Hmm…

While I’m not terribly interested in engaging in a full-on debate about the United States and its current relationship with the Geneva conventions, I do feel that someone should point out that the write-up before Mr. Sullivan’s AOL poll is both leading (gee, I wonder which way he wants people to vote) and kind of silly.

The Third Geneva Convention (ratified in 1949) was designed to protect the soldiers of two (or more) warring states in the event of capture by an opponent. In other words, it was a “you treat us well, we’ll treat you well” situation. Pretty basic stuff. This convention lays out exactly who is covered: signatories, obviously; civilians who happen to be a part of a military convoy. But what if one of the powers is not a signatory? What if it’s, say, a ragtag militia of insurgents fighting an occupying force? Well, to count under the treaty, militias must meet the following criteria:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I think we can all agree that the insurgents operating in Afghanistan and Iraq largely fail to meet provisions b, c, and d. (I’d guess they largely fail to meet provision a as well, making it a clean sweep, but I’m not an expert on the command structure of Al Qaeda in Iraq.) So, under the Third Geneva Convention, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t qualify for protections. Article 2 also states that “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.” So even if we grant the terrorists running around Iraq and Afghanistan the status of a “Power” who is a nonsignatory to the treaty, the treaty would only apply “if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.” And, as any number of cases have shown–Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, ‘Blackwater Bridge,’ Sunni death squads drilling holes in the heads of recalcitrant civilians–the terrorists clearly have not abided by Geneva themselves, making them ineligble for its protections.

Now, we can argue all day what level of protection insurgents and terrorists deserve. Abu Ghraib was an outrage, and those responsible on the ground deserved to be punished. Conditions in Gitmo aren’t quite as bad as Mr. Sullivan makes out, though, perhaps, they should be better. These are arguable points. But it’s disingenuous, and needlessly inflammatory, to suggest that the United States has withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions by way of its treatment of captured terrorists.