Iran

[Zakharra]

While the U.S. might have once had a decent moral high ground on Iraq based on Saddam's history flouting U.N. resolutions, they simply don't anymore with the "enemy combatant" distinction. The Geneva Convention was meant to apply to all individuals; this "new designation" is the most preposterous concept this Administration has advanced.

I remember in a previous thread/arguement about 6 months ago or so, it was pointed out that the GC can be taken as to provide non-soldier fighters protection, and also no protection at all since they are not uniformed soldiers of a nation. Depending what view you want. It supports both arguements.

[AlmightyTDawg]

It's effectively a problem of sloppy draftsmanship, with two distinct branches that come from the addition of protocol I in 1977 (which, incidentally, the U.S. never ratified).

Going with the original Conventions, the question is whether one falls within the ambit of the Third (prisoners of war) or Fourth (Civilians) Conventions. The sloppy draftsmanship comes from the specific enumeration of requirements for prisoner of war status. While the International Criminal Tribunal (Yugoslavia) interpreted it to mean that it was intended to be all-encompassing, which is to say one falls under the Third or the Fourth and that's it, I don't completely agree. I think the Conventions meant to exclude acts and actors that might qualify as criminal and/or indistinguishable from say a serial killer, but that's a pretty narrow restriction. Given the range of material covered from 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.6, you're looking at the most egregious forms of partisan behavior. Remember this was in response to Nazi treatment of partisans and occupied territory in WWII.

Then you have Protocol I, which far far more clearly expands the scope of Third/4.1.2 to exclude only spies and mercenaries. While the convention isn't binding on the United States for not having ratified it, that puts the U.S. in the illustrious company of Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, and the Phillipines. Even this though is weak because the nature of the conflict performed by America, requiring such things under Third/4.1.2 of openly displaying a fixed sign at a distance, is kind of irrelevant given the U.S. SOP of using intelligence and on-the-ground target designators to fire bombs or cruise missiles from miles away.

So I wouldn't say that the American position is supported by any rational reading. It's just that if you want to take narrow interpretations of the Third and Fourth Conventions in general, narrow interpretations of everything under Third/4.1, and assume that it specifically excluded a class that was a notable part of the Nazi atrocities, then the American view is not necessarily excluded. That's as far as I'd take it. Then once you consider the expansion of Protocol I, which quite specifically excludes the U.S. interpretation, it's just a crap sell.

Hence, my comment about the loss of moral high ground. When someone takes an exceptionally narrow interpretation that just so happens to opportunistically suit your needs, and those needs happen to be denying a group of individuals nearly all legal protections, it's tough to hold yourself on high. And ultimately what is it doing? It's putting individuals in the same state that we decry these "rogue nations" doing with our own troops. Seriously, if we saw that kind of behavior in ALFA, we'd ban the punks.

[Lusipher]

No ATD we would make them Admin

[mxlm]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 28,00.html

Ouch.

[White Warlock]

Monty Python's Terry Jones is always good for a laugh. Insightful wit there.

[MorbidKate]

Monty Python's Terry Jones is always good for a laugh. Insightful wit there.

Yup. Great article. Their savages

Kate

[ç i p h é r]

I've lost track - who is "them" here? The Iranians? The Arabs? The Muslims? Anyone who isn't American?

The Arabs. I've lost track of how we got here myself.

I prefer to criticise Israel for creating the situation. At the moment, it seems to me that their wrongs are greater than those of "an entire people" (what do you mean by that phrase, incidentally? Or rather, which people, exactly?) who hate the state that persecutes them, and express that in part as a religious hatred (although the rhetoric used is normally around "the state of Israel" before it's about "jews").

I suppose that's what people hear and read about. But on the street, among the people, the hatred for the state of Israel has metastasized into a hatred for Jews - or maybe it was always there but I'd like to think not. Even as a non-Arab, non-muslim, I was once influenced by these feelings. You were right before in stating that such hatred is unjustifiable, because once it ingrains itself into the culture, people stop really understanding why it is they hate. It took a long time for me to understand the source of my own feelings, and it wasn't until I got away from that part of the world that I was able to eventually let go of it. So, one can only imagine the impossibility of the situation. The odds are undeniably stacked against peace.

The conflict over Jerusalem is too complex to simply blame one side - Israel - and hold the other - Palestinians - fully unaccountable. While Palestinians once had a legitimate grievance, in my opinion they lost legitimacy once they started strapping on the TNT and blowing up as many Jews as they could find, regardless of gender or age or their role in the eviction of Palestinians from their lands. It has effectively turned it into a war.

How do you square this belief with, for instance, Operation Ajax and the subsequent support of the Shah? American support for the House of Saud? 'Pres.' Musharraf? Uzbekistan's government? American backing, in short, of quite a few, um, objectionable governments in the area?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. How is it that there are "constructive" relationships between America and some governments in the Arab world (Pakistanis and Uzbekis are not Arab btw)? I imagine that it's all merely a marriage of convenience. It's also largely irrelevant to the feelings and mood of the general Arab population toward Jews and America's support for the state of Israel. Remember, these are NOT representative governments. For the most part, Arab leaders can - and do - largely what suits them.

Do you not consider those governments objectionable? Do you not consider American support for them germane? Or is it something else entirely.

Objectionable in what sense?

[mxlm]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. How is it that there are "constructive" relationships between America and some governments in the Arab world (Pakistanis and Uzbekis are not Arab btw)? I imagine that it's all merely a marriage of convenience. It's also largely irrelevant to the feelings and mood of the general Arab population toward Jews and America's support for the state of Israel. Remember, these are NOT representative governments. For the most part, Arab leaders can - and do - largely what suits them.

Pakis and Uzbeks aren't Arab, but they are Muslim, which was why I included them.

I'll rephrase/restate. America backs unpleasant governments--as you yourself say, these are not representative governments. You don't seem to believe that American support for unpleasant governments causes the populaces ruled by those governments to dislike America. I'm curious as to why you feel that way.

Or, if I've misrepresented you, I'm curious as to what you do believe.

[MorbidKate]

I believe someone already posted this in another thread:

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecolle ... tators.htm

Quite the who's who though it's in serious need of an update. The US has been busy since 1995. Heck, where's Saddam on that list?? I'm sure they can use a stock photo from one of the 80s back-slapping sessions between him and Rumsfeld to dress it up a bit

Kate

[Stormseeker]

lol i might as well post things from a random blog site and call it a fact. Still i like the story where the writer is hogged tied.

[ç i p h é r]

I'll rephrase/restate. America backs unpleasant governments--as you yourself say, these are not representative governments. You don't seem to believe that American support for unpleasant governments causes the populaces ruled by those governments to dislike America. I'm curious as to why you feel that way.

Or, if I've misrepresented you, I'm curious as to what you do believe.

I suppose that depends on the country in question, the nature of the "support" America provides, and ultimately who the beneficiaries are. It's a pretty complicated question, but I would say that such associations in general are not a source of anti American sentiment because American support is largely intangible and because those governments control the propaganda (it certainly doesn't serve to disparage their own relationships now does it?). Since America is not actually propping up the governments you are talking about or directly responsible for them - most of the Arab world as it is today isn't something that has resulted from the 'diabolical' machinations of Americans - if the average Arab takes issue with the regime under which they live, it's not directly an Arab/American problem, at least not until someone else controls the message (much like what happened with post-revolution Iran).

Consider as well that in many places, people could not (and still cannot) voice their objections publicly, at least not without great personal risk. Doing so can result in banishment, torture, or death, so if such resentment did exist, it would surely have been kept discreet. Religious fanaticism not withstanding, of course. Nutjobs like Bin Laden factor these in when it suits them and their rhetoric (he certainly wasn't such a conscientious objector when America was supporting him and his rag tag group in Afghanistan), but even he ran afoul of the Saudi royal family when he started openly criticizing them about their relationship with America.

[mxlm]

Thank you.

I would point out, though, that in Iran America was directly responsible for installing and supporting the Shah (again, Operation Ajax). Hence the post-revolutionary anti-American sentiment can't be dismissed merely as someone controlling the message. Which is not intended to be a rebuttal to your overall thesis, merely an addendum.

[MorbidKate]

lol i might as well post things from a random blog site and call it a fact. Still i like the story where the writer is hogged tied.

Your welcome to point out which Dictators on the list weren't backed by the US

On the other hand, there are many missing from the list that should be added. The problem with supporting Dictators just because they oppose your enemies of the moment is that they tend to get thrown from power and those who suffered under the old regime will remember who supported it.

Kate

[White Warlock]

Aye, and the other problem with supporting Dictators, is that you're not supporting a 'democracy.'

Ooooo

[Rotku]

Since when has democracy been the issue?