Not to forget the Phillipine War as well. Another enemy who violated the conventions of warfare, indeed, it was America's first exposure to Islamic terror tactics.

it was America's first exposure to Islamic terror tactics.

NO I believe that position is held by the Barbary Pirates.

First Land Military action by the United States after the Revolutionary War was against Muslim Terrorists called the Barbary Pirates.

Remarkable how some things never change.

What international conventions of warfare were being violated by the Barbary states? What Islamic terror tactics did they participate in?

We should not withdraw from the Geneva Conventions because they help to prevent the US from degenerating to the same sort of uncivilized behavior we claim to be fighting to save the world from.

Anondson:

Do you really know anything about the Barbary Pirates? They were extortionists and murderers. Thomas Jefferson would not have bothered with them if they had left American ships alone.

We subscribe to the Geneva and other such conventions because it's a benefit to us. All that humane-treatment-of-prisoners stuff makes enemies more likely to surrender, rather than fighting to the death. We aren't going to use chemical/bio weapons anyway, too much chance of blue-on-blue.
We come up with workarounds when we need them.

Anondson:

What international conventions of warfare were being violated by the Barbary states? What Islamic terror tactics did they participate in?

Hm... piracy on the high seas, kidnapping, torture and murder of prisoners, enslavement of prisoners, forced conversions. Reason enough?

Dafydd

...because they help to prevent the US from degenerating to the same sort of uncivilized behavior...

Ookaaaay.... some basics here, mbnyan...

The United States signed the Geneva Conventions recognizing that it was the right thing to do, since that is the way we did and do things anyway. We don't treat people in a way we consider humanely because somebody signed a form in 1882, we do it because it is what our society defines as "humane treatment". The United States sets the Standards of decency that have not been met by the actions of most Nations of the world. Fer goodness' sake, look at how our detractors define "Torture" nowdays... the line has shifted, and the US has shifted it away from barbarous and toward what we consider humane.

Please note, we treat captured prisoners better than our own troops even if they are fighting for a force that advocates against the Geneva Conventions and all that those Conventions and Protocols supposedly stand for.

If we were to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions it would not change how we treat anybody, and the idea that the French or somebody would now be free to abuse our troops is laughable as a constraint. What it WOULD do is focus world attention on how to treat your captured enemies... and the Terrorists would CERTAINLY come out looking inhumane.

Interesting idea. Not sure I'd advocate for it to happen, but if our Society is willing to suffer the PR slam it would surely generate, we wouldn't suffer any further damage.

I believe our adoption of the Geneva Convention is irrational. We agree to treat enemies who want to kill us, take over our country and impose their will on us more kindly than our own citizens. I would replace it with this law: "Waging war against the United States of America is a crime punishable by death".

God help me for saying this, but I believe Nazi Germany paid a bit more than lip service to the Geneva Conventions in regards to prisoners of war and other issues. There were exceptions, of course, but as I understand it they were almost as good about following them as the Western allies. It's hardly a definitive source, but reruns of "Hogan's Heroes" regularly featured mentions of the Red Cross and prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions. They played fast and loose with a LOT of things in that show, but I seem to recall reading that they did get that part semi-right.

J.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't believe there was any sort of international convention for the Barbary states to sign on to. Piracy (privateering) was accepted by Western nations. Kidnapping and ransom was not unheard of yet in Western Europe, and the Western European states were practically accepting of paying the ransoms to the Barbar states. Enslavement... well, during the Barbary era in America slavery was common here and the slave trade was bustling in the Caribbean. Forced conversions, like Spain and Portugal in the Americas?

I'm not saying the Barbary states were angels, I'm saying they weren't outside of the norm of the then International community. The tactics of the modern Islamic terrorist were not the same as those used by the Barbary states. The Phillipine War was an entire different enemy than the Barbary states, and the militant Islam of today very closely resembles the sorts of fighters we fought in the Phillipine War. This is why I said the Phillipine War is the first time America encountered the tactics used by the modern Islamic militant. Because they are the same.

Jay Tea:

Unless the American POW was Jewish. Or black.

Anondson:

I'm not saying the Barbary states were angels, I'm saying they weren't outside of the norm of the then International community.

You may very well be correct, but that wasn't my point. The point is that the Barbary pirates did not obey any "laws of war;" my point was that none of the enemies we've ever faced, before or after the Geneva Conventions, obeyed the so-called laws of war.

That nobody else did so back then either doesn't change the fact. The Geneva Conventions are like gun control: the only people who obey them are those you needn't worry about in the first place.

Dafydd

Actually, Jay Tea, the Nazis slaughtered or worked to death in forced labor millions of captured East European soldiers. As the Nazis were advancing during the first winter of Barbarossa, captured Russian soldiers would be stripped and left out to freeze to death overnight. There were SS flying squads inside Germany whose job was to torture and kill Allied fliers who had been shot down. After the war, the British formed assassination teams who hunted down and killed the aforementioned SS members. One my ROTC instructors was a WWII veteran and he spoke to us one time very bitterly about "Hogan's Heroes" and the false view it presented of conditions in German POW camps. Even former Axis members were not safe. When Mussolini was overthrown in 1943 the Germans slaughtered thousands of Italian soldiers who the day before had been standing side-by-side with them. Whether French, British and American prisoners were treated slightly better than the Slavic "sub-humans" or Mediterranean "mud people" because of their "Aryan" ancestry or because of fear of retaliation ...? Possibly a little of both. Certainly the Nazis considered themselves and the French to be descendants of Charlemagne and the British to be more or less pure Anglo-Saxon, and there were agreements such as the Nazis would not bomb Oxford/Cambridge and the Allies would not bomb Dresden.

Anondson

Google: Huig de Groot or Hugo Grotius

Excerpted and linked at Old War Dogs >> Bill's Bites.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)