tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post116589330639696517..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Stalag 2006David Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1165937260495733562006-12-12T07:27:00.000-08:002006-12-12T07:27:00.000-08:00Mark, as I've told you on numerous occasions, the ...Mark, as I've told you on <I>numerous</I> occasions, the Geneva Conventions are divided into certain sections only guaranteed to legal combatants, and other sections which are guaranteed to everyone regardless of status. We've been through this. All I ask is that we a) give these people a fair hearing to determine if they <I>are</I> combatants are not, and then b) operate under the requirements of Geneva that clearly apply to all persons regardless of status. That means no waterboarding. Nazis are evil creatures (no need to tell me that), but I don't think we should have to mix and match to figure out who is coming out worse in what category.<BR/><BR/>Russell: I'd agree that reciprocity is an important aspect of Geneva, but I don't think its the whole baby. I'd say that reciprocity gives otherwise reticent states an incentive to enforce the convetions, but the conventions don't become inapplicable just because one party doesn't do it. As noted above, several aspects of Geneva explicitly apply even to illegal combatants. I think there is a strong anti-brutalization norm in the convention that does not require reciprocity to become obligatory. Moreover, I think you're misstating the proferred reasons why we say we're violating Geneva. We're don't say we're doing it to be punitive. <I>That</I> argument would never fly in front of any federal judge without metaphorically waterboarding the 8th amendment. The argument we're putting forth is that these people are <I>too dangerous</I> not to do things like waterboard--hence, the Stalag analogy.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1165932175887949802006-12-12T06:02:00.000-08:002006-12-12T06:02:00.000-08:00Ok. How "respectfully" would the Germans have trea...Ok. How "respectfully" would the Germans have treated <I>illegal</I> enemy combatants? Did they give the French underground the same treatment. I think not.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your insistence that we <I>must</I> give Geneva violators full protection of the convention or even that there is a understanding that is expected.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.com