteers information of his own free will, judging it is in his best interest to do so with no actual promises made, is it so wrong?
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find 72 young Arabian-looking women willing to, um, coddle a suspected terrorist into talking.

Maybe they could get away with saying the order of heaven requires only four at a time. I dunno...
pickled shuttlecock Wrote:Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find 72 young Arabian-looking women willing to, um, coddle a suspected terrorist into talking.

Maybe they could get away with saying the order of heaven requires only four at a time. I dunno...

I volunteer to conduct the interviews! 8)
Rollin Hand could put on makeup to look like 72 virgins.
Gary they need to be and remain virgins.
Jeff, don't tell Gary... maybe Rollin swings that way.
Somewhat another but related thing. Why we call the low life that engaged in terrorism a "militants", "unlawful combatants", even Reuterville "freedom fighters" when throughout the history they were called bandits? Proper definition goes a long way when there are attempts to apply some law.
You know - I'm not so sure that denying them GC rights is the right thing to do. As borders begin disapearing with global communications transending nationalities, many of these terrorists are bound together by a similar ideology. A sort of loose confederation of ideas and goals. They don't have a huge military behind them, they don't have a single border with an individual government but they do share a common purpose and use what articles of war they can come up with. In fact I'd say they are indeed braver and more original than many governments because they exist in a near vacum with no nationality, with no place to retreat except in their own common purpose and death.

They are tied together for the most part by their hatred of the west, hatred for their own governments and fanatical reliance on their religion. They have nothing to live for. Yet from what I read coming out of gitmo, some of these young guys have begun to get an education there while in captivity and are actually looking just a little bit differently at the world around them. Maybe even learning a little from us that we are not all that bad if you give us half a chance.

And if we reduce ourselves down to the level they use as their only effective weapon - we are in the end no better than they are and we end up giving them even more excuses to hate us all the more.

So I say we remain civilized and stay on the high ground - even if it means costing us lives in the short's the long run big picture stuff that will win this war in the end.
Murdok, I agree that it feels right to keep ourselves on a higher plane by abiding by the Geneva Convention - but I'm also of the mind that such niceties tend to give the terrorists added glamor as warriors, when they should be thought of as criminals and bandits, perverts and sick-minded.

If there is a way for us to be civilized and yet not let them act like they deserve the trappings of civilized society, I'm all for it.

Clinton was right, as far as he went, to treat terrorists as law-breakers - but he made the mistake of assuming there was a framework of laws that they fit inside that could handle them. We have to use the military to deal with them - but not as soldiers.
Bill - Doesn't torturing them and killing them only stir up more hatred? What good does it do - except get us a piece of intellgence every once in a while. If we treat them humanely we are in the end showing them they are wrong about us...and I disagree - I'd say using the military in a police and law and order manner is one option we have, so long as we can patch the relations with other governments Bush has alienated.
Quote:. If we treat them humanely we are in the end showing them they are wrong about us.
Prove it, please. I tend to think that "then" does not follow the "if" here. In other words, when you treat them humanely, they feel nothing but contempt for you. In order for them to follow your logic they have to think the way you do. Unfortunately, they don't.
Murdok Wrote:If we treat them humanely we are in the end showing them they are wrong about us

Geneva conventions were not meant as an abstract exercise in humanism or PR; they define the rules of conduct. You cannot have one side obeying the rules, while the other ignores them.

For example, during WWII, Hitler had chemical weapons, but decided against their use. Do you think this was because of his humanism, or perhaps the realization that once he uses them he would also face them?
If we do good the Arabs will like us?

I posted this quite some time ago.

Interesting question, and I can already tell most of you are getting ready to hit that reply button to trot out the normal answers (even answers I normally give), you know, fanatacism, or the evil empire syndrome of the US, both sides have their talking heads, blurbs that generally are spewed back at us on a nightly basis in our thirty minute news flash of what is happening in the world. Lately I have been doing some reading. Here are some thoughts to add to those 30 second flashes of news.
For a number of years the US has been villified for several reasons, support of Israel and support for unpopular Arab regimes run by despots. This, many assume came to a boil on 9-11. Now while we know that anti Americanism is fairly widespread it really doesn't tell us why and its seems a bit misleading. I find it difficult to reconcile Arab and Muslim hostility towards the US with US policy. US policy has actually been very very pro-Arab and pro-Muslim so I believe that this anti Americanism is actually a product of self interested manipulation by key groups inside of Arab society. I believe it is important to identify such an action for the following reason:

If Arab anti Americanism is grounded in the domestic issues of Arab society and not the "evil" deeds of the US, then no amount of public relations or any real change in US policy will change that perception. As a matter of fact, changing US policy to meet this manipulation within Arab society will only make it worse. US attempts at meeting the internally designated evils of America will be seen as an "appeasement" of a weaker nation and encourage radicalism to go even farther.

Seems to me that for the past decade or two anti US sentiment has always been the "last resort" of despotic political regimes whose failed systems have tried to prop up their own standing and diverted attention away from their domestic failures. By assigning faults or shortcomings of their own systems on the US many Arab leaders hope to distract their people from the real problems, so instead of pushing for greater privatization, equality of women, democracy, a rule of law society, freedom of speech, due process, (note how lacking all of these items are in the Arab world), it is better to use the US as a whipping boy (think Schroeder doing this over several decades to win elections).

What is so interesting about this tact is how it flies in the face of reality if one were to look at the factual history of US policy. The US has always favored a policy in its own interests, but those interests have also generally coincided with those of Arab leaders and their people.


The US saved Kuwait from annexation by Iraq's secular dictator in 1991, mainly to preserve cheap oil to be sure, but it was still in effect a pro-Kuwaiti, pro-Muslim and pro-Arab. It would have been easy for the US to sieze Kuwaitis fields and demand lower prices or even political concessions. Instead we, well, we just left while we sought the highest level of political support for our actions among Arabs and Muslims.

Conflicts in general

When the US has become involved in a regional dispute (often at the pleadings of Europe) it is usually during fights between moderates and secular Arab forces or radical Islamist groups that even most Muslims consider too far in one direction. The US has generally backed groups with a strong claim to Arab or Islamic legitimacy. You can see this going all the way back to the 1950's. Look at Egypt, Syria and Iraq, while dictatorships friendly to Moscow they menaced Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Even during the 1950's the US wanted good relationships with Nassar and we even prevented his overthrow by the UK, France and Israel in the 1956 Suez War. The US continued to woo Egypt, we accepted Syria's hegemony over Lebanon and really during that period the US did little to punish state sponsored terrorism. The US even acted as a protector of Islam during that time since we viewed traditional Islam as a counter to secular communism which had, at the time aligned itself with radical Arab nationalism.

Still we are the bad guys.

During the Cold War it became popular for radicals to portray moderates as western puppets to establish their own legitimacy and even accused US backed moderate governments of being anti democratic or ignoring human rights while ignoring the actions of regimes like Libya, Syria and revolutionary Iran which had far worse records. And I believe that is part of the impossible dilemma for the US. When we help friendly governments we are accused of undermining revolutionary movements in Islam, but when we pressure those Arab governments into improving their actions in democracy or human rights (which we also do) we are accused of being imperialists (see Eddin Ibrahim on google if you don't believe me). During the 70's to the 90's whenever there has been a conflict between moderate governments and Islamic movements we did not take sides. In Iran's 79 revolution, the US wanted to Shah to stay in power but we instead restrained him from being tougher than he was. After the revolution (before the hostage crisis) Jimmy Carter attempted a conciliation with the new government, that unfortunately caused the radicals to seize the embassy with a sign that said "No moderates served here". The only time the US has ever really been involved countering an Islamic rev movement was Afghanistan.

Lets look at some other examples:

1-End of the Arab Israeli War in 1973 the US rescued Egypt by forcing Israel into a cease fire.

2-US saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and arranged safe passage to Tunisia.

3-The US was willing to support Arafat and the PLO while overlooking their history (our bad) of terrorism, anti Americanism, and alignment with the Soviet Union (you'd think we would learn after Castro).

4-Despite Palestinian backing of Iraq during the War the US sponsored a peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would have created a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (See how Arafat has pissed all that away).

5-Our support of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

6-Saudi Arabia from Iraq

7-Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia (Not Europe's finest hour for peace).

8-Muslim Pakistan against India

9-Muslim Turkey against Greece

10-Accepted Syrian control of Lebanon (a neutral action)

11-On a racial basis we supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran (and believe me the Arabs like Persians only a few notches above Jews).

12-Arab oil tankers against Persian Iran (yes also in our best interest but remember they often coincide).

13-Somalia where the US is trying through humanitarian efforts (and no compelling state interest) to help a Muslim people under warlords (I really don't see any Arabic states stepping up to the plate on this one either).

14-When US oil companies holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Lybia and others we showed an amazing amount of restraint.

15-Soviet collapse would have been a golden opportunity for a purely pragmatic movement into the Levant.

16-We have not used our overwhelming strength to directly dominate the Gulf and gulf states.

17-Since 9-11 the US has also taken great efforts to show the world (and the US) that Islam and Arabs are not US enemies.

So really with the exception of our support of Israel, during the last 50 year in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Islamic countries and non Muslims, Muslims and secular enemies, or Arabs against non Arabs the us has always sided with the former.

So why the kick in the huevos?

The real record is disregarded but why?

1-Well first I think while we fail to understand the region fully, Arabs failure to understand the US has been significantly greater. Seems the the Middle East always thinks the US wishes to conquer or wipe them out (part of the xenophobia adopted from the earlier Mongolian invasions), but also because its what they would do, if they could.

2-I believe that we also forget how tightly information is controlled in the area. Ostensibly Al Jazeera is the first Arabic news station not controlled by a state. So you can see its easy to manipulate the hoi poloi via constantly being fed false information without any real tertiary access to accept differing viewpoints.

3-Then all our actions are distorted by this tightly controlled media. The US is blamed for the suffering of Muslims that it protected in Kosovo and Bosia. Humanitarian aid in Somalia is shown as an imperialistic anti Muslim move defeated by heroic resistance fighter (ie see warlords that brought starvation to the country in the first place).

4-The more dangerous threats that the US protects them from is downplayed. Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait, vanalized it, threatened invasion, tortured and repressed his own people, chemical weapons guy, fired (wildly inaccurate) missiles against population centers, wants a nuclear weapon (so he can say "whos your daddy"). And with all that, Arab leaders in the Middle East tell their people the US is partially responsible for his actions.

5-There is that constant need for Arabs to reduce all US actions down to one single stupid item. US supports Israel, so all the US does is wrong, and all that anti American Arab groups do is right. Regardless of the ambivalence the US has in regard to Israel.

Note without number 5, you would still have four other key elements that make US policy almost impossible and untenable in the Arab world. Also note that this is generally domestically produced (relative to the Arab world) and usually outside US influence.

For radical Islamic groups anti Americanism has been an easy way to aspire to legitimacy and muster support. Generally these though have been rebuffed in establishing a theocratic states (exception being Iran), so they foster a type of xenophobia among different Muslim groups who see Islam differently and also against heathens in general who they claim seek to destroy Muslims.

Then again anti Americanism is just as useful for oppressive regimes. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, living standards, human rights, less corruption less incompetence, the leaders prefer to blame the US (see Palestinians for a perfect example of this). The governments do the "national unity or shut up routine" (and yes we do it to in times of crisis, but not for decades at a time and it almost never props up a presidency for very long). Of course by taking the anti US route, these groups also make sure their opponents don't use the same tactic. So while Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive weapons and protection from the US they have also promoted the ever popular US whipping boy scenario through various policies and through state controlled media (which is very anti American). Hey if America can be blamed for Iraqi deaths because of sanctions, who is going to remember the siezure of Kuwait? Iran uses the tactic to get the US out of the Gulf and to keep focus away from their two biggest weaknesses. 1-Iranians are not Arabs 2-Iranians are generally Shia and not Sunni. Domestic reformers are called US puppets and hence delegitimize them. Syria uses anti US sentiment to distract the people away from reforms that Assad promised (but quickly abandoned).

For the Palestinians its great cover for their own rejection of peace and compromise and a method of mobilizing the groups when necessary. It also gives the leaders themselves cover for rejecting US policies they disagree with claiming their hands are tied because of the passion of the people (course that never stops tough action when the leaders feel their own self interest is at stake).

Of course then there are the Arab anti American intellectuals and journalists who feel the need to vent their anger at government approved targets instead of risking personal life and limb by criticizing their own governments for its failures. Yes we are the whipping boy.

Now this is not to dismiss all anger towards the US. But lets be accurate here. The reactive violence of the middle east for their grievences is completely disproportionate. Arabs and Muslims have suffered less from US policy than most other groups. But none of these other groups comes anywhere near the level of violence and hatred the Middle East regularlly spews out. Arab states don't really have a basis for complaints. They have grown rich off the US economy and US influence over Arabic economy is limited at best, so they can't legitimitely argue that Arabs are poor based on US policies. We certainly don't make or break nations. Since the Pro-shah coup in 1953 there is not a single US covert action to change a Middle eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the US an attempt for an overthrow, and so far we are really doing a great job there aren't we? Fact is most other countries in the world, including Europe have a better case at being angry towards the US than the middle east, but you won't find Europeans caling for terrorist attack from their minarets.

Really it comes down to using the US to disparage good ideas that arise from the US. In essence anti Americanism is really a negative response to gobalization and westernization.

Finally there is an established false dichotomy. To portray the US as an enemy it must be made to be the bully. To ecourage challenging the US it must also be portrayed as weak. Radical Islamic groups and states are frustrated because the US, to a certain extent is feared and some even see alliance with us as a desirable outcome. If America is powerful why fight it and the people it protects? So radicals must somhow show the US to be both horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked.

So if the US does little to respond to attacks anti Americanism is encouraged by the belief it is meek. Look at the key themes in Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Kussein and others, they do not say attack the strong America, but attack America because it is weak. Hafez Assad once said "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden agrees once commenting that people always back the strongest. The Iraqi minister himself also commented that Western weakness in confroning Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression. Saddam has consistently interpeted US conciliation as proof that the US is weak, after all, if it were not so, why negotiate? (from Saddam's point of view). In a speech in Feb of 1990 Saddam has said the Arab world has three options.

1-Arabs can give up
2-They can wait until Europe is stronger and play Europe off the US
3-Unite behind a strong Arab leader that can defeat the US.

Guess which option is still foremost in his mind?

He went on to say that the US has shown "signs of fatigue, frustration and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon (see Lebanese Barracks bombing and its aftermath) when marines are killed. Experience has shown that if Iraq acted boldly the US would do nothing, he concluded. He still believes that to this day otherwise why pull back before reaching Baghdad?

So what should the US do in the face of this conundrum? With the benefits of developing anti Americanism on a domestic basis, how do we convince Arabic leaders not to do this? Even if the US withdrew support for Israel, pulled back from Iraq, Arab newspapers will not sing the praises of the US. It will however encourage radicals to even greater heights.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism, so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (masras I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.

But hey, thats just me.

A book that brought this to the forefront for me was "Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East", I highly recommend it and while it is not the easiest read it goes into a great deal more insight and analysis than is offered here.
Will read the post above more carefully later, but let me point out a relevant omission:

18. *Right now* the US lets the arab government of Sudan conduct one of the biggest instances of genocide in history.

A more serious comment: it is the US pattern of supporting arab regimes that created the perception of the US weakness. Unfortunately, this pattern continues even today: the deal in Al Fallujah, while tactically necessary, will prove very costly long-term.
I wrote this almost two years ago, amazing how it still appears to be relevant. mv: Even your point is about the US "letting" an Arabic government get away with attacking black muslims while the "semitic" or arabic muslims don't even life a hand.
Baldar Wrote:I wrote this almost two years ago, amazing how it still appears to be relevant. mv: Even your point is about the US "letting" an Arabic government get away with attacking black muslims while the "semitic" or arabic muslims don't even life a hand.

(Uggh, this thread is going offtopic) Actually, Sudan is multitasking in two genocides, not one. Their actions in the West are directed against black muslims, their actions in the South are against Christians and pagans. And, yes, they racists too, another point of affinity with liberals. Wink1
Pages: 1 2 3