PhotoDude.com

Tue. Jul 29, 2003

Leaving Geneva?

Leaving Geneva? – It’s beginning to appear as though a memo was passed around the Pentagon ordering all personnel to consider the Geneva Convention as merely a “serving suggestion,” rather than a bonafide and tested recipe of contractual international law.

First we had the previously discussed (here and here) complete 180 that Rumsfeld did on the subject of governments publishing photos of war dead. Now this, from the Washington Post: “Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: ‘If you want your family released, turn yourself in.’ Such tactics are justified, he said, because, ‘It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.’ They would have been released in due course, he added later.”

“The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.”

Of course the tactic worked. It’s been working for 25 years in Iraq. But the ends does not justify the means. This story is getting a lot of heat on the web, and many have pointed out this is a clear violation of Article 34 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which plainly and simply states, “The taking of hostages is prohibited.”

You can call them “detainees,” and claim they would have been released in due course, but you risk sounding like a 70’s era member of the Politburo whose original message was quite clear; “If you want your family released, turn yourself in.” That is taking hostages, and that is the tactic of terrorists. I’d say the officer who made this call deserves to be brought up on charges, as this seems to equal if not exceed the crime of abusing Iraqi war prisoners, and we’ve charge four servicemen with that already. Don’t a mother and daughter deserve protection similar to that offered to Iraqi war prisoners, no matter who the father is?

But forget about charges and international law. This is a major tactical error if we hope to succeed in restoring peace to Iraq, as Phil Carter points out: “Doing what’s unlawful is one thing; doing something which is counter-productive is quite another. We’re trying to rebuild Iraq as a kinder, gentler place—a nation that contributes to regional stability, economic growth, personal liberty, etc. To accomplish our mission, we need to win the Iraqis’ hearts and minds. Kidnapping the wives and daughters of our adversaries is not a way to win hearts and minds—it’s a way to squeeze their private parts. This is the kind of tactic that can backfire, bigtime.”

Frankly, it sounds like the tactics of Saddam’s government; “Do what we want, or your family is at risk.” Is that the face we want to present in Iraq, three months after we’ve supposedly “won”?

This was a mistake of excess, perhaps even good intentions, in the current heated hunt for Saddam. And I have no doubt that the quicker we find him, the quicker Iraq will achieve independence. I understand that in that worthy effort, unconventional tactics are required. But we have to draw a line, and it was drawn nearly 60 years ago.

If we start “detaining” the families of those still wanted, and those who we think can help us find Saddam, we may indeed catch him a bit quicker. But we will only have accomplished one thing.

To many people in Iraq, we will have become the New Saddam.