Monday, April 02, 2007

Britian, Iran and the Geneva Convention

British captive being used as a pawn

Where are all of the Geneva Convention experts when you need them? When Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were in the news every message board pundit, every Internet hack and talking head were instant Geneva Convention analysts.

The outrage, the insult, the inhumanity that imprisoned Iraqis were subjected to was all against the Geneva Convention and someone should be brought on charges and tried before the International Court at the Hague ! Oh the righteous indiction throughout the United States hating world was palpable. America and Americans were in violation of the Geneva Convention!

In recent news Iran has captured 15 British Marines in disputed waters. The British say that they were in Iraqi waters and the Iranians claim that Britian military personal was in Iranian waters.

Leaving that issue just for a moment it is an undisputed fact that Iran is holding British military captives no one is disputing that.

It is also a fact that these hostages were forced to give various video and written confessions, denouncing their own government, and the women were force to dress in customary ways that were not their own.

I'm asking all of the Geneva Convention experts that condemned the American Government's treatment of imprisoned Iraqi terrorists, what does the Geneva Convention say about the treatment of captured military personnel, is Iran in violation of any Geneva Convention regulation concerning the handling of prisoners and why is my question the first in this regard?

Article 2 of the Geneva Convention says:

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Power, but not of the individuals or corps who have captured them.

They must at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited.

Does video confessions and using prisoners as pawns to point out locations on a map to show that they were in Iranian waters, in complete contradict of their Government, in violation of Article 2?

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention says:

Prisoners of war have the right to have their person and their honor respected. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex.

Prisoners retain their full civil status.

Is forcing a British female Marine to wear customary Islamic head covering for women in violation of Article 3?

In America and Britian women are treated the same as men so why is the forced putting on of a veil, a sign of women's inferiority to men, not in violation of the Geneva Convention?

Here's a thought maybe there really aren't any experts regarding the Geneva Convention maybe all of the hate and heat directed toward Amerian concerning Abu Ghraid had little to do with violations of the Geneva Convention maybe all of that was just plain bias against America.

It had to be because if one is concerned about the Geneva Convention being violated wouldn't one be just as concerned now that Iran has apparently violated at least two articles and perhaps even more?

So where are the experts that were pointing out America's failings in this regard why aren't they demanding the just and immediate release of the Brits?

I wonder...

No comments:

Post a Comment