With Americans increasingly convinced that the Bush Administration lied to sell the war in Iraq, Bush and his defenders are pushing an idea that’s been refuted quite a few times before, but obviously needs another go. This is the claim that “everyone believed that Saddam had WMD’s”. Hence, it’s argued, even if the Administration misread the evidence, this was an honest mistake, shared by others. The argument is bolstered by citations from the Clinton Administration, Democrats who supported the war and claims about the concurrence of the French and other intelligence services.
For this argument to hold up, it’s obviously necessary that people believed in Saddam’s weapons independently of what they were told by Bush and Blair. After all, the whole point of the criticism is that the Administration’s lies led people to support the war.
It’s easy enough to support the claim that independent observers generally believed that Saddam had WMD’s with citations from 2002 and earlier. The evidence supported such a belief. Saddam was known to have used chemical weapons in the past, and to have attempted to produce nuclear and biological weapons. Moreover, he had first obstructed and eventually expelled the UN inspectors who were supposed to check that his weapons and facilities had been destroyed. This belief was reinforced by the claims made by Bush and Blair, who asserted that they had detailed knowledge about Saddam’s weapons programs. It was reflected in the unanimous passage of UNSC Resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to declare all its weapons and readmit inspectors.
The problem for the Bush argument is that the inspectors were in fact readmitted, inspected the sites that had been pointed to as likely targets, and found nothing. At this point, anyone who was not willing to rely on the word of Bush and Blair ought to have revised their beliefs and most in fact did so. For example, here’s my take on the issue, in January 2003, and this didn’t rely on inside information or special insight[1]. Most national governments that were in a position to make an independent judgement reached the same conclusion, a point reflected in the failure to get a second UNSC resolution supporting the war.
The conclusion to be drawn from the evidence after the inspections resumed was not that no weapons existed, but that there was not enough evidence to reach a conclusion and that inspections should continue. Again, most people who did not rely on the disinformation presented by Bush and Blair drew this conclusion.
Of course, a lot of people did believe, even after the inspections resumed and found nothing, that Saddam definitely had WMDs. But, almost always, this was because they placed credence in the claims of Bush and Blair, and particularly the willingness of Colin Powell to endorse them. As evidence that these claims were not dishonest, the fact that they fooled a lot of people points in the wrong direction.
fn1. My lack of special insight was evident in my belief that the British Labour party would never support a war in the absence of clear evidence that Saddam had WMDs.
John Quiggin 
Terej: “Syria offered Bin Laden to Clinton. Clinton declined because Syria was an enemy.”
Actually I believe you’re referring to Sudan – and the offer was, in fact, to deport him to Saudi Arabia (not the US) provided he was granted amnesty.
Considering that Bin Laden had already killed Americans at that point, the Clinton administration’s response is understandable.
1. John Humphreys Says: November 13th, 2005 at 7:04 pm “Roberto—your above Kerry quote is irrelevant to your point. He is saying that if Saddam had nuclear weapons then he would be a threat.”
Aren’t nuclear weapons WMD?
2. jquiggin Says: November 13th, 2005 at 7:30 pm “Roberto, you don’t seem to have read the post. The fact that lots of people, including Democrats, believed Bush doesn’t mean he wasn’t lying. You’re merely repeating Bush’s talking points without responding to the post.”
I did read the post. My point and question which remains unanswered was: “were people of quality like Clinton and Albright duped? or were they just stupid/gullible? (surely Albright would have had the experience to have ‘tested’ the intelligence presented) or did they TOO believe the intelligence presented? which prima facie presented very strong ‘positions’.
3. orang Says: November 13th, 2005 at 7:44 pm “Roberto, you did say “people of qualityâ€? in the same breath as Clinton and Albright didn’t you? This is the pair who killed far more Iraqis than Bush and appearing beautific while doing it. Yes, they lied too.”
Yes I did say that about Clinton and Albright – are you suggesting that they were not bright, and capable? And how exactly did they kill more Iraqi’s. If that is so, why then aren’t people jumping up and down to put Clinton etal up for war crimes?
You cite Clinton and Albright’s quotes as a defence for Bush’s lies.
Are you suggesting that because they were bright and capable then they would not lie? – Are you extremely young?
Why is no-one pointing at them as war criminals? Because they were bright and capable and used the UN to legitimize the sanctions. If they were bright, capable AND humane, they would have realised soon enough that the only ones who were hurt by the sanctions were the innocent children, women..
Orang, could you please unscramble your first para as it is nonsense.
For fear of taking the thread somewhere else, are you in principle against economic sanctions. Therefore, you would have agreed with both Thatcher and Reagan against the economic sanctions imposed against the Aparthied regime in South Africa?
Don’t know what it is you don’t understand about the 1st para.
I’m sure there are instances where economic sanctions are the best solution. In the case of Iraq it seems they did not achieve anything except cause suffering for the general population and make a few shady characters rich.
In the case of South Africa and Apartheid, the regime clung onto legitimacy by it’s association with it’s very few remaining supporters. The fact that NZ continued playing rugby with them and you mention Thatcher & Reagan, mean’t they hung on longer than they should have. I think being ostracized by the world was a clear message that what they were doing was unacceptable and eventually they found a way to change.
“Why is no-one pointing at them as war criminals? Because they were bright and capable and used the UN to legitimize the sanctions. ”
Because sometimes there are no good options only least bad ones.
Can you suggest another alternative to sanctions besides:
a. invading Iraq, killing (conservatively) 100,000 Iraqis and wrecking the US budget; and
b. leaving Saddam in power and allowing him to rebuild his miltiary and resuem his aggression against his neighbours?
I think economic sanctions are a very blunt instrument that harms the most vulnerable in a society. I am against blanket sanctions. I can see justification in sanctions that might restrict access to certain materials (eg Uranium).
In the case of Iraq I think the sanctions should have been lifted once the UN inspection process was completed (which it mostly was).
In the case of South Africa one might argue that the regime change would not have happened without economic sanctions and that ultimately the people that died as a result of the sanctions were merely collateral damage (perhaps a bit like those innocent people killed during 911).
In the case of Rhodesia the sanctions did help bring about achieve regime change. Who amoungst us that fact today when we look at the result?
In the case of Cuba sanctions have left Castro entrenched and merely hurt the little people.
Against a democracy where the common man/women has some influence in changing the government then sanctions may make some sence. One might argue that the half backed democracy of Apatheid was more likely to yield to such influences.
When dealing with a dictatorship such as Iraq it is far more noble to invade than to implement perpetual sanctions that kill silently. Even if you have to tell lies in the process.
If the choise is limited to Economic sanctions on Iraq or Invasion of Iraq then I think the latter is probably better. Personally I would lifted sanctions but national pride may have made that too hard for the USA/west to swallow.
I don’t like the regime in China but I think it would be stupid to cease trade with the people of China.
QUOTE: Actually I believe you’re referring to Sudan – and the offer was, in fact, to deport him to Saudi Arabia (not the US) provided he was granted amnesty.
RESPONSE: I had the details wrong. Here is a more authorative source:-
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
The key passage from the article:
“Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to “baby-sit” him–monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn’t want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”
Some of Mansoor Ijaz’s other claims about Clinton’s failure to capture Bin Laden were investigated by the 9-11 Commission and were found not to be credible.
JQ and Ian — on the opinions of libertarians… I agree that Australian opinion is split. But to put that in context, Australian libertarians are hardly a huge political force, and unfortunately too many Aust libertarians tie their flag to the Liberal party.
In the US, the clear majority of libertarians opposed the war. I saw polling done by the US libertarian party that showed over 90% opposition to the Iraq war among members. When I met with the US LP President we discussed the split among Aust libertarians and he was shocked — he indicated that it was a relatively straight forward matter for US libertarians. Major libertarian groups (CATO, ISIL, Independence, IHS, etc) have been consistently against the war.
Some libertarian-leaning conservatives backed the war, but that isn’t really indicative of libertarian opinion in the US. Neither are a handful of bloggers.
Steve — there are lots of bads that came from the war and these should be considered in any intellegent analysis of the policy. One is the cost. Another is the continuing conflict. Another is the death of US soilders. Another is the possibility of more terrorists. Another is the possibility of a Iran-backed shi’ite theocratic state. Most of the costs aren’t done by terrorists, and even if they were it is still a relevant part of a benefit-cost analysis as it is a consequence of the multi-billion dollar government program.
The primary benefit seems to be the potential future improvement in the lives of average Iraqi citizens. Sounds like a government foreign aid project to me. Commie (as we say here in Australia — where the hell are you from?).
Roberto — I say again: your above Kerry quote is irrelevant to your point. He is saying that IF (note the word IF) Saddam had nuclear weapons THEN (note the word THEN) he would be a threat. Tricky stuff.
Terje: In the case of Rhodesia the sanctions did help bring about achieve regime change. Who amoungst us that fact today when we look at the result?
Actually, Rhodesia was never as rich as when it was under sanctions. Most people (black and white) look back on the period of UDI as their golden past.
The war of independence (then called the terrorist war against a Nth Korean backed communist group) was won against the government (which had more black soilders than white soilders and a mixed race parliament) after their last ally (Sth Africa) stopped helping. The winner then went on to massicre tens of thousands of Matabele tribesmen and set about destroyoing the country. Yay for history.
Apparently the Jordanian bombing was the work of Iraq-based^ Al Quaeda jihadists. This is bad news for Bush as this metastasization of the GWOT* puts the final nail in the coffin of the Gulf War apologists.
I’d like to see Bush lie his way out of this one.
It is not necessarily bad news for Howard. Apparenty Jordan’s opposition to the latest Gulf War# was not enough to spare it the jihadists wrath.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/12/AR2005111201201_pf.html
#http://www.iht.com/getina/files/289062.html
*http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1129575,00.html
I am having trouble coming to terms with how badly I worded my earlier point about Rhodesia. I think my point can almost be understood. I will try harder.
JOHN H: Actually, Rhodesia was never as rich as when it was under sanctions. Most people (black and white) look back on the period of UDI as their golden past.
RESPONSE: John Humphreys, I would love to hear your views on economic sanctions as a general principle. If they were so good for Rhodesians then why were they imposed? If they were supposed to be harsh were they then a failure?
What role should sanctions be given in deposing foreign dictators? Are they more successful against populations that have some franchise within their system of government. If we ban the sale of tampons to Saudi Arabia will they be forced to give women the vote?
How do you view Australias role in the sanctions against Rhodesia? I understand that our then PM argued earnestly for them.
JOHN H: But to put that in context, Australian libertarians are hardly a huge political force, and unfortunately too many Aust libertarians tie their flag to the Liberal party.
RESPONSE: Whilst I opposed the war from a US perspective I can more easily rationalise Australias self interest in the conflict. Howard has used it very effectively to leverage a relationship with the USA. So the fact that American libertarians opposed the conflict almost unanimously and Australian libertarians did not, can probably be somewhat explained by the different sacrifice in terms of blood and treasure and the relative accumulation of benefits.
# Ian Gould Says:
November 14th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
“Can you suggest another alternative to sanctions besides:
a. invading Iraq, killing (conservatively) 100,000 Iraqis and wrecking the US budget; and
b. leaving Saddam in power and allowing him to rebuild his miltiary and resuem his aggression against his neighbours?”
I am sure, very sure, that if the aim was merely to contain Iraq then there was no need to invade and there was no need for blanket sanctions. A long term carrot and stick approach perhaps. Hell I don’t know , as it’s been pointed out many times to me, GWB is President and I am , well me.
Rid your mind of the concept that a “mistake” was made. All this recent talk of Bush “well you guys had the same information as me and voted to go to war” is another red herring for the public to wrangle over and avoid the fact that they planned to invade a long time ago.
Terje — I’m skeptical of the value of blanket trade sanctions. It hurts the most vulnerable and is often a valuable rhetorical tool used by the sanctioned government to build nationalism. I generally think that trade builds positive relationships and social capital.
Katz,
On your point on the legality – it is not as simple as you depict. At the end of the first (entirely legal – UNSC approved) war (or was it phase of the war), there was a truce (not a peace treaty) that was conditional on many things, including the acceptance of inspections for WMD (and other items). The failure of the Iraqi government to fully honour the conditions of that truce may (emphasise may) produce a valid legal case for war under the Vienna Conventions. Various UNSC resolutions bear witness to the fact that there was not full compliance. It is, however, for better lawyers than me to argue over whether the conditions in the Vienna Conventions had been met at the start of the war.
I would be among the first to admit that there is a question as to its legality, but the black and white case you presented is not correct.
Shorter Andrew Reynolds: I don’t know the facts or the law, but you’re wrong anyway Katz. so there.
“Various UNSC resolutions bear witness to the fact that there was not full compliance. It is, however, for better lawyers than me to argue over whether the conditions in the Vienna Conventions had been met at the start of the war.”
Gee whiz, and to think that Bush, Blair, Powell and Howard didn’t have to put themselves through the agony of convincing the Security Council and the embarrassment of being filleted in public by Monsieur de Villepin.
And what enormous forebearance the pro-war cabal demonstrated, insisting on the potency of Resolution 1441, while all the meantime denying themselves access to the tremendously supportive Vienna Conventions.
If one didn’t know better, one might imagine that the pro-war cabal were deliberately making life more difficult for themselves than it needed to be.
And on the issue of the importance of this question of legality, see the opinion of Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, former chief of the British Defence Staff.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1474276,00.html
When shown the infamous Downing Street Memo, Sir Michael, opined that the British justification of war penned by Lord Goldsmith may not represent a legal cassus belli.
This is exactly the issue being tested in the soon-to-be famous court-martial of Lieutenant Kendall-Smith who is being prosecuted for refusing to obey what he claims to be illegal military commands, viz., to fight in Iraq under the cover of the Goldsmith Memo.
Shorter SJ – I am not going to bother to read the comment properly because I disagree with it.
.
Katz,
I agree that an UNSC resolution would have removed all doubt about legality – I suggest you re-read my comment and spare me your misplaced sarcasm.
The Vienna Conventions argument is a long one, complicated, and difficult to sell politically. It is, as I stated, also questionable, but that does not mean it is wrong, only uncertain. Obtaining a UNSC resolution would have been both politically and legally the cleanest option, which is, IMHO, the reason why they tried that route. The fact that China and Russia would never accept it for their own domestic political reasons and France did not for foreign policy purposes is neither here nor there – it was not approved by the UNSC and so therefore the invasion remains legally questionable. To say that it is definitely either legal or illegal is, however, IMHO, premature before a court of some description has ruled on the question.
The biggest lie of the war was not its veracity of the rationale. Its was the lie told about the probable efficicacy of execution that really floored me.
A plausible rationale (for allies and associates) is only a necessary condition for invasion. A workable occupation plan is required to provide the sufficient condition for invasion.
In short it was the “cakewalk”, not the “WMD”, lie that did the most damage.
There were any number of good reasons to get rid of Saddam eg human rights abuser, persistent aggressor, weapons proliferator, terrorist harbourer, sanctions buster etc. But these are no more than satisfying morality tales in the absence of a workable regime change and nation buiilding plan.
In retrospect it was Wolfowitz’s silencing of Gen Shinseki which was the most damaging deceit.
Jack is spot on actually.
I still think all you anti-Iraq war types should send in job applications to your local intelligence agencies because you are obviously head and shoulders above the professionals.
No one lied, except I think this Scooter fellow.
It took 2 years be for ethey started rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII. In 2013 I believe Iraq will be the model that other Middle East societies will want to follow.
History will show that the cost of removing Saddam will be more than repaid and that it was the correct thing to do.
>I still think all you anti-Iraq war types should send in job applications to your local intelligence agencies because you are obviously head and shoulders above the professionals.
you mean professionals like Blix, Baradei, Ritter and Willkie?
I agree with Jack’s point too, as it has been mine since the beginning.
The Iraq debacle isn’t a question of “should or shouldn’t”, it’s a question of “can or can’t”.
The “should or shouldn’t” question will arise only after “can’t” has been proven, and the people and political classes of the US and Britain decide to turn vengeful and punish the foks who presided over a disastrous war (and by the way lied their way into it on behalf of the Nation).
Howard on the other hand will remain immune from this vengance because everyone knows that he was just a dupe, though a willing one, and was in no position to know the truth because of his subordinate position at the end of a very tainted flow of information, emanating at CIA and MI6 Headquarters and syphoned through the necrotic kidneys of Neocon falsifiers.
I agree the execution was not good, but I notice Katz did not respond to my point on its legality. Does that mean you concede, Katz?
I guess, the issue of ‘lies’ is moot, as the current situation is paramount. The Kurds might be grateful. http://www.theotheriraq.com/
I don’t think anyone believes the legality argument, Andrew. Among other things, it implies that Iraq (or any other country that chose to do so) would have been justified in invading Israel for its continuing breaches of UN resolutions (before quibbling about precise wording remember that, under Bush rules, it’s the invader who gets to decide on these things).
The UNSC clearly didn’t think it was authorising an invasion, as witness the failure to get a second resolution.
I think your best line is the one to which Roberto has now retreated, that bygones are bygones.
Andrew — I don’t think your shorter SJ was any shorter. And since when did you start caring so much about the UN anyway? Abolish the bastard organisation I say.
What was the stance of the European intelligence agencies while Powell was doing his slide show at the UN?
I can understand the US and British context but once the UN inspectors went back in that last time did they change their tunes?
PrQ,
Israel has ignored resolution after resolution – true, but none of them even came close to the authorisation of force, no matter what your interpretation was. The resolutions on Israel were under the chapter of the UN Charter that does not permit force. The US would have vetoed them if they were under the chapter that could be used to authorise force. The resolution authorising the first gulf war specifically authorised the use of force and was under the relevant chapter.
There is an argument (which I will put together when time permits and post it here, perhaps on Weekend Reflections if you do not object, PrQ) that the recent invasion was effectively authorised by the first UNSC resolution and the government of Iraq’s breaches of the truce after it. I am not saying that it is conclusive and it does rely on what the invading parties did or did not know at the time but it does allow for an argument. All I am saying is that for Katz or anyone else to say the issue is settled is premature until the issues have been tested in court and all the evidence is presented before a jury. Perhaps the upcoming court martial will allow that. I will be an interested observer.
.
John H,
We may or may not feel that the UN should be abolished, but, while it is there the concensus is that it the backing of international law.
Andrew, these are arguments coming out of the same stable as the Bush Administration’s claim that the Geneva Convention is no longer applicable, and with the same credibility. I think Katz is safe to say these issues are settled. Of course, the US Administration will be very careful to ensure they never come before a jury.
QUOTE: And since when did you start caring so much about the UN anyway? Abolish the bastard organisation I say.
RESPONSE: If not the who bastard thing then at least that engine room of poverty called the IMF.
My original post on this issue (Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal) entertained three hypotheticals. Two of them ended with exculpation of the Bush position.
I never asserted that the case for the guilt of the Bush administration had been decided.
I merely attempted to remind readers of the importance of this question of deliberate lies in relation to the question of guilt for “a crime against peace.”
The Nuremberg Principles are clear enough.
The facts are less clear, although the argument for deliberate falsification by the COW is gathering strength.
Entirely unclear is the possibility that anyone in authority will ever be required to face a charge of “a crime against peace”.
So, Andrew, i’m not sure what you think I ought ot be conceding.
However, the court martial of Lieutenant Kendall-Smith may serve as a war crimes tribunal by proxy.
“a crime against peace� sounds like a daft notion. Its a bit like a war on drugs. As if the drugs are shaking in their boots.
“Crime against peace” is a bit orotund, I agree, but measurably more so than “war against terror”? I think not.
Both terms show unmistakable bloodlines of the American penchant for empurpled abstraction.
“The Kurds might be grateful.”
Yes, after 80 years of Arabs oppressing Kurds it’s their turn.
Of course, no-one disputes that Saddam committed terrible crimes agaisnt the Kurds, which raises the question of why his erstwhile Kurdish collaborators Jafari and Talabani aren’t standing in the dock next to him.
Andrew — I don’t care what the consensus view of the UN is, and I’m surprised that you do. I must say, I have found the war-supporters sudden affection for the UN and multi-billion dollar government foreign aid programs (which is what the war is) quite baffling.
JQ – the Geneva convention did not apply in the invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban and Al Queda fighters do not fall within the definition of those covered by the conventions.
The same applies for the terrorists fighting in Iraq or anywhere else.
If you can prove that they do qualify under the Geneva Convention I will be happy to publicly withdraw my criticism, but you are WRONG.
Razor, here is the article of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that puts the lie to your comment.
RWDBs are inclined to stop reading the Geneva Conventions at Article 4, where indeed there are limits imposed on who may be considered to be a legitimate POW. (However, those limits are rather more constraining on the freedom of action of belligerents than RWDBs are willing to concede.
However, were RWDBs to read on to Article 5, they’d find this:
“Article 5
“The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
Please point readers of this thread to the relevant determinations of a “competent tribunal” on this issue of treatment of POWs of the GWOT.
Katz,
You are correct about your point on the Nuremburg Principles- I therefore withdraw my request for a concession and apologise for my error.
I am disappointed though that PrQ believes the matter as ‘settled’ – I believe it is not. I would agree, however, that, as I stated earlier, the upcoming court martial will be a good proxy test, provided they can get appropriate evidence. I am not, however, confident that either the UK or (particularly) the US government will release the evidence that would prove it one way or the other.
.
On a couple of the other points above –
JH, Like many people I care about the rule of Law. While the UN exists the concensus is that it represents the law in international relations. I may believe it should be abolished / reformed / changed / left alone / idolised / declared the soverign almighty, but while it represents the law it should be respected as such, just like I do not like some aspects of our current criminal code and will compaign to change them, but if I breach those provisions I should expect to pay the appropriate penalty.
Katz – on the Geneva Conventions, I believe you are 100% correct and find the holding of anyone in this sort of detention abhorrent. It would not matter if it were Osama himself there, he would still be entitled to an appropriate hearing and trial. If international or national law permits this then it is a law that is wrong and needs changing quickly. I would also say that your interpretation of article 5 seems correct.
You defeat your own argument. Article 5 doesn’t apply because the question of “Should any doubt arise” doesn’t apply. No doubt has arisen. Article 4 is clear in who is entitled to protection and the Taliban, Al Queda and foriegn mercenaries not in a recognised military uniform aren’t covered.
Andrew, there may indeed be an argument that existing conventions need to be changed to reflect realities unconceived of when they were promulgated in 1949 and 1950.
Perhaps the time for the Bush regime to do that was when sympathiy for the US was high in the wake of 9/11.
Unfortunately, Bush has destroyed much sympathy felt for the position of the US, and he has destroyed much of the credibility of the United States in foreign relations.
Hubris and arrogance induced Bush to believe that he could achieve his ambitions despite world opinion.
He should have learned a very expensive lesson. But I fear that he has in fact learned nothing.
Razor, the barrack room lawyer has got the better of you.
Even if the term were “reasonable doubt” there would be a need for a presumption favourable to the detainee pending a determination by that competent tribunal.
I’m sure you’ll recognise that “any doubt” a stronger favourable presumption than “reasonable doubt”.
Katz – you have a significant problem in that you are trying to impose peace-time civilian principles to military operations. The Geneva Conventions are very clear in who is defined as being covered by them. Members of the Iraqi Army were covered. Civilians were covered. Anybody else who wanted to fight doesn’t get the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are just lucky they were fighting a Western Nation so that in captivity they clothed and fed and weren’t summarliy executed.
Quite right Razor.
Razor,
So if someone invaded Australia and you picked up a gun to defend against them after they replaced John Howard, you would legitimately be subject to indefinite detention without right of appeal if the invading power so decided? And, if the invading power were not a western nation, you would truly consider yourself lucky if not summarily executed? I do not think so.
In any case, holding people in this way is morally wrong (IMHO). If international law permits it, then the law should be changed. Hiding behind possible loopholes in the law in the name of holding people in offshore places away from proper scrutiny merely creates a supposition that something very wrong is being done to the detainees.
Not my problem Razor, complain to the promulgators of these conventions. If you want to change them, why don’t you run for King of the World?
You pay lawyers to tell you bad news, otherwise why bother?
The point of Article 5 is that the person apprehended must be treated as if she were a POW until proven otherwise by a “competent tribunal”.
In any case, these Conventions are applied only as victors’ justice.
Alternatively, they may be used as corroborative reasons for punishing unsuccessful and unpopular leaders under domestic law.
Thus, it is possible, though not likely, that someone in the Bush administration may face war crimes trials under US domestic laws. Reference to the Geneva Conventions in that case would simply add some legal gravity to what would essentially be a political trial.
Razor,
There is legitimate doubt about this – Iraqi civilians who “spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces” are possibly covered. All people apprehended then have to be processed through a ‘competent tribunal’. Even if they claim to be Iraqis (but in fact are not) they must be processed through that tribunal. That has not happened.
If the war has, in fact, finished then they should either be tried or returned home. That has also not happened.