[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[allen]

Raymond Ingles wrote:
>  For legalese it's almost amazingly pellucid, and there's a difference
> between 'ambiguous' and 'technical'. Sections of RFCs refer to other
> terms and sections of the documents, for example, but that doesn't
> mean that they are therefore ambiguous. I've been able to implement a
> working FTP client just from reading the RFC, for example.
>
>   
 > equivocal: open to two or more interpretations; or of uncertain 
nature or significance; or (often) intended to mislead; "an equivocal 
statement ...

The uncertainty - ambiguity - as to the definition of a legitimate 
combatant is resolved by the reference to Article 4.

If you ignore the requirements of the section you lose the claim to the 
protections afforded by the Geneva convention. Seems quite straight forward.

>>  About that "competent tribunal" provision, that only applies "Should any
>>  doubt arise". If it's clear that a captured combatant doesn't fall under
>>  the definition of a prisoner of war as described, no tribunal is necessary.
>>     
>
>  The majority of people in Guantanamo were *not* captured by U.S.
> troops - they were turned in by others for reward money or other
> considerations. That's where the doubt comes in. And Aaron has stated
> specifically that people nearby when an IED goes off are routinely
> picked up on suspicion. But there hasn't been any legal scheme for
> handling them until very very recently.
>   
Why is the capturing force important? If the Iraqi authorities feel 
incapable of properly handling enemy combatants then there's nothing to 
prevent the U.S. and the Iraqi government from entering into an 
agreement to hand off prisoners to the organization best able to deal 
with them. Since the combatants in this conflict refuse to abide by the 
Geneva convention they put not only themselves at risk but also 
uninvolved civilians. It is unfortunate but if it's a choice between 
American military personnel being put at increased risk of death of some 
number of Iraqi citizens being put at risk of imprisonment then I choose 
the latter.
>  But even at that point, torture shouldn't be the default, go-to
> tactic. It should be used carefully and judiciously, when needed,
> because there needs to be a clear difference between us and them - not
> just in degree, but in kind. And I think our administration and our
> soldiers are capable of living up to that standard. (It's not really
> clear to me that the current administration has, in fact, done so.
> They've shown a rather surprising disregard for the law at home; I'm
> dubious about their behavior when oversight's difficult.)
>   
As Aron already pointed out in another response, there are only three 
cases of waterboarding which a) makes it *not* the default and b) hardly 
qualifies as torture.
>  The treatment of detainees has so far been managed with stupefying
> incompetence in many cases. Abu Ghraib, Dilawar, Spc. Baker - look 'em
> up. Without clear limits people in guard positions will do brutal
> things. This is human nature - look up the Stanford prison experiment.
> The U.S. treats prisoners better than a Soviet gulag or Saddam's
> torture chambers, sure - but that's an awfully low bar to get over.
> Simply for propaganda purposes, we should be different in kind and not
> just degree
I've already looked up the Geneva convention and found you're quotation 
misrepresentative of the document.

Between that misrepresentation and your hyperbolic claim of torture as 
the default U.S. manner of treatment of prisoners, the similarly 
hyperbolic comparison to Soviet gulags and the rest of it, I'm 
disinclined to spend more time picking your claims apart.

Allen