Where are the professional protesters who demanded the U.S. set a higher standard in treatment of those not covered by the Geneva Conventions?
Article 4
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:
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:
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:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Unlike the terrorists at Gitmo, the Geneva Conventions clearly apply to the British naval personnel seen in the photo above being held captive in Tehran.
Iran Parades British Hostages in Broadcast
Article 13:
…Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Iran is a signatory to this provision widely meant to prevent the display of prisoners for propaganda value and why you will never see even Al Queda prisoners NOT COVERED by the Geneva Conventions on television.
Iran clearly scoffs at the Geneva Conventions. But we all know they would be first in line to complain if their prisoners were treated in violation of the conventions.
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:
Said Mike's America @ 2:20 pm | Permalink
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
You know, the crowd who demands Geneva Convention rights for non-uniformed combatants/illegal combatants, and raised a stink over the pictures out of Abu Gharib as a violation of the GCs will…somehow not be present for the condemnation of the Iranian Government sanctioned violations shown in this TV release.
In addition, they will steadfastly refuse to understand the difference between a few out of control soldiers, who all have been taken to Courts-Martial doing such things, and the internationally recognized governmental structure doing the same thing.
Then, they will hold up how “humanely” the sailors and marines have been treated. Yep, because it plays well in the information war. Then again, they can cut off heads and the Left thinks the ever fattening illegal combatants in GTMO are getting the short end of the stick. Wait! Iran couldn’t behead them. They have borders, a recognized set of people who are accepted as their leaders. They don’t live in caves in what ever country they can run and sneak into….They’d have to face the wrath of the international community, like a mature country in the world, not like a street gang who likes to kill and is cobbled together from the dregs of several countries and cultures….
All of this had to be a pre-planned operation, it was just a matter of timing to snatch the prey.
The bottom line: It’s just all about BDS, with no understanding that it isn’t going to stop in SW Asia.
Comment by Xformed — 3/28/2007 @ 5:57 pm
And the brain dead U.N. and the brain dead democrat party leaders do what? The three monkey act. See no evil, Hear no evil, speak no evil truth because they don’t want to look evil to their friends, the terrorists.
Comment by Scrapiron — 3/28/2007 @ 9:27 pm
It should be condemmed, but it would have been nice if our Commander in Chief and his lawyer had not decided to try and sneak around the Geneva Convention themselves.
Then we could have maintained the moral high ground. If Bush and Rumsfeld would have studied history (especially that of WWII) they would have learned that any human is capable of doing very bad things under the wrong circumstances. Its the job of the President to insure that those circumstances are not set up to encourage the behavior.
If Bush had left the Geneva convention as a black and white set of rules as opposed to a suggestion with lots of grey areas to be exploited, then this current situation and many situations in the future would be easier to work with. Bush has setup a historical precedent that will haunt us for generations.
As a former intelligence analyst for the Army that served during the first gulf war I’m disgusted with the way the President handled Abu Grahib (and I was and still am for the war and the reasons why we went). I completely against Bush’s inability to execute a military strategy without mucking it up with short cuts and lack of planning or understanding.
Right now the best thing that the soldiers above have going for them is that they are British and not American.
Comment by brettbum — 3/29/2007 @ 1:09 am
The Geneva Conventions don’t apply to the terrorists, that’s what the highlighted red sentences explain. duh!
They don’t carry their weapons in the open, they don’t wear an identiable uniform, they use women and children as human shields, etc.
Comment by Cao — 3/29/2007 @ 3:47 am
Presidents should not handle military strategy, that is why they have the Department of Defense and all those Generals, but what do I know as an Army veteran of the Gulf War who REALLY supports our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan.
It is always nice to see people so predicatable as to want to blame Bush for the Brits getting captured.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 3/29/2007 @ 5:47 am
“If Bush had left the Geneva convention as a black and white set of rules”
Those rules above look pretty black and white to me brettbum. You sure you’re not talking about the left and their ability to redefine reality to suit themselves?
I agree with Xformed. This is a deliberate act by Iran. I wrote a piece at my page discussing the underlying strategy. The short of it is that Iran has been at war with us since their first act of war in seizing US embassy personnel in 1979.
They founded, funded, trained and directed their proxy Hezbollah in attacks which have killed 289 Americans.
And they’ve scoffed at our weak and pathetic reaction.
They may have been trying to provoke a stronger response this time. This British thing comes in the wake of repeated attacks against Americans in Iraq.
At some point they MUST be taught that such acts of war come with a price.
Of course I fully agree that the timing of that lesson should be on our timetable, not theirs.
I just am getting tired of waiting. How many more Americans will die in the meantime?
Comment by Mike's America — 3/29/2007 @ 8:49 am
I’m sure Bush somehow made the Iranians do it. He also made them take the hostages in 1979. I feel it could be true, so it is true.
Comment by Kevin — 4/7/2007 @ 8:58 pm