TO: Dan Abrams FROM: Charles Gittings SUBJ: Geneva, War, Terrorism, and Hypocrisy Dear Mr. Abrams, I write in regard to a short piece you posted on the MSNBC website: MSNBC -- November 19, 2004 GENEVA DID NOT ENVISION URBAN WARFARE WITH TERRORISTS Dan Abrams http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6530937/#041119a It is difficult to know where to begin. For three years I have been fully immersed in these issues, having thought about them very seriously for nearly forty years. What can I say to you that might reach you? I've tried for three years to reach my son, my nephew, and a good many others who were equally mistaken on these issues without making much of a dent on their obstinate willful ignorance and confusion. I really don't know, but I'm going to try again. This will likely be a long response, because there is quite a lot to say, and I think the most practical approach for me is simply to quote your post in full and take it one thing at a time... >> GENEVA DID NOT ENVISION URBAN WARFARE WITH TERRORISTS >> >> Is it time for the U.S. to admit that the Geneva >> Conventions cannot and should not apply in the current >> conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and when it comes to >> international terrorists? It may sound like humanitarian >> heresy to the longstanding agreement that have ensured >> humane treatment of prisoners for almost 150 years. No, actually it sounds like a rhetorical question begging for a circular conclusion. The Geneva Conventions are laws, and a law does not and cannot *ensure* anything. Laws are enacted to either require or prohibit certain acts in certain circumstances and impose sanctions on those who act in violation of them. There have been laws against murder and theft for thousands of years, yet there has never been any shortage of murderers or thieves, but I take it that the laws are thought to minimize the occurrence of such crimes, and to provide a measure of redress when they occur. I also take it that a law which is not enforced does absolutely nothing at all. So what precisely is it that you are asking? It's entirely obvious that the Geneva Conventions CAN be applied by the United States: the US has the most powerful and efficient military and law enforcement establishments that have ever existed -- if we CANNOT apply and ENFORCE a law, it's difficult to imagine who could. It's equally clear that we CAN *obey* the law, for that depends on nothing but our own free will. This isn't a matter of applying the law and it's not a matter of can or cannot -- the real issue is OBEYING the law, and your question literally amounts to asking: "Isn't it time to violate the law?" Now I mean no offense, but the implication of that question is very clear: you think it might be a good idea to break the law. That's not exactly a novel suggestion considering that every criminal who ever committed a crime thought it was a good idea at the time (unless they were merely out of their minds), but it's absolutely antithetical to any rational concept of law or justice, especially as those concepts exist in the institutions of the United States. Justice is BLIND. She doesn't care what you thought was a good idea or not -- she only cares about the facts and the law. She doesn't care how many accomplices you had -- crime syndicates and lynch mobs are not improved by their size. She doesn't care if you find the law inconvenient -- she only cares that it be enforced impartially and diligently until such time as it may be amended or repealed according to law. >> Yes, these agreements are designed to protect our own >> young men and women. So, why should we even consider >> ignoring agreements signed by just about every nation in >> the world? Well, I'm not talking about ignoring it. Those >> agreements were designed to apply to NATIONS at war. No you aren't talking about ignoring it, you ARE ignoring it. Nations are nothing but self-governing groups of PEOPLE, the Geneva conventions are nothing but laws that specify how various people are to be treated in various circumstances during an armed conflict, and the criminal sanctions in Geneva Conventions apply strictly to individuals who are guilty of violations. The conventions forbid collective punishments or reprisals and guilt by association, and violations are war crimes which exclude any form of immunity, including sovereign immunity. So what's your point here? That it's OK for NATIONS to commit war crimes? What the conventions say is that it's NEVER OK to commit a war crime and that no one is immune from punishment for war crimes under any circumstances. >> In Iraq, we're battling tribes, terrorists, and sects -- >> not a nation. The official Iraqi and Afghan governments >> are long gone. It doesn't matter. Are you trying to say that the only good Indian is a dead Indian, and it's OK to exterminate them because they aren't a nation according to you? That the French resistance and the OSS were simply "terrorists" during WW2? That is was OK for the Nazi's to exterminate the Jews because they were just a "sect"? What we are battling in Iraq is precisely a nation (or two) that we have RAPED in exactly the way that the Germans raped Poland, and for EXACTLY the same reason: the fascist criminals of the Bush administration thought it was a good idea that would be of benefit to THEM according to their grandiose delusions. The Geneva conventions do not care about any of that, and they don't care about what you or I think about any of it. All the conventions care about is that anyone "hors de combat" by virtue of being a civilian, casualty, or prisoner shall be treated humanely. They don't say that Bush can't fight his idiotic criminal wars, they simply say that you can't wage war on people who are helpless. They don't prevent anyone from being prosecuted for war crimes, they only require that they be prosecuted according to the law. >> These new enemies will never treat prisoners >> humanely because of an agreement, nor will they be held >> accountable for violations of it. How do you know what anyone else will do? Geneva is NOT merely an "agreement," it is LAW duly ratified by the Senate and executed in domestic law by the full Congress as 18 USC 2441, and the convention may not be denounced until after the conclusion of hostilities including the repatriation of all prisoners. >> The administration publicly claimed that the convention >> still applies to the conflict in Iraq, even though secret >> administration legal opinions offering exceptions have >> been leaked. These administration lawyers are right to >> suggest there are exceptions (at the least). No, they are not right: they are merely war criminals, and their guilt is certain beyond any reasonable doubt. I've spent three years reading their briefs, and their position is nothing but a mix of fraud, fallacy, and neo- fascist political theories. >> We already >> call the detainees at Guantanamo Bay "enemy combatants" >> instead of "prisoners of war" protected by Geneva, a >> distinction I support even though I think it's essential >> that combatants get fair and full hearings. What distinction? There is no such distinction, and "full and fair" is just an empty slogan to put a happy face on arbitrary punishments, torture, and murder. >> How do you apply the concept of prisoners of war to >> suicidal fighters who have no clear superiors to accept >> responsibility for any actions of their "soldiers?" By treating them as prisoners of war according to the law when you capture them. How could a prisoner (whether they be suicidal, independent of superior authority, or otherwise) possibly do anything to you that would prevent you simply obeying the law? And that "clear superiors" chain of command stuff is nonsense in any case. It's clear they have just as much of a chain of command as they feel they need, and it's also clear that military necessity precludes them disclosing it to us in any detail. Do you suppose that it's unfair to fight a war to WIN? Do you really suppose that the only way for the greatest military power that ever existed to fight the weakest enemy that it's fought since the Indian wars is to cheat and commit crimes? That's what Bush and his gang think, but it's got nothing to do with anything new, it's just a sign of how utterly incompetent, corrupt, and deluded these criminal maniacs really are. This isn't a war ON terrorism, it's a war OF terrorists -- and it isn't making us safer, it's breeding bigger and worse threats. We are not only losing these wars, we deserve to lose them -- and if this stupidity continues we surely will... and the Geneva conventions have nothing to do with it. >> If we battle a nation, the convention should apply. It applies regardless: see CA 3. >> When we're >> fighting the Iraqi army and imprisoning its soldiers, we >> should have abided by the convention's mandates. The Abu >> Ghraib prison scandal was more than a Geneva violation. >> It was an outrage. It was also a direct result of George Bush and his administration committing violations of 18 USC 2441 by policy under a false color of authority -- which they have been doing since November 13, 2001 when Bush signed the illegal PMO. Now we hold the distinction of being a nation governed by war criminals that were actually reelected after a three year crime spree. Hitler and Stalin never had it so good. >> But when the enemy is just individuals united by one cause >> -- hatred of the U.S. -- doesn't that put us at a distinct >> disadvantage to obey the rules of armed conflict, when >> they won't? Only to the extent that your false characterizations of their motivations affects your ability to make sound judgments. They have their reasons for fighting us, and they get to think exactly what they do think, regardless of what you claim they do or should think. And suppose that you decided for some reason that you had to fight a war against the United States. Just exactly how would you go about that? >> Our tactics are scrutinized and criticized by >> the world, while their beheadings and mutilations are >> hardly even worth commenting on because everyone knows >> they don't care about how inhumane they are. Oh sure, and most of the world thinks we are acting like Nazis, mainly because we ARE acting like Nazis. We've killed way more innocent civilians than they have -- and they have a very long way to go before they could ever kill as many innocent civilians as we did in Vietnam or WW2. >> Rather than quibble with the international community about >> definitions and standards, maybe it's time to just be >> straight and say Geneva did not envision this type of >> warfare, period. >> What do you think? Send all emails to DAbrams@msnbc.com\ What I think is that Geneva was written after the Spanish Civil War, Stalingrad, and even the French and Indian War -- and that anyone who thinks there is anything new going on here is either woefully ignorant of history or a liar. And I sincerely mean no offense, but I'm sorry Mr. Abrams: you are very gravely mistaken. The Bush / Cheney gang are war criminals, they are systematically undermining the rule of law in both the nation and the world, and they are the greatest menace to the safety of the human race since Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. They are literally more dangerous than all the terrorists in the world combined by orders and orders of magnitude.