It says a lot about the U.S.'s moral standing today that it seems unexceptional to smart people to refer to the *Red Cross* as an "activist group." I knew that's how, say, China would view them ....

Care to link to those?

The official commentary to CA3 is of course enlightening, and rather sad in places:

What Government would dare to claim before the world, in a case of civil disturbances which could justly be described as mere acts of banditry, that, Article 3 not being applicable, it was entitled to leave the wounded uncared for, to torture and mutilate prisoners and take hostages? No Government can object to observing, in its dealings with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals.

The answer to the rhetorical question being, of course, "the United States of America."

JJ writes: The Article 3 cite Sully and Cato give is a pretty thin reed, really.

Not when I click through the link you graciously provided & read this language, prohibiting

outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

And at what point did AQ sign onto the Geneva convention? Seems to me the conventions as originally drawn up have specific paragraphs in them regarding people who do not sign on to the conventions; they are not protected by the conventions.

So, why is it, that you're attempting to make the conventions into something they're not, Anderson?

Instead of adopting the narrow interpretation of [CA3] asserted by the Bush Administration and reflected in the opinion of the DC Circuit, the [Hamdan] Court chose to follow the "spirit" of the law of armed conflict that no person falls outside the protection of the law. This spirit is reflected in the Commentary to the Geneva Conventions, which indicates that common article 3 should apply to the broadest range of circumstances.

This spirit, which has animated the law of armed conflict policies of the Department of Defense for many years, was undermined by the restrictive policy of the Bush Administration. But, as the Court noted, the purpose of common article 3 is to provide a baseline of humanitarian protection for any armed conflict that falls outside the regulation of the Conventions writ large because it does not involve two state entities. In so doing, the Court has rejected the proposition that an armed conflict can occur outside the scope of some legal regulation, a proposition central to the purpose of the law of armed conflict. [Seems the sentence slipped away from him here--A.]

This aspect of the opinion transcends the question of the legality of the military commission and extends to every aspect of military operations conducted against Al Qaeda. It represents a categorical rejection of the proposition that individuals detained in relation to such operations are protected against inhumane treatment only as a matter of policy, and not as a matter of law. Instead, such individuals fall under the protective umbrella of the common article 3 humane treatment mandate. The "international" scope of the military operations associated with this fight should therefore no longer be asserted as a justification for denying the applicability of this provision to such individuals.

It is remarkable to me that the application of this baseline standard of humane treatment was ever seriously questioned. It is less remarkable that this pragmatic balance of authority and obligation was adopted by the Court. Such a balance is central to the legitimacy of military operations-- even operations against a trans-national terrorist entity.

It is amazing, really amazing, that the notion of treating even evildoers with basic human (and Christian) charity is so offensive to so many readers of this blog.

Not when I click through the link you graciously provided & read this language, prohibiting

outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

JJ falls back upon: It probably does not apply to captured terrorists or non-uniformed guerrillas in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

But CA3 applies to "persons ... placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause." How to read that without including terrorists, etc., seems to me to be a challenged. Once they're detained, CA3 kicks in. Mr. Gandhi's opinion, based on a citation to a treatise, is interesting but does not appear to be more authoritative than the plain wording of the text.

See this post at Opinio Juris, reminding us that Congress incorporated CA3 in the War Crimes Act.

The torture will stop after you, your kids, your wife and your entire family are beheaded by those who you uphold and want to protect. (Terrorists).

Why don't you pull your head out and stop your "Hate Bush" words and attitude of giving "Aid and Comfort" to our enemy whose main objective is to kill every American, including you.

You must have some kind of a "Death Wish"

It was a foregone conclusion that he was gonna come up with that. Sullivan speaking up against the bush administration is like the sun coming up in the morning. You know darn well it's gonna happen. The guy has been butt kissing the far left since Gore. If the Bush the administration is for it it's a Vice-Grip cinch that Sullivan will be against it. (So much for his vaunted open-minded fairness!

Make no mistake about it; those who claim they are "raising the bar for the rights of individuals" as regards giving these unaffiliated terrorists "rights" under the Geneva convention are twisting the convention into something that it was decidedly not intended to do. As Joyner points out:

The prisoners at Gitmo are not entitled to the protections accorded soldiers under the Geneva Convention. Under Article IV, Section B, nontraditional armed forces are given EPW protection provided they meet several tests:

[a] That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

[b] That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

[c] That of carrying arms openly;

[d] That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

None of the Gitmo detainees meet that test, which has remained unchanged since at least the Hague Conventions of 1899. Persons who become combatants by taking up arms by who aren�t members of an organized armed force, don�t wear easily identifiable clothing and insignia to distinguish them from noncombatants, or who otherwise flout the law of war (e.g., by using a protected facility such as a mosque for combat operations) are unprivileged belligerents or unlawful combatants (the terms are interchangable; the former term was the only one I�d seen in the literature until very recently).

So, why are these people so interested in making the conventions into something they're not? Why, it's the same reason that John Murtha refuses to wait until such time as all the facts are in before declaring our soldiers murderers. It's the same reason that John Kerry and Martha and several others are saying we should cut and run. (And let's cut the garbage, that really is what they're calling for the denials of their leftist base notwithstanding.) They're looking for a political foothold, against a strong United States. In the end, it's really that simple and that direct.

In my view, the real crime being committed here, is against the United States by Kerry, Murtha, the Democrats as a whole... and their supporters... including Sullivan. They hate Bush so much they're willng to risk their very country for a chance of damaging him.

There a word for that particular crime...

Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Starts with a "T", I think. I don't know.
Or, maybe it's not a crime anymore?

Don,

I'm sure you'd like to defend that scurrilous charge, but we don't let those accused of being terrorists defend themselves.

This is the USA after all.

I don't think that a terrorist is any more vile than the Nazi leaders we captured in that war or those who ordered the rape of Nanking or the Bataan death march. But we treated those bastards in a civilized manner after their capture. That is what moral high ground is about.

BTW, if we capture an Al-Qaeda agent who we know has knowledge of an imminent attack on the US, I have no problem at all with using any necessary means to break him. But we do need OVERSIGHT and checks and balances. If Bush is above the law, then this is not the America of the founding fathers.

Question for you:

Would you rather die from
a)Burning alive in a jet-fueled fire
b)Jumping to your death from 70 stories up or
c)Being beheaded while conscious by a terrorist using only his hands and a dull saw

The choice is yours, liberals!

It'd be far more accurate to say: "it's a summary of the vapid talking points we'll hear on talking head shows and editorials."

Ok, I skimmed his piece, and it's crap. As usual. Here's my quick summary of the jurisdictional question.

Re: a treaty with al-Qaeda: that's, no joke, close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'll let Obsidian Wings take it away:

"In signing and ratifying those Conventions, we did not enter into a treaty with them. What we did was: to enter into a treaty that governs our conduct with respect not only to soldiers of countries that have signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions, but also with regard to other people. That does not mean that we have "a treaty with those people", any more than the fact that the fact that members of the Kiwanis Club have Geneva protections means that each of the 71 state parties (pdf) to the Geneva Conventions has a treaty with the Kiwanis Club. To say that it does mean this is just dumb."

Because it can't be said enough: Lowry is that guy in 9th grade that couldn't "get" algebra.