Following an article on soldiers complaining about being treated in the same hospital as members of the Taliban: Army defends treating Taliban - , - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK I had lots of thoughts without reaching a conclusion. On the one hand, it seems appropriate if one is claiming the moral right to treat wounded people of the other side as one would treat the wounded of one's own side (officer and a gentleman, what what?). On the other, a long-standing technique for making effective soldiers is to train them to see the people they're fighting as part of the faceless mass of evil they have to take down; this is what enables a soldier to do his job without losing his mind. Is compassion an integral part of what makes a good soldier? Part of me says 'absolutely', part of me says 'definitely not'. Does treating members of the Taliban the same as members of the British military perhaps encourage mutual understanding? Or is it an insult to both? Do the practical and logistical considerations outweigh any other? I can't decide what I think about this.
Sheesh, know what you mean Grace... But my gut reaction is that a doctor's oath is to treat people regardless of race, creed and all that, Geneva convention as (and the article) GGG said, so they should be treated. Admittedly, it can't be a nice surprise to wake up in the bed next to someone who may have been responsible, if only in part, for you being injured in the first place, but they do say that where possbile they keep them apart, so I guess all is being done that can be done to accommodate people's sensitivities on both sides. Maybe if everyone was forced to see the enemy a little less as a faceless mass war wouldn't be what it is today...
It does seem to be more about logistics than anything else. Any casualty will be treated regardless of national origin, the question is only where. Building multiple military hospitals might alleviate some unease that NATO soldiers have about being treated with the enemy, but would be fiscally impractical. Questions could also be raised regarding whether the enemy wounded were recieving the same level of care... if they're in the same hospital that should receive a fair standard of care. Regarding the compassion issue, here's a story from my current pre-deployment training. One medic, an aid station medic on his last deployment, told how during asualty calls, he made no distinction between US and insurgent casualties, because they both cried out the same. However another medic, who served on the line, definitely made distinctions, since it was his buddies who were being injured. Empathy is part of compassion, and soldiers have plenty of it - it's just that most of it is directed at their brothers and sisters in arms. Perhaps the solution to the problem would be to have totally passionless people as warfighters, then they wouldn't care either way. Scary and unrealistic, but there would be no issues about being treated with the enemy. Incidentally, I'm currently in Kuwait waiting to head further north. Doing well so far, and I hope to participate more in the near future.
The Geneva Convention requires the fair and humane treatment of prisoners of war. But I don't see it requiring that both be treated in the exact same building, nor does it warrant that two people from opposing forces be placed in exact same ward, not to mention at adjacent beds. But as Brad said, the alternative would be logistically taxing, and questions would indeed be raised as to how equal the level of treatment in both hospitals will be - in fact, there is some likeliness that it won't be equal simply by that physical divide, and the subconscious (and conscious) division of medical resources to favor "our people" will likely follow. We can achieve that easily enough - we just need to have mercenary armies. They won't be emotionally numb as much as they'd have no moral or emotional attachment to a conflict and it's sides. And I find that option also be quite scary in and by itself.
My point was rather that we have the moral and ethical obligation to treat the wounded rather than allow them to suffer while we occupy their territory. US law has already rejected the notion of 'separate but equal', so i never even considered the logistical impossibility of setting up a separate hospital for POWs.
The Supreme Court decided after the Spanish American war that the Constitution does not follow the flag. It's what made the GITMO prison legal by US standards. So it's less of the law issue, and more of the moral one that you mentioned. Incidentally, while we apply many Geneva standards to captured enemy they are not technically entitled to them. The Conventions apply only to defined categories of personelle, Prisoners of War among them. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other groups do not fall under these categories - hence the term "illegal combatant". Perhaps it's time to revisit the conventions... then we might avoid people held with no charges for years.
Yeah, don't get me started on the war crimes of our past administration. They were POWs and we violated their human rights. Shit, you got me started...
As to the modeical treatment of the enemy, its not asnything new. There were plenty of episodes of MASH that dealt with the issue. Medicine and justice are supposed to be blind, its too bad that politics and the media are often blind too.
Well, the members of the Taliban captured are POWs. They were wearing uniforms. Members of Al-Qaeda are not. They are nonlawful combatants. This is actually a very important distinction. Among other things, nonlawful combatants don't need to be returned to their home country at the end of the conflict. They can be held indefinitely. Of course, they're still supposed to be "treated with humanity." The administration kind of fell down on the job there.
Yeah. See, the idea behind it is that the unlawful combatants will eventually be tried by whatever country captured them (the US, in this case), and then given a suitable punishment. This is the reason they aren't POWs (since POWs aren't tried; they're simply returned at the end of the conflict). This is a good thing. Unlawful combatants should be treated as criminals, not POWs. However, criminals should also have some expectation of fair treatment. They should be given a fair trial. They've been held there far too long. Even if they end up sentenced to life in prison, at least that will give them an official status, something to work from. Right now, they're basically in limbo.
Agreed. There is a very big difference between a uniform-wearing combatant who represents a sovereign nation and a small group of violent idiots with guns. The main one, in this context, is that only the former group "plays by the rules" to any extent. The whole concept behind protecting the rights of POWs was that it's meant to be *mutual*. Also agreed. Proper form and legal procedure should be followed, rather than categorizing captured gunmen in a manner where they don't fit *any* category at all.
Partisans have every right to oppose an invader, occupier, or conqueror. Even if their state ceases to exist as a soverign power, the social contract requires that their occupiers or conquerors adhere to certain principles. Freedom fighters are inherently free men and as such have as much right to declare an official state of war as any independant state. Having declared war, they acknowledge the ultimate risks involved, and the state they struggle against has the right to put them down as any rebellion or uprising. If they then hide among civilians and act as covert agents and saboteurs, they are subject to the same rules of war as any uniformed army who behaved in such a way. In fact, by hiding among civilians, they're actually in violation of the rules of war, but i'm not so sure this automatically renders them 'unlawful combatants'. and if it does... the constitution notes a right to a speedy trial.
The constitution doesn't apply, Garner. They aren't American citizens, their crimes didn't take place on American soil, and thus have no rights under the constitution. Their legal rights (as well as the US government's right to try them) come only from the Law of Armed Conflict and the various treaties (like the Geneva convention) that various states have signed. See, the main issue here is that without these rules, other countries could do the same thing with their regular forces. They could then simply deny they were their troops. The US can't try POWs. POWs, legally, haven't done anything wrong unless they've commited actual, serious war crimes. They just get sent back when the conflict is over, no harm, no foul. This is an incentive for countries to follow the rules. They get their soldiers back afterwards. Unlawful combatants don't get a free ride home. They have to serve their time first. And no one really wants to see countries sending their citizens right into battle. Throwing a gun into fifteen-year-old Billy's hands and tossing him into a warzone is a bad idea. If they want to mobilize citizens, they can do so as militias. Look, it's really easy to qualify for POW status. Stupid easy. It only takes four steps. 1) Have someone in charge. 2) Have a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable from a distance. 3) Carry arms openly. 4) Conduct operations in accordance with the laws of and customs of war. These aren't that difficult. Now, even if one grants Al-Quaeda 1 (though the cell structure screws up chain of command pretty thoroughly), they fail the other three. They intentionally blended in with the civilian population, and then they deliberately targeted civilians, which goes against 4. Understand, a soldier who violated these would likewise become an unlawful combatant, and would be treated as such. Now, once they become an unlawful combatant, they're supposed to receive a fair and regular trial. That should, ideally, happen as quickly as circumstances allow. Ba thinks it's stupid that they've been held this long. Whatever punishment they get, it should have been decided a long time ago. Again, even life in prison would give them an official status, rather than putting them in limbo.
Not to mention that being outside any kind of official rule system opens up possibilities for mistreatment.
doesn't matter that they're not US citizens. the US never signed the Geneva convinentions so we're not actually bound by those either. The issue is our moral obligation under the implied social contract. to resort to tyrany in an effort to save liberty? that's like trying to fuck for virginity.
The US did sign the Geneva Conventions. It was one of the original signatories. They just didn't bother signing the updated rules for chemical warfare. And yes, Garner, it is a moral issue. That's been Ba's point for the entire discussion. Just because they're unlawful combatants doesn't mean they shouldn't get basic humane treatment. And they should have their status clarified so that everyone can get on with their lives. If they're going to spend their lives in prison, then it should be because they've been formally convicted in a proper court, not because no one can be bothered to go through the process.
An issue with any rebel group forming a recognizable militia is that they would be destroyed by the organized governing power. So there is a choice between rights as POWs, or the hope of victory. If you are going to take up arms in the first place, I'm guessing that victory is the choice. I'm fairly certain that that would be execution. However, we don't do that. Geneva was concerend about mainly about "Force on Force" actions, and the actions of a Force on civilian populations. Not with partisans, rebels, insurgents, freedom fighters, etc. Once again, I think that it's time to revisit the Geneva Conventions - but I doubt that it would gain much support from governments.
