|
Please Don't Miss and
|
|
Saturday, 16 September 2006
|
|
More Thoughts on the Geneva Convention Dispute
Contributed by George Mellinger With some error on both sides, in the debate between and our own I am obligated to jump in and address a number of misunderstandings. There is sufficient genuine fact on both sides of the Geneva Convention argument to permit honest argument and different conclusions. First, I have some hope for minimal utility of the GC, but no faith in it. For as long as man has fought, he has butchered his enemies, and once the blood is up, it is very difficult to stop the slaughter upon arbitrary command. Perhaps the best book on the subject is Richard Holmes’ Acts of War, the Behavior of Men in Battle, Free Press, 1985. Remember that British battles from Agincourt to Waterloo culminated in butchery of the beaten. I have always insisted that the only army never to have committed an atrocity is that army which has lost so consistently that it never had an opportunity. And at their first opportunity they will make up for lost time. Still the GC may have some beneficent influence, so long as we are practical and keep to the proper context. But let’s examine some of the specific issues invoked by Captain Ed and by Martin. World War II in Europe. Yes, Germany did treat its prisoners badly, but then, most countries did so. In Germany’s partial defense, I suggest that the decisive factors were identity of the prisoners and the period of the war. As German ideology was consciously racial, the race of the prisoner mattered. Poles, Blacks, and particularly Jews had to expect gratuitous criminal treatment. British and non-Jewish, White Americans were at the top of the dung heap. The Germans were even capable on occasion, of acts of compassion. In 1942 the British legless fighter ace, Douglas Bader was shot down over occupied France, leaving his prostheses behind in his aircraft. The Germans, sportingly, contacted the British and offered safe passage for a British aircraft to deliver a new set of artificial legs for Bader. The RAF did deliver the legs, but dropped them by parachute during the course of a regular bombing mission. Later the Germans confiscated Bader’s legs when he used them to try to escape. The Malmedy Massacre of December 1944 is a significant case. While it was a massacre, and clearly against the GC, it was also clearly motivated primarily by tactical considerations. Peiper’s column was making a desperate drive deep into his enemy’s rear, and his entire operation would have been compromised by the necessity to secure and guard prisoners. It is analogous to the scene in the movie Band of Brothers. when the American paratroops kill their German prisoners, because they could not well secure them nor release them. It is also the very same situation which led to Ariel Sharon’s massacre of several hundred Egyptian POWs at the Mitla Pass in 1956. The great distinction is that Peiper lost and Sharon won. Operational necessity must always trump ethical niceness. Yes, British and American prisoners who tried to escape were sometimes executed. One of the standard rules is that to receive POW status, the captive must cease resisting and attempting to escape. Escape attempts leave him liable to penalties including shooting. Later in the war, treatment for allied prisoners worsened, but that was partially the result of the generally worsening condition of Germany itself. Food was very scarce for the captors too. But even then, Western prisoners were treated better than Russians, and it is a regular observation in accounts by Western POWs that they noticed how much worse the Soviet prisoners seemed to be treated. The Russians were a special case. First of all, the Soviets had never signed the GC, denouncing it as a bourgeois fraud. Then, according to Stalin’s military law surrender, for any reason, constituted treason and could be punished by death, and not only for the prisoner, but also for his family far in the rear. When the Soviet prisoners were returned at the end of the Finnish War in March 1940, they were given a triumphant welcome home, with a parade down Nevsky prospekt, and out the other side of town to awaiting boxcars which hauled them all off to the GULAG. During the German War, there were some exemptions granted for those with special excuses, such as air crews shot down over enemy territory - but even then, it was only on an individual basis, and only after a long interrogation by SMERSh. At the end of the war several million returned Soviet POWs were punished as traitors, many shot out of hand, and the rest sent to labor camps where they remained until after Stalin’s death, and this does not include those prisoners who had collaborated. The Soviets simply had disowned any of their own men who had been taken prisoner. In Late 1941 the Germans captured Artillery Captain Yakov Dzhugashvili, Stalin’s son by his first marriage. The Germans contacted Moscow through neutral Sweden, offering to exchange him for a German captive of equivalent rank. Stalin dismissed the offer contemptuously, proclaiming "I no longer have a son". The Soviets also began their own atrocity policy by executing captured Germans on the very first day of the invasion, before the Germans had time to intiiate their own genocide. One such individuaal was the German fighter ace Wolfgang Schellman, who was shot down on June 22,1941 and immediately executed by the Russians. The war in Russia was a war between two hostile secular religions, and it is traditional that no quarter is given to the heretics in religious wars. So a case can be made that the GC did help ameliorate the lot of Western prisoners (except for Jews and Blacks) during World War II. However, even here an important distinction must be considered. British and Americans were treated better than prisoners from other countries, and this is probably a factor of the fact that American and the UK were in a position to retaliate for mistreatment, while France, Norway and other lands were not. The notorious "parachutist order" mentioned by Captain Ed is a case in point, which supports his position better thanhe realizes. The order was given by Hitler to execute allied parachutists. While this order might have been interpreted to include aircrews, it was actually directed mainly at the OSS troops parachuting in to join the French Maquis. The critical factor was Eisenhower’s response; he warned that if the parachute order were observed, he would retaliate by executing equal numbers of German prisoners of equivalent ranks randomly selected from the POW cages in Britain. That would have been a clear violation of the GC rights of those innocent Germans, incapable of having commited any prior violations themselves, but it was still significant and successful. and proper. Thus we see that the GC has meaning only when it is enforced by credible threat of enforcement by retaliation. In the Far Eastern Theaters, there was no question of GC compliance by either side in WW II. During the Korean War both the Korean and Chinese troops were operating under the influence of Stalin Rules, which were willing to grant nothing, while accepting whatever was offered. Thus there still remain unreturend and unaccounted-for Western prisoners from Korea, though the UNO forces treated its captives as humanely as possible. This summation is identical for the Viet Nam War. We may argue whether this is a function of Communist ideology, or of a totally non-Western civilization, but that is just a detail. Either way, the record suggests that the GC is likely to prove completely irrelevant outside Western civilization. Treatment of each other’s prisoners by the Chinese and Vietnamese during 1979 is also reported to have been barbaric. And the track record of Islamic treatment of their prisoners supports the notion that this also applies to the Middle East. And there is no positive evidence yet that either moral stance or threats are likely to have much influence. I predict the same paradigm will apply if we find ourselves engaged in serious operations in Subsaharan Africa; they’re just "non-Western". Concerning the exquisite, lingering sensitivity of John McCain to torture. He certainly suffered barbaric torture at the hands of his Vietnamese captors. It is a disgrace that no DRVN official has ever been brought to justice for their violations of the GC, including not only the torture of prisoners, but also the deliberate murder of thousands of civilians in the South. But somehow that sensitivity does not seem to bother Straight-Talking Johnnie very much when it is to his political or financial benefit to canoodle a little with his former torturers for mutual benefit. Captain Ed is wrong on a few details, but is right overall. And as I read it, he didn’t say "the Germans routinely shot pilots in the Second World War", but rather that they committed atrocities from the beginning. That is a misunderstanding both of what he said, and of the "paratrooper order", (see above) which could have been avoided by maintaining composure. The Geneva Conventions have not proven to provide any particular protection for American, or other Western, servicemen. The Convention works only when backed by force - not only the supposed force of impotent international law, but by the threat of credible retaliation. While the optimal solution would be a credible declaration and act of law that we would extend GC rights only to opponents who reciprocate toward us and our allies, I fear our politicians would only use that as an excuse to weasel. perhaps if we were to dump the GC in Lake Geneva, we might move on to a more practical "Doctrine of General Reciprocity"; the Iron Law instead of the Golden Rule. Whether Captain Ed has a military background, I am uncertain, though I believe he has served in the US Navy. But I do find it troubling when someone suggests silencing someone because his prior military service is not a matter of general public knowledge. By such a standard I would be able to pull rank and silence some guy with greater technical knowledge than me, because all his 22 years of service were spent in training exercises, relief and peacekeeping operations, and never in a real shooting war such as I have experienced. and I would be silenced by Old Dogs such as 1st Cav and Russ who were out at the very pointy end of the tip. And they, in turn would have to hold their tongues in the presence of the combat dead who cannot speak at all. And Blacks could criticize only other Blacks and Women only other women (nekkid or not), and non-Americans would have no right to opinions about the USA. And I am utterly contemptuous of allegations that by behaving thus, we would somehow sink to the terrorists' level. In war or a street fight, it is the agressor who determines the rules of engagement. Churchill did not "become Hitler" because he authorized the burning of Hamburg. This is a facile sophism which would guarantee that he most ruthless and uncivilized would always win, appling a Gresham's Law to world history. As someone who dislikes war genuinely and not only aesthetically, I believe that if the cause is at all worth fighting for, then it justifies doing whatever is necessary in order to win as decisively as possible. Otherwise, war becomes just a gross game, and that is the real crime. -Rurik |
|
Contributed by George Mellinger on September 16, 2006 at 12:49 AM in , , , | Comments Posted by: 1st Cav Rurik, Quite an eloquent reply. My views are similar to yours. However, IMO McCain is grandstanding for votes and fails the troops and the country. That's even worse. Moral authority to speak on this issue is certainly not bestowed on McCain himself. Below is a letter from one of McCain's POW cellmates on the torture issue. Included within are remarks of other POW cellmates. The content is well worth the read. (link not available when posted) [QUOTE] We must not hamstring the CIA in its efforts to get information from high-ranking terrorists on which our very survival may depend. Our lofty ideals, our constant thinking that we are the good guys who refuse to fight this enemy with every weapon at our disposal, is all wrong and pathetically naive. We should do whatever it takes -- yes, fight them, down and dirty -- to show our enemies that they can't mess with us and get away with it. I know McCain very well, having lived with him for two years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, North Vietnam. I'm disappointed that he has no party loyalty and that he has become a media darling and the consummate politician. I just spoke to Col. Bud Day, Medal of Honor winner in Vietnam. He also feels that McCain is way off base. So does U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson, another Hanoi ex-POW. Politicizing the war in Iraq is an ugly stunt and is all about party power. Isn't it about time to give our president the benefit of any doubt, and show him some loyalty? Posted by: 1st Cav | Sep 16, 2006 3:57:00 AM Posted by: 1st Cav Here is the link to the above referenced comments: Additional data there. Posted by: 1st Cav | Sep 16, 2006 4:22:10 AM Posted by: GI Zhou George, The Geneva Conventions we are talking about started in 1949 and were based on the results of the all theatres of the Second World War. The United states has not agreed to the protocols one and two additional to the Geneva Conventions which deal with the granting of certain rights to insurgents and what targets can be legitimatley attacked. If you treat people humanely they remmeber long after the war has finished. It is much easier to win rthe war than the peace. I wasn't referring to any war dogs in my comments - there are too many 'experts' who tell the military how to operate without having ever been in it. Many foreign forces operate on more restrictive Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan and have been successful on ops as well as Australian and New Zealand forces in South Vietnam and during the Malaysian Confrontation. In Malayasia all enemy combatants were termed 'terrorists' for insurance reasons - war clauses etc. Ex-'Communist Terorists' I have spoken to no more than freedom fighters, not terrorists, and their own rules of engagements only allowed them to attack the security forces. The Taliban meet the term 'enemy combatant' under protocols one and two additional to the Geneva Conventions. We need to remember we are not fighting the Cold War anymore. In Iraq, many Coalition soldiers carry pistols and will fight to to the death so their famiies won't see them being beheaded on Al Jazeera. This has meant that Iraqi insurgents/terrorists have to deal with a force as fanatical as them. The reason that the Japanese were tried for war crimes against POWs was becasuse the Allies treated Japanese according to the Conventions as they stood in 1941 - 1945. I fail to see where there is ever a justification to shoot surrendered soldiers, as this is murder pure and simple. If you stoop to that level you are a war criminal and should be tried a such. Professional soldiers are warriors and warriors protect the weak and innocent and treat the enemy with repsect. To do otherwise lessens them in the eyes of their fellow warriors and the home front as well. Posted by: GI Zhou | Sep 16, 2006 5:56:23 AM Posted by: 1st Cav Some comments from a forum I sometimes visit: [QUOTE] http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp38.htm Amnesty.org Signatures United Nations Declaration on Protection of all Person from being subjected to Torture http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html Seems a lot of Middle Eastern Countries are missing from signing on to this so called UN Declaration-- 1. Where is Iraq--where was the condemnation of Hussein's torture of his citizen's during his reign of terror--why was the United Nations not standing up and pointing the almighty UN finger at Saddam Hussein --revealing to the world his inhuman treatment of Iraqi citizens? 2. Where were the Democrats on this issue--how many resolutions were passed on the floor of congress -condemning Saddam Hussein and his treatment of Iraqi citizens,where was the condemnation of torture? 3. Where was the outrage in our media -in the Muslim community and the Democrat party when our citizens were decapitated-dragged through the streets,beaten,tortured--where was the LEFT,the United Nations outcry? 4.It is really a stretch to call sleep deprivation,playing loud rock and roll music, being interviewed by a female interrogator -------TORTURE--but it no stretch to call --beating-decapitation,hanging people by their arms-beating them with clubs-breaking their limps,using unthinkable practices of mental torture--these things were used by Saddam Hussein--no complaints from The United Nations, and the LEFT 5. Vietnam--North Vietnam treatment of our military POW'S -torture-beatings-hangings,breaking of limbs,mental torture-playing of loud Vietnam music-constant Communist propaganda broadcast into their cells-denying contact with the outside word,denying religious practice...Where was the LEFT,where was the United Nations during these times-----they were no shows--matter of fact they were applauding Ho Chi and his gang of Communist thugs,they were applauding the likes of Jane Fonda-- You people on the left and yes some of you on the right--are not standing up for our military,not standing up for our intelligence agents--what you are in fact doing is GIVING THE TERRORIST A PASS --YOU ARE AIDING THE ENEMY-YOU ARE JEPORDIZING THE VERY SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are tying our military's hands-ONCE AGAIN AS IN VIETNAM YOU ARE TURNING YOUR BACKS ON OUR MILITARY--you are turning a blind eye--you are siding with the despots of other 3rd world nations that give one tinkers damn about their citizens--YOU are are NO BETTER THAN HO CHI MIN -STALIN-CASTRO-HITLER - THE UNITED NATIONS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT--YOU MARCH TO THEIR LAWS---------DON'T YOU!!" H/T to MG Gatehouse Posted by: 1st Cav | Sep 16, 2006 1:47:40 PM Posted by: M1911A Georgie, 1. Does that not prove that the GC has become merely a feel good, toothless, European, nostalgic stack of paper that only the US & UK are expected - no, demanded - to adhere to? Who else is held to such a high standard since those early years that it was created? When all is said and done, I truly believe that American troops are the most INSTINCTIVELY humane of all the fighting forces. It has always seemed to be in our genes, if you will. When soldiers will move mountains to keep a dog alive, they will generally move mountains to protect innocents. The American military has always been seen in this light as they have always gone the extra mile, hell, 10 extra miles to help the innocents. I wonder, could the GC have actually been conceived to help prevent OTHER nation's fighting forces from perpetuating attrocities? Just a thought. *** For our POWs, Veterans who've given their all, our kids fighting the most serious war we've ever been engaged in and for M1911A. God Bless You Old War Dogs & God Bless America, Posted by: M1911A | Sep 16, 2006 2:23:58 PM Posted by: M1911A [Duplicate comment removed at commenter's request.] Posted by: M1911A | Sep 16, 2006 2:25:06 PM Posted by: "the optimal solution would be a credible declaration and act of law that we would extend GC rights only to opponents who reciprocate toward us and our allies". Well said, it is unfortunate that such clear thinking isn't allowed in the world of nuance that is inhabited by lawyer/politicians. Posted by: | Sep 18, 2006 3:35:06 AM |