Homocon

Granted, it almost seems like an exercise in absurdity to discuss the laws of war when war itself can be argued to be inherently lawless. The actions of soldiers on the battlefield would be a one way ticket to the slammer if indulged in at your local Seven Eleven on a casual Friday evening, but based upon centuries (if not more) of humans in armed conflict, laws for war were established after a great deal of discussion and debate among the principal nations of the time.

These laws are: 1. Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction; 2. Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible; 3. People and property that do not contribute to the war effort must be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship; 4. There must be a clear and open declaration of war, and an acceptance of surrender if surrender should occur; and 5. There is a strict prohibition against deliberately attacking civilians.

Additionally, it's forbidden to impersonate a soldier on the other side, and the taking of hostages is absolutely right out. Furthermore, all lawful combatants are obligated to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area; however, any combatants that use protected people (civilians) or property (mosques, churches, etc.) as shields or camouflage are guilty of violating the laws of war, and are then criminally responsible for any subsequent harm to the people or damage to the property.

The Geneva Conventions forbid attacks on hospitals, doctors or ambulances displaying any International Federation of Red Cross symbol, or engaging in attacks while using a Red Cross or a white flag as an ambush tactic. The punishment for violating the laws of war "may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal," which means that if your side is taking hostages, beheading civilians, blowing up schools and firing on police forces, then you can expect to be treated harshly upon your capture -- perchance to a rousing rendition of stack the naked prisoners.

Spies and terrorists may be subjected to torture and/or execution, according to the laws of war, yet all nations that have signed the "UN Convention Against Torture" have committed themselves against the use of torture on anyone for any reason, including cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. With no exceptions. So how is it that members of the United States military feel perfectly free to strip prisoners naked in front of female soldiers or to march them about on dog leashes, willy nilly?

Dammit, I'm getting there -- patience, reader!

There was a push while Clinton was in office to ratify the "U.N. Convention Against Torture", which Clinton eventually did sign, and the Torture Convention was then ratified by the Senate in 1994. However, U.S. adherence to the "U.N. Conventions Against Torture" is subject to reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisos incorporated in the Senate resolution of ratification of the treaty, and the US Senate, in its foresight and wisdom (I can't believe I just used "foresight" and "wisdom" when speaking of the Senate), adopted a reservation stating that the Torture Convention prohibits no more than the "cruel and unusual punishment" provision of the US Constitution -- effectively voiding the overly vague and restrictive "degrading treatment" clause in the original Conventions.

So, really, it's okay to make unlawful Muslim combatants wear women's underwear on their heads. Honest to god.

In addition, the U.S. government declared that the Torture Conventions treaty was "not self-executing," meaning that it had no force of law without "implementing legislation." Of course, the government then announced that implementing legislation was unnecessary because, according to the Justice Department lawyers, all the rights for which reservations, declarations or understandings were not registered are already protected by US law, resulting in the fact that the Torture Conventions cannot be invoked in U.S. courts and the U.S. government is under no obligation to the U.N.s authority in this regard.

Talk about a greased pig. You gotta hand it to the Senate -- they have so far retained a fortunate distaste for offering oversight and control to outside bodies such as the United Nations, and it's easy to see why in a situation that involves the United States' ability to provide security for itself. If we had fully ratified the "UN Conventions Against Torture" without reservations or a requirement for implementing legislation, there would undoubtedly, as I type this, be a howling, rabid international mob of anti-Americanistas chomping at the bit to drag our entire executive Administration (plus a gaggle of military officers) off to some public show trial in Belgium based upon reports of physical abuse or social humiliation of violent and unrepentant terrorists.

So if the "U.N. Conventions Against Torture" cannot be invoked in U.S. courts, and the Geneva Conventions do not apply to soldiers of an unrecognized government (such as the Taliban, as there were only four countries on the entire planet -- China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE -- that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan), soldiers of nations that are not signatories to (or do not agree to abide by) the Geneva Conventions, or guerillas who attack civilians, take hostages, use mosques as camouflage, hide among the civilian population while inflicting as much damage as possible on any target they can get themselves near, then all that the anti-war contingent actually have is the echo-chamber of their endless moral self-regard and the transparent hollowness of their "We're as bad as the enemy!" rhetoric in their zeal to paint a portrait of the Iraq War in various shades of black. Well, that and their shameless tiptoeing around the unpleasant fact that the enemy we're supposed to be as bad as actually blows up its own children, stones its women, hangs its homosexuals, throws its young girls back into burning buildings, saws the heads off of civilian contractors, beats suspected collaborators to death, shoots journalists and executes its religious dissenters.

I may have missed an atrocity or two.

The Human Rights Commission can claim all it wants that a captured combatant (any captured combatant) is a prisoner of war unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on a case by case basis, but even the most cursory examination of the Geneva Conventions reveals that a nation must be a signatory to the Conventions, or at least agree to abide by the Conventions, in order for its citizenry to be protected by them, and under no circumstances is an individual or army that is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (or which doesn't abide by the laws of war) protected by either.

Very important note to all the preceding: There is no looking the other way for actual violations of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions, and the United States military has proven itself willing and able to investigate and punish those who are responsible for tragic violations. Criminal investigations are even instigated against those members of the military who, while perhaps not technically violating the Geneva Conventions because of its signatory clause, do engage in abuses of recognized members of a foreign military. War and conflict have fine lines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior (shoot this person in the head here but don't you dare lay a hand on him when he's over there), and when members of a military violate those conventions, there can be, and are, repercussions. However, the entire Executive Administration cannot (I repeat: cannot) be hauled off to trial over, or held responsible for, individual violations of the Geneva Conventions when it is official military policy that the Geneva Conventions are to be followed when applicable. For example, the two Army soldiers responsible for the death of Iraqi General Mowhoush, despite the fact that Iraq is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, have been charged for their actions, and there is now a criminal investigation underway. There were also, and are also, criminal investigations, trials and punishments over abuses at Abu Grhaib (which, it bears reminding, were already under internal military investigation even before the press broke the story and published the photos), even though the technicality of the Geneva Conventions may not actually have been violated.

But this is exactly why there is a continuing argument concerning whether or not the soldiers are acting on their own when the abuses occur, or whether it is official policy. The military and the government maintain their stance that the Geneva Conventions are being followed when and where applicable, and that any abuses of the Geneva Conventions will be, and are, punished. Members of the MSM, however, continue to mischaracterize the Geneva Conventions when attempting to play "gotcha!" with the Global War on Terror, portraying the government and the military as flagrant and zestful abusers of the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War. This appears to me to be the crux of the "he said / he said" arguments floated from mainstream media and a garden variety of HRC and ACLU type organizations -- they adamantly disagree with the Department of Defense and the present Executive Administration over the interpretations of Prisoner of War status and whether or not the U.S. military should be bound by the Geneva Conventions regardless of who it's fighting, or the actions engaged in by the enemy.

ADDENDUM:
This is just one of the examples as to how we are not the same as who we're fighting. Gay lefties, pay attention.

UPDATE TO ADDENDUM:
"Russian gay leaders have sent a letter to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, asking him to condemn executions of teenage gays in Iran on July 19 . . . They asked President Putin to stop diplomatic and trade relations with what they called the barbarian regime of Islamic extremists."

Who knew there were Russian Gay Leaders? And that they'd have a better perspective than a lot of American gays on Islamic brutality.

UPDATE TO ADDENDUM 2:
The blog-master at GayOrbit responds to the commenters on his site who are insisting that George W. Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the hanging of the two Iranian gay teenagers: "If you cannot discuss this rationally, then move on. This is a forum that I hoped would result in a rational debate. But here we are, with morons looking for any reason they can find to pin something on George W. Bush. You BASTARDIZE and DEMEAN the memory of these two kids when you do that. There is a place for that - two or three in fact. Try Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. And if you want the Democratic Party to start winning elections again, and I do, get your head out of your ass and do something constructive. I mean it. Comments blaming right-wing Republican idealogy will be deleted going forward. I urge all others NOT TO RESPOND TO THEM. If you do, your own posts will look kinda dumb."

Wow. Right on. Add one more gay American to the list of those with perspective.