I've been listening to this fight between the Senate and the White House over clarifying what Common Article III means.

You know, I'm open to the argument that we should follow the Geneva Conventions because it's the right thing to do and right way to behave, but the argument that we should do it to ensure good treatment of our own troops is simply laughable in the real world (and I suspect that most of those in uniform think so, too). When is the last time we fought an enemy that actually obeyed the Geneva Conventions?

And of course, I think that it's a perverse travesty, and counterproductive of the purpose of the conventions, to reward people who trample on them by treating them under their provisions. All we do thereby is encourage them in their barbarity. That is a Supreme Court decision that needs to be revisited.

"When is the last time we fought an enemy that actually obeyed the Geneva Conventions?"

The last time any of the enemy parties observed the Geneva Conventions for US prisoners was 1945. The last time all of the enemy parties observed it was 1918.

International law sure is working for us.

I thought the Geneva conventions were written to avoid some of the atrocities of WWI, such as German use of mustard gas.

I think the closest answer to the question is probably Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War with only a few minor infractions (such as use of prisoners for propaganda). Other than that, I think there is not an enemy. I personally believe that Saddam was compliant because of the heavy use of force on the US side. He knew the battle was for Kuwait and not Iraq, but inhumane treatment of US prisoners could have changed that strategy in 1991.

No, that's just one of the Conventions, which was developed in 1925. The first one goes back to 1864.

Yes Rand, prior to 1925 they were known as the Hague Convention. My point was primarily that even WWI failed to live up to the conventions, and indeed it prompted a change which created the new conventions that hence have been known as the Geneva Conventions.

Even in WWII, the Germans didn't follow the Geneva conventions with Russian prisoners because Russia hadn't signed the conventions. And if anyone wants to talk about how the Japanese treated prisoners, research the camp of Changi.

"I think the closest answer to the question is probably Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War with only a few minor infractions (such as use of prisoners for propaganda)."

Scott Spiker's faimly might disagree.

I agree with Rand. We are the United States. We are good. We protect freedom and human rights. And therefore it is fully justified for us to torture people who do not believe in human rights.

Tom Shembaugh: I agree with Rand.

I guess there could in theory be a more idiotic interpretation of what I posted, but there certainly isn't any in this comments section.

At least he had the courage to post it under a real name (maybe even his own).

Has anyone noted that the current enemy is not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention in the first place?

Enemy belligerents out of uniform, and/or disguised as civilians, are subject to summary execution.

And if they aren't enemy belligerents they are simply guilty of murder, and the appropriate penalty for that in the Iraqi legal code, and that of much of the USA, is death.

What's the problem?

rcmwezqu ltceks xuad geob muqk guxmnfb etwqlh