[CLUE-Talk] Charlie Daniels comments, article about Saddam's sons.

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 19:47, David Willson wrote:
> Oh Heck.  I think I need a lesson on the basics of the Geneva
> Convention. 

Apparently. You can find it here:
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

>  I'm shocked at everything I've learned about it recently,
> and I'm beginning to think I'm disappointed.  I mistakenly thought that
> the GC was about NOT behaving monstrously (not using incendiary
> grenades, flamethrowers, or napalm on infantry-men, not torturing POWs) 
> I didn't realize that it was about being 'polite'. 

Polite? It's not about "polite" it's supposed to be about civilized
countries setting policies that allow warfare to be as humane as
possible when its inavoidable. No one is saying that we have to consult
Emily Post's rules of etiquette when holding POWs, just that there are
some rules of the road that we've agreed to. If those rules were so
outlandish, how is it that they were agreed to in the first place?  

It's also about enlightened self-interest. The deal is that if two
countries can agree on the GC, then soldiers who risk their ass to fight
for said countries can at least hope not to be tortured or paraded in
front of the cameras for the benefit of the other side if they're
captured. They can hope that, once they're captured, they can be
exchanged for the other side's POWs after the war and during the interim
being able to let their families know that they're not being tortured
and that they're alive and well. It's also for the benefit of mothers
and fathers and spouses who otherwise might not know for months or years
whether their loved ones are still alive.

If you were at risk of becoming a POW, you'd want the same guarantees. 

>  This business about
> embarrassing pictures and lawyers and not bombing the Iraqi TV
> station...  Amazing.  

I'd say its your lack of concern that's amazing. 

> Check "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the movie) for my stance on
> 'human rights.'  They're a fiction.  There's no such thing.  A human
> drowning in a lake may complain to the lake that he has a 'human right'
> to life, and the lake will drown him anyway.  There are needs and wants,
> and it's very nice if people try to help you meet your needs, and it's
> even  nicer if they help you meet your wants, but they are not obligated
> to do so.  It's very mean if they deny you your needs or the means to
> meet your needs, and that mean-ness should have some consequences, at
> least a transfer of the responsibility of meeting your needs, to them.

Read it several times. Yes, in the strictest Darwinian sense human
rights are a fiction... but the observance of those fictions make life
much more tolerable than if we decided to do away with them. 

> I challenge anyone to find a clear delineation between those things we
> call 'human rights' and all the other 'things I just feel I ought to
> have.'

Why does there need to be a clear delineation, exactly? Yes, human
rights are pretty much things that people have gotten together and
agreed upon as the things that they all agree are desirable to afford to
everyone. So? 

> I find it hard to believe that a man, even a man
> detained-under-questionable-circumstances needs a lawyer.  He needs food
> and shelter.  And anyone that tortures him should be killed as quickly
> and cheaply as can be managed, but he doesn't ~need~ a lawyer.

So... if you go to Mexico and get arrested for no good reason, you
wouldn't want the assistance of the American consulate to try to help
get you out? 

For basic survival, I suppose a lawyer is not a "need" but if you have
any hope of actually being freed at some point you probably do need a
lawyer. I suppose you'd be content to be held captive indefinitely if
you were fed and given a small cell? The rules of the GC are based
largely on what we would want to be done to us if we were captured --
and we cannot expect other countries to meet those requirements if we
refuse to do so. If American servicemen are captured, we want them to be
able to communicate with their families during that time so that their
families can have a little peace of mind. 

> I must now bow out of the debate, having realized several times now that
> I am long on philosophy and short on facts.  

Not to mention taking a completely indefensible position. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net