Thursday, July 13, 2006

The Geneva Convention and the treatment of American POWs

Captain Ed writes today that we need to get over the pretense that bending over backwards to provide all Geneva Convention provisions to terrorists will somehow protect American POWs from current and future mistreatment:

Name me a war where our enemies abided by the GC.

That isn't an argument that we should not abide by the GC, of course; we signed the document, and we should honor our commitment. However, let's quit pretending that this will gain us anything in the way our enemies treat our men and women, once captured. Perhaps someone can explain that supposed benefit to the families of Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker.

Read it all.

Update: Opinion Journal takes the Bush Administration to task for a Pentagon memo that it believes is a cave-in to the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling. It claims the White House is now taking a self-administered political beating that may well have implications down the road:

Already, in the wake of this reversal, the Bush Administration's critics are talking about the "illegality" of its previous failure to abide by Geneva rules. We'll predict that it won't be very long until some European magistrate indicts Donald Rumsfeld or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley or some other U.S. official for "war crimes" for this failure. The Pentagon's new memo won't be much of a defense.


Post a Comment

<< Home