So...

[lynx]

When was war declared?

It is my understanding that they are being held for illegal entry, a civilian matter, not as prisoners of war. The Geneva Convention does not apply.

Ah, but then wars are declared on/between nations, a distinction that is given short-shrift when extending the Conventions to terrorists, who clearly are not covered, either.

If terrorists are covered, so are the sailors.

That assumes that this was situation involving armed conflict, it wasn't.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the location of these sailors when they were taken into custody, the fact still remains that their arrest is being treated by the Iranians as a civil matter, just as it would be if anyone, military or non-military, were arrested by any other country. The Geneva Convention can not be invoked just because military personal happen to be involved and the country is one whose policies you disagree with.

[j2k4]

Ah, but then wars are declared on/between nations, a distinction that is given short-shrift when extending the Conventions to terrorists, who clearly are not covered, either.

If terrorists are covered, so are the sailors.

That assumes that this was situation involving armed conflict, it wasn't.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the location of these sailors when they were taken into custody, the fact still remains that their arrest is being treated by the Iranians as a civil matter, just as it would be if anyone, military or non-military, were arrested by any other country. The Geneva Convention can not be invoked just because military personal happen to be involved and the country is one whose policies you disagree with.

Then precisely how is it Geneva applies to the detainees of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

I think "armed conflict" as a qualifying condition implies that two or more officially and diplomatically defined entities are trying to kill one another.

Pray, who is representing the various terrorist factions in the mideast, and where are their civil facilities located?

Perhaps Eddie Izzard would have something creative to say with regard to "the cunning (non-)use of flags' by Al Qaeda.

[vidcc]

Then precisely how is it Geneva applies to the detainees of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

I think "armed conflict" as a qualifying condition implies that two or more officially and diplomatically defined entities are trying to kill one another.

Pray, who is representing the various terrorist factions in the mideast, and where are their civil facilities located?

Perhaps Eddie Izzard would have something creative to say with regard to "the cunning (non-)use of flags' by Al Qaeda.

Just for the sake of argument let's say the geneva convention does not apply to the suspected terrorist (or the "enemy combatants" picked up on the battlefield)

Does that give moral justification to do things that the geneva convention would prohibit?

[j2k4]

Then precisely how is it Geneva applies to the detainees of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib?

I think "armed conflict" as a qualifying condition implies that two or more officially and diplomatically defined entities are trying to kill one another.

Pray, who is representing the various terrorist factions in the mideast, and where are their civil facilities located?

Perhaps Eddie Izzard would have something creative to say with regard to "the cunning (non-)use of flags' by Al Qaeda.

Just for the sake of argument let's say the geneva convention does not apply to the suspected terrorist (or the "enemy combatants" picked up on the battlefield)

Does that give moral justification to do things that the geneva convention would prohibit?

Of course not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's also say that the U.S. has foregone all moral ground, high or otherwise, by virtue of the allegations made about the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Does that relieve Iran of any obligation to observe Geneva?

[vidcc]

Of course not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's also say that the U.S. has foregone all moral ground, high or otherwise, by virtue of the allegations made about the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Does that relieve Iran of any obligation to observe Geneva?

Absolutely not, however the treatment they have been given does not appear to be either humiliating or showing lack of respect. They were shown unharmed and being fed. Even if the video was set up.
If I were one of those captives I would like my family to see I am safe and unharmed. Given the part of the world they are in I would worry when the videos stop.

I think they should not be using the captives to make statements but even then it's hardly inhumane. I had to laugh at hannity yesterday at his outrage over the statements. He said "these are obviously coerced and therefore totally unreliable". This from the man that thinks a confession or any information obtained from a suspect using waterboarding is rock solid reliable


Btw. Did Iran sign the geneva convention?

[j2k4]

Of course not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's also say that the U.S. has foregone all moral ground, high or otherwise, by virtue of the allegations made about the treatment of suspected terrorists.

Does that relieve Iran of any obligation to observe Geneva?

Absolutely not, however the treatment they have been given does not appear to be either humiliating or showing lack of respect. They were shown unharmed and being fed. Even if the video was set up.
If I were one of those captives I would like my family to see I am safe and unharmed. Given the part of the world they are in I would worry when the videos stop.

I think they should not be using the captives to make statements but even then it's hardly inhumane. I had to laugh at hannity yesterday at his outrage over the statements. He said "these are obviously coerced and therefore totally unreliable". This from the man that thinks a confession or any information obtained from a suspect using waterboarding is rock solid reliable


Btw. Did Iran sign the geneva convention?

Iran is a signatory to GC.

Is it your view that violating the conventions can only be done by humiliating or disrespecting detainees.

A violation is a violation, unless it is your aim to parse the variety of possible violations on the basis of the perceived severity; if this is your desire, perhaps you could say so.

It seems the only reason to discuss moral equivalence is to compare the U.S. and Iran, which was not the purpose of this thread, at least according to it's author.

[vidcc]

Iran is a signatory to GC.

Is it your view that violating the conventions can only be done by humiliating or disrespecting detainees.

A violation is a violation, unless it is your aim to parse the variety of possible violations on the basis of the perceived severity; if this is your desire, perhaps you could say so.

It seems the only reason to discuss moral equivalence is to compare the U.S. and Iran, which was not the purpose of this thread, at least according to it's author.

Obviously I don't feel that the original videos were in violation, they are not prisoners of war anyway but that's beside the point. Is there a specific part of the convention that says prisoners cannot be shown on tv? The only thing I can see that would prohibit this is under the "humiliating or disrespecting detainees." part and frankly just showing them eating doesn't meet that criteria.

Where I did feel Iran broke the spirit was having them make the statements on TV.

[j2k4]

Iran is a signatory to GC.

Is it your view that violating the conventions can only be done by humiliating or disrespecting detainees.

A violation is a violation, unless it is your aim to parse the variety of possible violations on the basis of the perceived severity; if this is your desire, perhaps you could say so.

It seems the only reason to discuss moral equivalence is to compare the U.S. and Iran, which was not the purpose of this thread, at least according to it's author.

Obviously I don't feel that the original videos were in violation, they are not prisoners of war anyway but that's beside the point. Is there a specific part of the convention that says prisoners cannot be shown on tv? The only thing I can see that would prohibit this is under the "humiliating or disrespecting detainees." part and frankly just showing them eating doesn't meet that criteria.

Where I did feel Iran broke the spirit was having them make the statements on TV.

So essentially you feel there has been no violation, and the sailors are are not being detained as "prisoners-of-war", "-of war" being the operative condition.

Glad you've cleared that up.

BTW-

Check Common Article III of the Conventions...the sailors were uniformed, carrying their weapons in the open, under the flag of a signatory government.

Nothing more is required.

[vidcc]

So essentially you feel there has been no violation, and the sailors are are not being detained as "prisoners-of-war", "-of war" being the operative condition.

You must have stopped reading so I shall repeat

Where I did feel Iran broke the spirit was having them make the statements on TV.

but it doesn't answer the question, what part of the convention prohibits showing them on tv?

showing them blindfolded or forcing them to make statements for example would be a violation under humiliating treatment and then it has to be involuntary, as it stands we do not know if this is the case.

showing that they are unharmed and in good health doesn't meet that criteria. As I said before given the part of the world they are in regular video proving they are unharmed is a good thing.

[j2k4]

I don't believe they are candidates for any sort of "on-camera" treatment under GC.

As to "the spirit" of GC, I really couldn't say; what has "the spirit" got to do with anything at all (at all).

Another question:

Do you suppose the Iranians are as concerned with international opinion as we are supposed to be.