Byers Reading

(Rant warning) Rules and laws notwithstanding, I haven't been convinced of why we must eliminate "terror" through armed conflict, or, for that matter, that armed conflict could eliminate "terror". Isn't terrorism the byproduct of disproportionate capacity to wage battles of ideas? Accepting that as at least partially true, isn't our beef with the GWOT not so much that the players (say U.S., UK) are wrong to violate norms, but that the means used to fight are ill-suited to the purpose of stamping out terrorist cells? Thus, we can argue that the GCs are good, and violating them is bad - but that in the long run, if our ideals should win, then we must find the best means possible to further those ideals. I don't take issue with states going their sovereign way, as all must, but only with the states that fail to live up to the ideals they purport to be spreading. (Rant over)

1. Arguing the law rather than the facts is always a great way to draw attention away from the facts. When the Bush Administration argues whether the GCs apply, they aren't suggesting that the GCs are useless, but may simply be attempting to focus attention on theory rather than actions. Of course, this is problematic, because people get caught up in the argument rather than focusing on improper actions, inappropriate decisions, and may never make it to the logical conclusions that when the GCs don't apply, U.S. civilians are at risk

2."The reason to abide by the Geneva Conventions with respect to al Qaeda captives is not because we believe that al Qaeda will therefore reciprocate by treating our personnel well. The reason is that people who are not now our active enemies will be more likely to take up the jihadi cause against us if we confirm their view that the United States aims to persecute Muslims. Even where there is no hope for reciprocal treatment of Americans, disregard of international standards for treatment of detainees undermines our security by losing hearts and minds throughout the world." - Dorf, Michael;

"Why The Military Commissions Act is No Moderate Compromise"

We tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is why the laws in bellum require certain "legal" behavior regardless of the enemy's actions. The importance of treating your prisoners with respect is to ensure respect for your own soldiers. This is playground law. Compliance IS self-interest.

3. Here's the difficulty I see. By the time a horrendous violation of GCs occurs against an American, the public will have completely lost track of the events leading up to the event. That is, say Antarcticans rise up and take some scientists hostage and torture a few. They claim, "the US doesn't abide by the GCs, neither do we. That makes us the same." People are loathe to see themselves as resembling that which they condemn. We won't be able to reflect and say, "oh yeah, they did that because we did that." In other words, reciprocity flows in two directions: if we abide, others will; if we flout, others will. -JQ