I have been reading some posts about our handling of prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq and, once again, I have seen some absurd statements about "the Geneva Conventions". So, though I have written extensively on this topic, I feel the need to point out some very basic points, so that I can be spared the greater idiocies in the future.

To begin,, the Geneva conventions were agreements, actually treaties, between the signatories. They were binding only upon those signatories, and only when a conflict occurred between two parties signatory to the agreement. The basic premise relied upon this. You see, the concept was that nations have no interest in treating enemy soldiers or civilians in a particularly civil manner. However, they would like to see their own citizens and soldiers treated well. So, nations could agree, when fighting one another, that if one nation did not illegitimately target civilians, or maltreat prisoners, then the other would do the same. Basically, the prisoners of one were hostage to the good behavior of the other. Similarly, one would exercise restraint in treatment of non-military targets only so long as the other did.

And that short description should provide any halfway reasonable individual with several strong arguments for excluding Al Qaida and kindred groups from these protections. Even groups such as Iraqi regulars fighting out of uniform or Iranian troops providing support to terrorists are not covered, though for slightly different reasons.

Let us begin with the most obvious problem. Most of our prisoners are not part of a regular military and are not representing any nation at all, much less a nation which signed the conventions. For that reason alone, Geneva Convention protections do not apply. Actually for three reasons, two legal and one based on simple reason. First, they are not an army, which is the only group Geneva covered. Second, they do not represent a signatory nation, which means we are under no obligation. Third, and probably strongest, since they do not have any obligation under Geneva, there is no assurance they will treat our troops and civilians in accordance with Geneva if we treat theirs in that way. In fact, given their habit of executing prisoners, it is arguable that providing them Geneva protections would gain us nothing.

But let us take the (incorrect) expansionist view that, having signed the conventions, we are obligated to apply them to all prisoners of war. We still have two problems in that, al Qaida never declared war and, more significantly, they still are not an army or nation. But, even if we waive those requirements and assume al Qaida is "close enough", it is still impossible to apply Geneva for three reasons. First, because al Qaida has broken the agreement in their treatment of prisoners. Second, because al Qaida violated the agreement in fighting out of uniform. And finally, because al Qaida violated the agreement by targeting illegitimate civilian targets.

Even if we allowed the greatest leeway, there s simply no way to imagine that the Geneva Conventions could conceivably apply in this situation. If al Qaida were a signatory nation and behaved as they do, their prisoners would be subject to anything up to and including summary execution, if only for regularly fighting out of uniform and attacking civilian targets.

But that violates the entire logic of Geneva, to expand it as insanely as the critics wish. The point of Geneva was for nations to agree to behave in a civil manner toward one another, while in the current reading the critics want us to treat al Qaida well, while not holding them accountable for mistreatment of prisoners. That would destroy the logic of Geneva, which basically allowed one side's prisoners to serve as hostages for their continued good behavior. If we must continue to treat prisoners well, while they are under no such obligation, Geneva has no benefit, and is simply an impediment to one side, which was never the purpose.

So, if anyone feels the need to discuss our treatment of prisoners, please do so on humanitarian grounds, or policy grounds, or on the basis of anything other than the Geneva Conventions. They are the one set of rules which simply do not apply.

POSTSCRIPT

Lest I get countless posts about torture and illegitimate wars and so on (again), I am not saying anything about our treatment of prisoners, nor about the war, nor anything else. All I am arguing is that applying the Geneva Conventions to al Qaida is like faulting your rabbi for failing to live up to the Catholic catechism. It does not apply, and that makes the argument absurd.

POSTSCRIPT II

My earlier arguments on the topic can be found in  "Goodbye Geneva", "Why Nuremberg?", "Last Thought on the Topic", "I Was Right" and "Civilian Casualties". Related writing on the appropriateness of civilian criminal rights for those captured in a foreign battle zone can be found in "Guilty Until Proven Guilty", "Somehow The Media Missed This", "Questions Raised by Boumedine", "Confirmation, If It Is True" and "A Very Quick Thought".

POSTSCRIPT III

What is most bizarre is that many have come to see the Geneva Conventions as some sort of human rights protection. Considering the time and signatories, it could not be more clear that was not the case. The purpose was simply to make wars less destructive, leaving nations, both in terms of armies and civilian populations, more intact at the end of hostilities. The agreements were never intended to be some sort of declaration of human rights, though some seem determined to turn them into that.