March 20, 2005
A "Militant" is Not a Soldier
Janet Schmitdt Zapan writes in the commentary section of today's Washington Post about how her father, a soldier in Vietnam, was captured by the North Vietnamese and tortured to death...literally.
It's a touching, and at the same time, disturbing story. Zapan obviously continues to feel the pain of her father's untimely and horrific death. Anyone with an ounce of pity would sympathize with her, as I do.
The main problem I have with her commentary piece is that she compares what her father went through to what so-called militants in Iraq are going through today when captured by U.S. forces.
These days, the unspeakable aspects of my father's death have reared back into focus through the most shocking of sources: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. How many of us trusted in unwavering U.S. adherence to the principles of the Geneva Convention? We committed to the accord, in good part, as a way of securing the protection of our own soldiers. Yet, recent, mounting evidence reveals that the United States has been engaging in abhorrent interrogation methods sanctioned from the executive branch down.
The difference, Ms. Zapan, is that your father belonged to an official army of an official country.
The Geneva Convenion states:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well
as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(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.Please note the contitions. Today's Islamofascists fighting coalition forces in Iraq cannot be recognized for they wear no uniform. They hide explosive devices underneath clothing. They do not follow the recognized ordinances of war. Dare I mention that they also don't do their best to avoid civilian casualties? In fact, they seem to thrive upon it. You remember Nick Berg and the others, don't you? Until the Islamofascists in Iraq (and elswhere) begin playing by the rules, then the rules don't apply to them. Period.
Show Comments »
Comments
