Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Probably not a Geneva Convention violation. After all, Iran does follow some form of Sharia. And it is required to provide clothes for and for the well-be of prisoners it has. So I see a fairly reasonable argument that female prisoners of war in a theocracy like Iran would be required to wear those head-covering scarves (ie, "appear in Islamic dress") even if the general population isn't so required.

I guess a lot would have to depend on what actions she had to perform. From what I hear, they have had to "admit" on Iranian TV whatever petty crime Iran claims they commited (tresspassing right?). That seems more a "humiliating and degrading" treatment which is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 07:17 AM

Oh, a clearer violation would be trying the POWs on charges of espionage (which supposedly Iran is threatening to do though they've threatened in a similar fashion before). Since they were in uniform, they can't so charged under the Geneva Convention.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 29, 2007 07:21 AM

Karl, you see no violation in denying the IRC access to the POW's?

Posted by Leland at March 29, 2007 08:00 AM

They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side.

Taking truth for treason just won't work any more. You might as well arrest half of America for treason. Even if you did, Iraq would still be ruined.

Oh, and I'm sure that the usual suspects in the "human rights community" will be speaking up about this violation of the Geneva Conventions any minute now.

Cry me a river. Wearing hijab isn't torture. It's not very different from what nuns wear. The US really has tortured people lately. Iran has tortured a lot of people too, but as it happens, none of them are British or American.

Iran's detention sailors is a bad thing, but Britain will clear it up they way that they should, with diplomacy.

Karl, you see no violation in denying the IRC access to the POW's?

It's a very bad time for the US to claim the moral high ground, Leland. The sailors have been detained for a whole six days. The Red Cross will see them soon enough. The US has now kept foreign nationals in custody for years without let them see the Red Cross. They even had a Canadian citizen tortured in Syria.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 08:32 AM

I think it's important to note that Dean might consider you an Islamophobe, Rand, given some of the anti-Islamic statements you have made. And that he thinks Islamophobes are also on the other side.

It's a really cool and wildly difficult tightrope to walk. He's trying to get everyone to avoid the unfair criticisms which drive apart the people who should be natural allies.

That's a tough road.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at March 29, 2007 08:35 AM

Wearing a hijab isn't torture?

Then how is being interrogated by "sensual" American women torture?

Posted by Big D at March 29, 2007 08:57 AM

Multiple near orgasms without ejaculation could be considered torture Big D. We would need to know exactly what the sensual American women did to better evaluate this. Maybe they were just doing what Rummy was fantasizing about. One mans fantasy could well be another mans torture. Also, did the sensual woman also have a dog in on the act? Or heavens, a pig? Quite a lot to think about really.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 29, 2007 09:10 AM

Then how is being interrogated by "sensual" American women torture?

You aren't sticking to the facts of the incident to which you refer. A psychologist determined that one of the Guantanamo prisoners held a deep religious belief in chastity and separation of sexes, and believed that menstruation is unclean. In response to that, a woman interrogator tried to get him turned on; she also reached into her underpants and pretended to smear her period on his face. (She stained her fingers with a red marker.)

Now, that is not quite torture either, but it is both a violation of the Geneva conventions and a felony under American law. American jails and prisons sometimes do require their detainees to wear open hoods, and that is not a crime.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 09:38 AM

Rubbing a red marker ink on someone is a federal felony? I'd like to see that part of the US Code.

Posted by Leland at March 29, 2007 11:01 AM

but it is both a violation of the Geneva conventions and a felony under American law.
*cough* bullshiat *cough*

Posted by John Irving at March 29, 2007 11:19 AM

I wonder how many of those even met the conditions of enemy combatants as defined by the Genevia Convention?

People seem to forget there is a minimum standard that must be met for one to fall under the protection of the GC. Non-uniformed terrorists and bombmakers do not meet that minimal standard. It would be perfectly within the laws of land warfare and the GC to line them up against a wall and summarily execute them them moment they are caught planting an IED. Anything better treatment wise is pure gravy for them.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 29, 2007 11:26 AM

Rubbing a red marker ink on someone is a federal felony?

I didn't say "federal", I said "American law". Most of these sorts of crimes are covered under state law. And I didn't just say "rubber red marker ink", it was a crime of sexual abuse, whether the menstrual blood was real or not.

I guess I may have overstated it in a few respects: it's not completely clear that it's a felony in all 50 states. It certainly is a crime though: it's at the very least misdemeanor lewd conduct. I would suppose that if it occurred in an American prison, it could be combined with unlawful restraint, and some other issues, to make it a felony.

It's just one of these things that is such a creatively bad idea that it's hard to know what to call it. Suppose that a corrections officer or police officer chained a devout Mormon prisoner to a chair and smeared fake semen on his face. What would that exactly be? It would certainly be wrong and illegal!

Posted by at March 29, 2007 11:59 AM

I wonder how many of those even met the conditions of enemy combatants as defined by the Genevia Convention?

It's a fine thing to wonder that. Some of the people at Guantanamo wondered the same thing. It seems that some of the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere were tortured, or sexually abused, just to find out who they were.

There is no question that some of them were tortured. One guy at Abu Ghraib was tortured to death and his abused body was shown on television. The photographer got in a lot of trouble, and the Navy SEALS who first beat him up were tried and acquitted. But the guy who actually killed him has yet to be charged with a crime.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 12:05 PM

So you are saying you would have been much happier if they had just shot them on the spot. Ok, got it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 29, 2007 12:10 PM

So you are saying you would have been much happier if they had just shot them on the spot.

No, Hamdania was an even worse crime.

You seem to think that when they say that the Guantanamo detainees were "caught on the battlefield", that it was a literal battlefield with shots fired in both directions. Actually, "caught on the battlefield" is also a metaphor for arresting people in hotel rooms, their homes, walking down the street, what have you. Probably the bureacracy at Guantanamo didn't even have a record of how or where some of the detainees were caught, and gave some of them the third degree just to find out again.

After all, hundreds of these people have already been let go. If they are so bad that they deserve to be tortured, and don't deserve a regular criminal trial, why were they let go?

Posted by at March 29, 2007 12:28 PM

I didn't say "federal", I said "American law". Most of these sorts of crimes are covered under state law.

Ok, you are apparently ignorant on jurisdictions and the law. To help you, it doesn't matter if all 50 states have the same law on the book; a law at the state level still doesn't apply in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Cuba. It doesn't apply to foreign nationals captured or held in those territories. It wouldn't apply to any US military personnel stationed or operating in those territories.

It is apparent you are equally ignorant about the Geneva Conventions.

Posted by Leland at March 29, 2007 12:52 PM

To help you, it doesn't matter if all 50 states have the same law on the book; a law at the state level still doesn't apply in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Cuba.

Of course, Leland, I know that full well. The Bush Administration set up a war-on-terrorism prison in Cuba so that it would not be bound by the rule of law. They said so explicitly in arguments in the DC Circuit court. They said that these cases are not your business, judges, because Guantanamo is in Cuba. Of course, if Fidel Castro pressed to establish the rule of law in Guantanamo, they would say that it's not his business either.

That's why any American case against Iran right now, in regard to those British sailors, would be so weak. If America can make a lawless zone, how can it complain about Iranian acting under Iranian law? It can't, really. The Bush Administration has taken the approach that the law is its enemy in the war on Islamic terrorism. But really the opposite is true, lawlessness is the enemy.

Britain understands these matters a lot better. They are allied with the US, at some considerable moral and diplomatic cost in this case, but they are not really against the rule of law. They will negotiate with Iran, and they will not get caught up on trivialities like wearing hijab. That is the right way to handle it.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 01:03 PM

> The photographer got in a lot of trouble, and the Navy SEALS who first
> beat him up were tried and acquitted. But the guy who actually killed
> him has yet to be charged with a crime.

So, we have one group of people who have been acquitted in a court of law and another person who hasn't even been charged?

But they are still guilty, because someone who doesn't even reveal his name says so?

Secret accusations are not accepted in court, for good reason. There's no reason why they should be accepted anywhere else, either.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 29, 2007 01:14 PM

Secret accusations are not accepted in court, for good reason.

It's no secret at all; here it is in gory detail:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact

Posted by at March 29, 2007 01:20 PM

Rand, your country and it's leaderships "with us or against us" rhetoric is making a whole lot of us on the outside americaphobes.

But to drag this back on topic, can you please continue to store David Hicks for us? We don't want that jackass back.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 29, 2007 01:59 PM

Adra,

Can you provide an example of "with us or against us" rhetoric more recent than five years ago?

If not, then you will forever be repulsed by the rhetoric, and will forever be an Americaphobe. That rhetoric's utterance is permanently etched in the stones of history.

A more realistic approach would be to assess whether the actions match the rhetoric (they don't), and whether or not, on balance, you prefer supporting our actions, or prefer the consequences of our failure.

It is possible, of course, not to support our actions, but prefer to receive the benefits of our success. Many Americans refer to that approach as "free riding" or "parasitic". Or far worse.

So, take your pick. You can fear us Americans (or our community, America). Or you can fear the head-slicers, or slavers, or the corrupt. You can, in principle, fear all of the above, and more, but that will leave you with few friends, won't it?

Posted by MG at March 29, 2007 02:23 PM

Rand, your country and it's leaderships "with us or against us" rhetoric is making a whole lot of us on the outside americaphobes.

Pshaw. Who cares? Folks like you (e.g. whose "friendship" is conditional on the correct use of rhetoric) have never been in any useful way friends of America. All you've ever done since the Second World War is stand around and criticize, without offering serious and workable alternatives, and without offering to share any real burdens yourself. The loss of that kind of "friendship" is no loss at all.

Furthermore, someone that useless as a friend is probably pathetically harmless as an enemy.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 29, 2007 02:59 PM

All you've ever done since the Second World War is stand around and criticize, without offering serious and workable alternatives, and without offering to share any real burdens yourself.

I hope you're not extending that comment to the entire country. Oz has been a pretty steadfast friend throughout. I wonder if Adrasteia voted for Howard's party?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 29, 2007 03:02 PM

That's why any American case against Iran right now, in regard to those British sailors, would be so weak.

An American case against Iran would go something like this: Do you see these numerous and large weapons? You need to return the British sailors within X hours or you will all die.

Not a weak case at all, I'd say.

Your problem is you have some quasi-religious fantasy belief that there is some Grand High Court somewhere to whom the Americans and British and Iranians can state their case, and then whoever wins that ethical argument gets what they want in real life. It's a strangely naive way to think for anyone no longer living at home. Where is the Dad or Mom who's going to judge the better argument? And who will make sure he with the better argument gets what he wants?

Posted by Carl Pham at March 29, 2007 03:20 PM

The ideal response of the UK Foreign Office to Iran is not possible, because of a spineless decision by the UK Government of the time the decision was made.

But if it was possible, it would go like this: "Our boats, soldiers and sailors were not in your waters when you abducted them, and of that fact we have proof. Accordingly, if you do not return our personnel and all their equipment, alive and well and in the case of the equipment in working order, within 48 hours we will destroy Qom. If they are not released within 24 hours after that we will destroy Tehran. No further discussion will be countenanced or entered into."

Of course it won't happen; our leaders are spineless, and in the remotely possible event that they weren't the spineless American leaders wouldn't give us the launch codes.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 29, 2007 03:43 PM

Your problem is you have some quasi-religious fantasy belief that there is some Grand High Court somewhere to whom the Americans and British and Iranians can state their case,

I don't think any such thing. But there are two arenas that really are not under Washington's control. One is international cooperation, and the other is American public opinion. Other countries will not respect or cooperate with an America that polices the rest of the world on the basis of invented rules. The American people will not support a government bent on world domination either.

So the fact is that Bush has no practical way to threaten Iran right now. He may hope that he does and talk as if he does, but he can't. And it's entirely of his own doing. The biggest reason is that he unwittingly made Iran an ally by invading Iraq. But another reason is that he is up to his eyeballs in hypocrisy with regard to the Geneva conventions.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 03:59 PM

Can you provide an example of "with us or against us" rhetoric more recent than five years ago?

There are several examples right here in this thread, starting with Rand's own words in the post: "They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side." That is exactly the with-us-or-against-us rhetoric that will push the rest of the world away from America.

There are other examples from the Administration as well, for example Condi Rice's formula that we should "punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia".

But you are right about one thing. The Bush Administration's divisive talk is generally now only for domestic consumption. They have polarized the rest of the world about as much as they can. There is nothing that they can explain to foreign diplomats about loyalty that they haven't heard before. The only group left to accuse of disloyalty is the Democrats, at home. Of course the rest of the world is free to watch and read American media, so the diplomatic damage continues.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 04:07 PM

Oh... I thought the "with us or against us" Adra mentioned was a specific quote from the American chief executive.

Silly me, I had no idea that Americaphobes were basing their phobia on us peasants giving voice to our attitude about head-slicers and their apologists.

BTW, Condi's comment about France, Germany, and Russia is a riff on the old NATO goal -- "Keep France in, Germany down, and Russia out."

No worries, though. If talk like that repels someone sufficiently to withold support in the fight against head-slicers and their apologists, then I don't need that person's friendship or support. They just need to stay the f### out of the way of what needs to be done.

Finally, if you want to understand the frustration that many Americans feel, watch the American movie "High Noon". If we could throw down our star and ride away, we would, but as yet, there is only this planet.

Posted by MG at March 29, 2007 04:25 PM

If talk like that repels someone sufficiently to withold support

Talk like that --- as if it's the White House's privilege to punish allies and forgive enemies --- repels everbody. That is, it eventually alienates most voters in every democratic country in the world.

If you want to understand the frustration that many Americans feel, watch the American movie "High Noon".

I am an American. If you want to understand the frustration that a majority of Americans feel, watch the election returns from last November. It's past time for Bush to throw down his star and ride away. But he just won't do it. Since he can't stand to lose in Iraq, he'll lose more.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 05:37 PM

Amazing, Iran has been committing acts of war for 28 years and we have a weak case? As I understand the NATO treaty, we could attack Iran because of their action against the UK. Anyone who doesn't think Iran is a dangerous loose cannon has their head somewhere the air isn't very good. Iran won't back down unless they get what they want or someone takes them out. Their economy is a mess, the people are restive and still the mullahs pull something like this. Some people just don't have a clue. You don't negotiate will psychopaths.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 29, 2007 05:50 PM

Iran has been committing acts of war for 28 years and we have a weak case?

What I meant was that the British sailor business is an extremely case for attacking Iran. As for attacking Iran in general, well maybe the "case" is a bit stronger in some respects, but certainly the opportunity is extremely weak. As I keep saying, the invasion of Iraq has been a shotgun marriage between the US and Iran, whether or not conservatives want to believe it.

You don't negotiate with psychopaths.

Here is a quote from a wise sage of your movement:

For 18 months now we have had underway a secret diplomatic initiative to Iran. That initiative was undertaken for the simplest and best of reasons: to renew a relationship with the nation of Iran, to bring an honorable end to the bloody 6-year war between Iran and Iraq, to eliminate state-sponsored terrorism and subversion, and to effect the safe return of all hostages. ... During the course of our secret discussions, I authorized the transfer of small amounts of defensive weapons and spare parts for defensive systems to Iran. My purpose was to convince Tehran that our negotiators were acting with my authority, to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between us with a new relationship.

Now, I think that the truth is in the middle. The Iranians are not "psychopaths", as you call them. But sending them weapons, as Reagan did, is taking cordiality all too far.

Posted by at March 29, 2007 06:12 PM

Bill M:

"Their economy is a mess, the people are restive and still the mullahs pull something like this."

So we bomb them, and the people now really want the mullahs out? Show me where that has happened before. Maybe the Mullahs did this because they WANT us to bomb them?

"Iran won't back down unless they get what they want or someone takes them out."

Take out who exactly and how? The Mullahs? The general Persian masses as in 300? Or do we just do "it", some grandly satisfying spectacle, smirk for a bit and then think about what comes next? Hmm, sounds like what happened next door...

"You don't negotiate with psychopaths."

probably what a large majority of Americans think about Dick Cheney for example, given his current near vanishing popularity.

Maybe the SAS can go in, and if they fail, Tony Blair joins Jimmy Carter in the housing business. Lord knows he has the righteous bent.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 29, 2007 06:31 PM

And here I thought the 2006 elections were a response to:

Corruption
Congressional Pages
6th year of a Presidency fatigue

I don't recall the Dems running on "Give us a Congressional Majority, and we'll get the US out of Iraq."

In fact, I don't recall the Dems running on anything. Perhaps they whispered stuff to their base of support?

Anonymous poster, my imagery about "High Noon" refers to the US as a key actor in keeping the thugs at bay. I don't understand why you personalized it into the President.

Posted by mg at March 29, 2007 06:45 PM

I think I know why he never leaves a name...He says: What I meant was that the British sailor business is an extremely case for attacking Iran.

Hmmm, a UK ship not in Iranian waters is attacked and boarded. That isn't extreme. That's textbook ACT OF WAR. The UK should be simple in its response. Let our people go, or we will blockade ALL gasoline going into Iranian water, and the the ONLY refinery in Iran will be forcibly shut down. There need be no discussion. Iran committed an act of war and they need to be summarily punished. Once the leadership realizes that they overstepped themselves, everything can proceed onward. The UK once tried diplomacy with a man named Hitler. Remember what that got them.

All you people arguing that Iran is righteous in this remind me of those cartoons..."You better not cross this line!" Line crossed "You better not cross THIS line!" Line crossed...ad infinitum. I hope there is a bottomless cliff of reason that you can back yourself off of drawing lines.

Posted by Mac at March 29, 2007 07:22 PM

I don't recall the Dems running on "Give us a Congressional Majority, and we'll get the US out of Iraq."

If your memory is that bad, you might have it checked by a doctor. You are exaggerating, but otherwise, yes, that is what the Democrats ran on.

Anonymous poster, my imagery about "High Noon" refers to the US as a key actor in keeping the thugs at bay. I don't understand why you personalized it into the President.

Because he's a cowboy? Your metaphor fits. As for the US as a whole, there is a lot more to it than "High Noon". Another US, actually a better one in my view, is portrayed in "Twelve Angry Men".

But maybe the movie that best portrays what has become of the war on terrorism is "Memento".

That's textbook ACT OF WAR.

I left out a word by mistake; I was saying that this incident with British sailors is an extremely weak case for attacking Iran. Iran has made mischief in this case, no argument from me there, but the US has done far worse in the past, to Iran and to other countries. For instance, it shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, and gave bravery medals to the sailors who fired the missile.

(Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away. Alas, et another movie.)

Posted by at March 29, 2007 08:24 PM

I wonder if Adrasteia voted for Howard's party?

Rand, I didn't vote for Howard. I voted for the guy who lives about 100m up the road and is real top bloke. It's entirely coincidental that he's also a member of the Liberal party.

If we did directly elect our PM in this country though I'd be voting against Beasley. Infact, an inanimate carbon rod would have been a better opposition leader than Kim Beasley.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 29, 2007 10:22 PM

TnT. There are PLENTY of military targets to destroy and leave civilians alone, if it comes to that.
Don't be obtuse.
Again, don't be obtuse.
The leaders of Iran ARE psychopaths. Listen to what they say. How many times do they have to tell the world their ambition is to destroy the Jews and the Great Satan before you understand that's what they mean?

Posted by Bill Maron at March 30, 2007 01:57 AM

I don't recall the Dems running on "Give us a Congressional Majority, and we'll get the US out of Iraq."

Your recall is right on. I don't see getting the US out of Iraq as one of the critical things Democrats ran on in November. Maybe a few of them did, but not nationally.

Posted by Leland at March 30, 2007 06:19 AM

Noname says: I left out a word by mistake; I was saying that this incident with British sailors is an extremely weak case for attacking Iran.

Hmm, attacking a British naval vessel outside of Iranian waters and taking hostages to attempt political gain. Whether or not you argue Iran's sovereignty, there is the direct violation of the UK's sovereignty. This is an ATTACK on a British NAVAL vessel. That's not a weak case at all. Of course, you probably believe that the loss of life on 9-11 was inconsequential as well.

Posted by Mac at March 30, 2007 06:19 AM

"But another reason is that he is up to his eyeballs in hypocrisy with regard to the Geneva conventions."

Hyperbole like this is why the extreme left is slewing itself into the looney bin of history. You call what any thinking person woud at best class as a paper cut as 'up to our eyeballs'.

What Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot did was 'up to their eyeballs'.

I am convinced moral equivlency is the last refuge of the idiot when he is not able to distinguish good from evil.

"but the US has done far worse in the past, to Iran and to other countries. For instance, it shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, and gave bravery medals to the sailors who fired the missile."

So you compare a singular 'fog of war' tragedy with another in a series of willful and malicious acts?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 30, 2007 06:46 AM

Bill M, I'm certifiably obtusion free.

Yes, I have no doubt that the Iranian leaders are psycopaths. Problem is that our Psychiatry department (Chief Medical Officer: Dr. Dick Cheney) is, shall we say, somehat lacking in anything other than electro-shock therapy?

Should I be worried whether the malady will be properly contained?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 30, 2007 12:52 PM

This is pretty interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901985.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

If it is actually Mossad that did the kidnap thing, all I can say is Wow! And the Germans are in it too? Holy cow.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 30, 2007 03:42 PM

Post a comment