November 19, 2004

By Violating the Geneva Conventions, Terrorists Forgo Their Protection

Wizbang has a great post showing how the terrorists’ reliance on our observation of the Geneva Conventions, makes those conventions outdated:

In Iraq, we are facing an enemy that reads through the Geneva Conventions and uses the “thou shalt not” section as “helpful hints.” We’ve spelled out exactly what we will and will not do, and they are exploiting it relentlessly. We say we won’t attack religious structures? That’s where they’ll hang out. We won’t kill civilians? They’ll dress up as civilians. They’ll take hostages and hide behind them. We take prisoners? They’ll boobytrap the wounded. In every instance, the thread remains the same: wherever we show mercy and restraint, they will punish us for it.

By violating the Geneva Conventions, it seems to me that the terrorists give up all claim to any rights they would have had under them.

Wizbang continues:

...the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply here. We are not fighting another signatory nation to the treaties. Further, we are not fighting uniformed forces, and therefore each and every single one of these “insurgents” is entitled to summary execution on the spot, if we so wish.

The only laws and restraints on our troops is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is the law that covers our forces in uniform, and it and it alone should hold sway over the conduct of our forces.

...So it’s time for a new Convention, where the United States can outline just how it will deal with such people. And this one shouldn’t be held in Geneva. Geneva is a resort community—people go there, go to the spas, eat chololate, ski, and what not. We need this new convention to be somewhere that has seen terrorism up close and personal, where the wounds are still fresh and the delegates will be constantly reminded of just what this new enemy is. My suggestions are places such as New York City; Fallujah, Iraq; Beslan, in Russia; or perhaps Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 fell to earth.

Read the whole thing – both part 1 and part 2.

Update 11-19-04: It appears that my conjecture was correct. Per Volokh (via Wizbang):

But even if they somehow are covered by item 2 I’m not sure they are, since “Party” refers to governments, and these forces don’t seem to belong to the Party, but it’s conceivable that the reference to “organized resistance movements” is intended to cover situations where people fight on after the government of the nation has been defeated and a new one has been put into place they are covered only if they respect the laws and customs of war. Insurgents who are fighting out of uniform, or who are using places of worship for military purposes (see Protocol Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) are, to my knowledge, violating the laws of war, and thus are not covered. Likewise, “the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness” which I take it would include a wounded person pretending to be incapable of hostile action, while he’s preparing to attack or detonate a suicide bomb when enemy soldiers approach and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” would violate the laws of war. (“Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy” and are thus forbidden.)

Clinton Library Exhibit on L’Affaire Lewinsky Dishonors… Pretty Much Everybody

Presidential libraries have always been monuments in praise of the American political system. Clinton’s is the reverse.

The Lewinsky matter is covered in an alcove dedicated to the “politics of persecution.” The display lumps together Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” and independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation in a collection that evokes the memory of Hillary Rodham Clinton describing a “right-wing conspiracy” against her husband.

“We had to show this was a systematic attempt by Republican leaders to delegitimize Bill Clinton and the administration,” said former Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey, who worked with the ex-president during the exhibit-design process.

Come on Bill—take a little responsibility. The Nixon Library’s exhibits on Watergate don’t make partisan attacks on Democrats.

Liberals pretend that the Right is divisive. Note that the exhibit is specifically intended to be devisive.

To put a partisan attack on permanent display in a presidential library is rude, crass—even vulgar.

The exhibit indicates that Clinton isn’t very apologetic for the affair. No wonder people consider Republicans by far the stronger party on values. This exhibit will reinforce that to all its many visitors every year. So it is an ongoing attack not only on the Republicans, but also on the Democrats, and even on Clinton himself, since he’s making his own party look bad.

The Clinton Library would be well-advised to rethink this exhibit.