Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
We're Better Than They Are? So What?
From a comment thread yesterday:
I've never understood that line of reasoning. Offering your end of the bargain when the other party doesn't comply with their end isn't the result when you're better then the other party. It's when you're dumber then they are. Would DovBear pay for a car that the dealer did not deliver? Even if he's "better" than the dealer? Why is the Geneva Convention any different?
DovBear: So declare them POWs and allow the Geneva Conventions to take affect. You can't have it both ways (and I don't trust someone who tries)
Me: Why the hell would you want to classify KSM as a POW? Why the hell should he be entitled to that designation if he doesn't follow the rules that classify you as one?
DovBear: Because we're better than they are.
I've never understood that line of reasoning. Offering your end of the bargain when the other party doesn't comply with their end isn't the result when you're better then the other party. It's when you're dumber then they are. Would DovBear pay for a car that the dealer did not deliver? Even if he's "better" than the dealer? Why is the Geneva Convention any different?
posted by LWY, 10:58 PM
9 Comments:
People see it as a moral issue, not a game theory one. If you kill my child, you're not living up to your end of the social contract. That doesn't mean it's moral for me to torture you to death in response, though.
And we're not generally talking about KSM. We're talking about all of the innocent people who aren't given the chance to defend themselves.
And we're not generally talking about KSM. We're talking about all of the innocent people who aren't given the chance to defend themselves.
People see it as a moral issue, not a game theory one. If you kill my child, you're not living up to your end of the social contract. That doesn't mean it's moral for me to torture you to death in response, though.
This isn't about some vague notions of a social contract. This is a treaty, a binding legal contract. You weaken the treaty (and contracts in general) when you confer the benefit of it without the other side reciprocating. Would it make sense for the US to dismantle nukes under SALT I without the Russians doing the same?
And we're not generally talking about KSM. We're talking about all of the innocent people who aren't given the chance to defend themselves.
Well that's because they kept challenging the system that Congress and the President put into to place.
This isn't about some vague notions of a social contract. This is a treaty, a binding legal contract. You weaken the treaty (and contracts in general) when you confer the benefit of it without the other side reciprocating. Would it make sense for the US to dismantle nukes under SALT I without the Russians doing the same?
And we're not generally talking about KSM. We're talking about all of the innocent people who aren't given the chance to defend themselves.
Well that's because they kept challenging the system that Congress and the President put into to place.
This isn't about some vague notions of a social contract.
It's a treaty that represents moral behavior. We agree to it and so do other countries, but it doesn't follow that it's okay for us not to follow it with those who don't agree to it.
Well that's because they kept challenging the system that Congress and the President put into to place.
Who, the poor schlub who happened to be picked up by some headhunter in the middle of the desert in Iraq/Afghanistan? And why weren't they happy with the "system" where Bush could put them in jail and throw away the key?
It's a treaty that represents moral behavior. We agree to it and so do other countries, but it doesn't follow that it's okay for us not to follow it with those who don't agree to it.
Well that's because they kept challenging the system that Congress and the President put into to place.
Who, the poor schlub who happened to be picked up by some headhunter in the middle of the desert in Iraq/Afghanistan? And why weren't they happy with the "system" where Bush could put them in jail and throw away the key?
It's a treaty that represents moral behavior. We agree to it and so do other countries, but it doesn't follow that it's okay for us not to follow it with those who don't agree to it.
Of course it follows! What's the point of the treaty then? The whole point is to incentivize certain conduct during armed conflicts.
If you promise your child ice cream to get him to eat his vegetables, and he doesn't- do you still give him the ice cream? Of course not- the whole point of the ice cream is to get him to eat the vegetables. It's the exact same situation here.
Of course it follows! What's the point of the treaty then? The whole point is to incentivize certain conduct during armed conflicts.
If you promise your child ice cream to get him to eat his vegetables, and he doesn't- do you still give him the ice cream? Of course not- the whole point of the ice cream is to get him to eat the vegetables. It's the exact same situation here.
No it's not. It's more like promising to take care of your neighbor's kid if he takes care of yours. If he shirks his duty when it's his turn to babysit, that doesn't mean you can just send his kid out to the lions.
Treating POWs well is a legal obligation, but it's also a moral one. When the other party doesn't live up to their end of the treaty, it relieves the former but not the latter.
Treating POWs well is a legal obligation, but it's also a moral one. When the other party doesn't live up to their end of the treaty, it relieves the former but not the latter.
No it's not. It's more like promising to take care of your neighbor's kid if he takes care of yours. If he shirks his duty when it's his turn to babysit, that doesn't mean you can just send his kid out to the lions.
But you can surely decline to babysit!
Treating POWs well is a legal obligation, but it's also a moral one. When the other party doesn't live up to their end of the treaty, it relieves the former but not the latter.
No, it's not a moral obligation. It's purely legal. POW's are afforded certain specific rights. Absent the Geneva there's nothing wrong with, for example, not allowing a captured soldier to have "books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities."
But you can surely decline to babysit!
Treating POWs well is a legal obligation, but it's also a moral one. When the other party doesn't live up to their end of the treaty, it relieves the former but not the latter.
No, it's not a moral obligation. It's purely legal. POW's are afforded certain specific rights. Absent the Geneva there's nothing wrong with, for example, not allowing a captured soldier to have "books, devotional articles, scientific equipment, examination papers, musical instruments, sports outfits and materials allowing prisoners of war to pursue their studies or their cultural activities."
ah, but there is something wrong with indefinite imprisonment and torture.
ah, but there is something wrong with indefinite imprisonment and torture.
First of all, POW's can be held indefinitely. Second of all, there's a gap a mile wide between torture and and POW's who legally may only be required to state their name, rank, and serial number.
First of all, POW's can be held indefinitely. Second of all, there's a gap a mile wide between torture and and POW's who legally may only be required to state their name, rank, and serial number.
For a country to be bound by all the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, the other side must be a signatory or at least evidence a desire to be bound by them itself. However, some of the provisions (like torture for example) are moral in nature and are not derived solely from the reciprocatory nature of the conventions, and one could argue that a state is bound by those restrictions even if its opponent flaunts the conventions. That said, like LWY said, many of conventions requirements are not moral (like reading material) and should not be afforded to Al Queda and similar groups.
