# Losing the Moral Highground- What goes around comes around **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072 "2003-03-21T12:50:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/1 "2003-03-21T12:50:50Z")
In a thread I started just prior to the SDMB disappearing into a black hole for a month (and consequently lost completely from the archive) I questioned the morality and legality of US action re denial of POW status to Guantanamo Bay detainees (none of whom has been released over a year later. The debate became so heated that I decided to leave it until new information emerged. One of the points that I made was that this US decision might result in future in denial of POW status to US troops. Well, blow me down! It’s happened. In a press conference an hour ago, the Iraqi Interior and Information ministers intimated that as the US/UK invasion was not legally approved by the UN, they were discussing whether any captured service personnel should be granted POW status with the implication that this would be denied. Now, Iraq may not be in too good a position to take prisoners at all, but what would be the response if the Iraqis managed a level of resistance for a period of time and after capturing allied troops, denied them POW status, tried them as illegal combattants in military courts, found them guilty and summarily executed them on the battlefield. This could happen if a plane was shot down and the crew captured. How does this compare with detention in Guantanamo or torture at Bagram? How could we defend our actions and criticise theirs? What implications does this have for future actions where the conflict is not so one-sided- supposing during a N Korea/Iranian/Syrian conflict they managed to take a number of troops prisoner- and then a cease-fire was declared, brokered by the UN, how would we respond if they refused to return those troops because they were ‘illegal combattants’?? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/2 "2003-03-21T14:58:04Z")
You should realize that our humane treatment of prisoners of war is the exception in the world, not the norm. In most conflcits, American prisoners have routinely been beaten, tortured, and forced to live in substandard conditions. Some nations generally hold on to them to use as bargaining chips later on. What sort of treatment do you think our troops would receive if they fell into Al Quaida hands? They would probably be either executed on the spot or in front of a videocamera and sent to CNN. Iraq would be very foolish to mistreat any US prisoners of war since those involced will most definitely face war crime charges. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/3 "2003-03-21T15:06:51Z")
> [@](#): > > How does this compare with detention in Guantanamo Has anyone held at Guantanamo been executed? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/4 "2003-03-21T15:31:49Z")
The Interior Minister has now (according to the BBC) confirmed that any US or UK troops detained will be treated as war criminals and denied POW status. In reply to mssmith537, most people who understand the Geneva Conventions and other international law would not consider that prisoners in Guantanamo and at Bagram were being humanely treated. It is this sort of action that makes it difficult to claim Geneva Convention rights for our soldiers now. To Robb, no-one at Guantanamo has been executed, but these people have been held for over a year in non Geneva Convention conditions. Execution or illegal detention of prisoners taken in war is equally banned by the Geneva Convention. The US has opted out, why not Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/5 "2003-03-21T15:37:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \* > \*\*Execution or illegal detention of prisoners taken in war is equally banned by the Geneva Convention. The US has opted out, why not Iraq? \*\* Hmmm, execution or illegal detention? I’ll take execution! Just kidding, illegal detention please. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/6 "2003-03-21T15:39:07Z")
> [@](#): > > The US has opted out, why not Iraq? Can you “opt out” of a set of rules that doesn’t apply to you? Also, when did Al Qaida “opt in” to those rules? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/7 "2003-03-21T15:46:34Z")
Hi, **pjen** - I am sorry to say this policy of Iraq’s is neither new, nor related to the current war. Iraq summarily executed Iranian POWs, used Allied POWs as human shields, and beat and tortured them during the first Gulf War. ABC News reports that one of the POWs is suing Iraq for the torture they inflicted on him. Iraq, in other words, is not reacting in any way to treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo. This is business as usual for the Butcher of Baghdad. Cites available on request. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/8 "2003-03-21T16:05:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \* > **How does this compare with detention in Guantanamo** How many of the prisoners at Gitmo have been executed? Let us extend your argument to its logical conclusion. The USA should never use any means, WHATSOEVER to defend ourselves, because that might mean that somebody, somewhere, might get mad at us for it. In any case, prisoners were tortured in the previous Gulf War by Iraq. That was how those videotaped “statements” were produced. Evidently, Saddam REALLY wants to die, because if this threat is carried out, he will not be permitted to live, no matter what means might be necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/9 "2003-03-21T16:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \* > \*\*The Interior Minister has now (according to the BBC) confirmed that any US or UK troops detained will be treated as war criminals and denied POW status. > > In reply to mssmith537, most people who understand the Geneva Conventions and other international law would not consider that prisoners in Guantanamo and at Bagram were being humanely treated.\*\* Uh, the whole “dog cage” thing was purely temporary. They are now housed in better conditions than are currently available in most of Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/10 "2003-03-21T16:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Uh, the whole “dog cage” thing was purely temporary. They are now housed in better conditions than are currently available in most of Afghanistan. \*\* IIRC the Geneva Convention requires that prisoners of war should be held in conditions no worse than those available to the detaining nation’s own troops in that theatre of war. This should mean that Gitmo conditions should be equal to US Barrack conditions. Is this so? No-one yet has addressed the issue: US opts out of GC- ?OK Iraq opts out of GC- ?Wrong ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/11 "2003-03-21T16:44:54Z")
> [@](#): > > No-one yet has addressed the issue: > > US opts out of GC- ?OK > > Iraq opts out of GC- ?Wrong Let me ask again? > [@](#): > > Can you “opt out” of a set of rules that doesn’t apply to you? Also, when did Al Qaida “opt in” to those rules? Also, how is your comparison affected by the knowledge that in the first Gulf War, Iraq mistreated coalition forces in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention? Doesn’t this make your question US - decided GC doesn’t apply to Al Qaida. Iraq - doesn’t ever follow GC. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/12 "2003-03-21T17:50:49Z")
In the first gulf war, Iraq initially treated captured airmen badly, but under pressure from the ICRC allowed visits and accepted that they were POWs. Would this be likely this time now that the US has bent the POW rules to suit itself; would the ICRC have the leverage that it had last time? Has the moral high ground been lost? From what I have read the maltreatment of Iraq’s prisoners during the last gulf war (beatings, isolation, abuse) is not dissimilar to the treatment currently being handed out inder US auspices at Bagram. Pot calling the kettle black springs to mind:eek: ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/13 "2003-03-21T17:52:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \* > **IIRC the Geneva Convention requires that prisoners of war should be held in conditions no worse than those available to the detaining nation’s own troops in that theatre of war. This should mean that Gitmo conditions should be equal to US Barrack conditions. Is this so?** According to Snopes: “The detainees have since been moved to nearby Camp Delta, a permanent detention center erected for this purpose. The 8x6.66 cells have beds and walls and windows, flush toilets and running water, but can still be described as austere.” [http://www.snopes.com/rumors/charlie2.asp](http://www.snopes.com/rumors/charlie2.asp) You will have to page down through the tedious Charlie Daniels Rant to find the specific quote. I do not know what Snopes’s source is (although it probably is this: Stevenson, Mark. “Internees Are Getting an Upgrade in Lifestyle.” The Deseret News. 21 April 2002 (p. A4). ) From what I can tell, they are now held in a facility that would be acceptable for holding a US soldier who is imprisoned and is considered to be a threat to guards and a security risk. Of course, the mainstream press has very _ **conveniently** _ ignored this, as is typical of all hypocrites of their political bent. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/14 "2003-03-21T19:15:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \* > The US has opted out, why not Iraq? \*\* Bottom line…because within a week we are going to be rolling into downtown Bagdad, at which point the Iraqi government will have to answer for any action it takes regarding the treatment of war criminals. In any event, you can’t compare prisoners taken in a conventional war with the terrorists being held in Guantanimo. For the most part, prisoners taken in conventional war are out of the fight and will not likely resume fighting once hostility comes to an end. The Al Quada terrorists are not going to stop. If you let them go, they will go right back to plotting to kill Americans and our allies. If you allow them to live together in a barracks, it would probably create too much of a security risk. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/15 "2003-03-21T23:34:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _from [URL=http://www.treykorte.com/politics/POWS.html] **here** _ > \*\*“Should the detainees be given POW (Prisoner of War) status as dictated by the Geneva Convention?” Human Rights activists such as Amnesty International are crying foul, as are some of the sophisticated Euro nations. > > Interestingly, it was the same interest groups that were screaming bloody murder about the civilian casualties. That is certainly an important issue and attempts should be made in any conflict to minimize civilian casualties. That, in part, is what the Geneva Convention was all about. The creation of the POW status was one way in which civilian casualties were to be reduced in warfare. We must remember that the vast majority of civilians who died in the current Afghanistan conflict died because the enemy–Taliban and Al-Qaeda warriors–were hiding amongst civilian populations and settlements. The reason that Geneva Convention created POW status was to avoid this situation. Fighters are categorized into soldiers or spies. Spies, soldiers out of uniform and dwelling amongst civilian populations, were never to be afforded POW status. Soldiers who were fighting for their country, in uniform, were to be afforded POW status. Now in the case of Al-Qaeda, the warriors weren’t fighting for a country at all, just an ideology. The Taliban had no fixed uniforms, either.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/16 "2003-03-22T00:07:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Pjen_ > In the first gulf war, Iraq initially treated captured airmen badly > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Pjen_ > One of the points that I made was that this US decision might result in future in denial of POW status to US troops. Now your time frames are all cattywumpus. What the US has done to Al Qaida fighters has nothing to do with our Iraq treated coalition soldiers a decade earlier. I understand that you think the US has lost the moral highground; do you also understand that Iraq never held it? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/17 "2003-03-22T00:10:18Z")
If the Iraqis capture [this guy](http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828), they might torture him by withholding Energon Cubes! Nice to see you, Pjen. I was starting to forget how to heap merciless ridicule on someone. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/18 "2003-03-22T14:58:35Z")
From today’s New York Times story: "Iraq’s minister of information threatened yesterday to treat any U.S. prisoners of war as “war criminals”. “I tell the American soldiers” said the minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, “it is better for you to surrender. We will cut off all your heads.” Aside from the insanity inherent in this homicidal bluster (Surrender, so we can cut off your heads?), where exactly are the parallels with Guantanamo? Whose heads have we cut off? What’s the evidence, given the history of Saddam’s regime, that coalition prisoners would have been handled with the strictest niceties had America not violated your conception of the rights of the al-Qaida detainees? I think **Pjen** just likes saying the word ‘Gitmo’. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/19 "2003-03-22T15:33:00Z")
IIRC, the US was planning to, if it hadn’t already, release some of the folks held at Gitmo since they turned out to be minor players or something. If the Iraqi’s capture some buck private who was merely a cook for his unit, do you think that they’d be willing to let him go? And Gitmo’s in _freakin’ Cuba!!!_ It’s a tropical island, and the climate’s said to be wonderful by most accounts! Given the choice of being held prisoner in someplace like Afghanistan (where it gets really cold) and Iraq (where it gets really hot) or Cuba, I’ll take Cuba! And hell, the US even supplied prayer mats, and food prepared according to Koran guidelines for those guys! Can you picture Iraq giving a Jewish American soldier a menora or giving an American soldier with special dietary needs (say he’s got a nut allergy) tailored rations? [Considering Saddam’s rumored to have ordered live people stuffed feet first into a shredding machine](http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030321-023627-5923r.htm), I’d say the odds are against it. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072/20 "2003-03-22T15:38:48Z")
The US has not opted out of the Geneva Convention. The government’s position is that the detainees at GITMO are not prisoners of war as they are, in fact, unlawful combatants. They are not being treated inhumanely. On the contrary, they are receiving health care, their religious dietary laws and other aspects of their religion are being catered to. Yep. I saw the title and the name of the originator and thought, “Pfft. Another ‘I hate America, the scum’ thread.” Do us all a favour, and entitle it that, why don’t you? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/losing-the-moral-highground-what-goes-around-comes-around/163072.md?page=2)