US Embassy in Kabul Under Attack

[Coito ergo sum]

Agreed with major reservations. The agreement is basically that the Taliban are vicious, fundamentalist arseholes, not "freedom fighters", no doubt whatsover.

The disagreement is this: "the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan" are a bunch of rabidly corrupt and evil arseholes too. The US has this weird habit of ending up siding with appalling corrupt regimes; various South Vietnam governments, anyone?

Sure, but the U.S. is attempting to fix that, and leave Afghanistan with some semblance of a rational representative government. That is what the Obama Administration is trying to do, isn't it?

The U.S. sided with the South in Vietnam, yes, but plainly, if it was appropriate to pick a side, I'd pick that side too, over the appalling corrupt regime that was in the North at the time.

Time to go, folks, and leave them stew in their own juices.

International law - the Geneva Convention - doesn't allow that -- there's a "you break it, you fix it" rule in the Geneva Conventions, for the protection of civilians in times of war. You can't just bomb the fuck out of countries and let the civilians pick up the pieces. That would be illegal.

Really? Please cite that provision.

Fourth Geneva Convention. Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers and numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Example: Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Art 55:To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

Art. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Essentially - once we're in Afghanistan, we can't just leave it and let things go to hell and let people starve. We have obligations as an occupying power.

An interesting side-note is the modern assumption that all occupations are illegal. They aren't. Some are. Some aren't.

[Seth]

Agreed with major reservations. The agreement is basically that the Taliban are vicious, fundamentalist arseholes, not "freedom fighters", no doubt whatsover.

The disagreement is this: "the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan" are a bunch of rabidly corrupt and evil arseholes too. The US has this weird habit of ending up siding with appalling corrupt regimes; various South Vietnam governments, anyone?

Sure, but the U.S. is attempting to fix that, and leave Afghanistan with some semblance of a rational representative government. That is what the Obama Administration is trying to do, isn't it?

The U.S. sided with the South in Vietnam, yes, but plainly, if it was appropriate to pick a side, I'd pick that side too, over the appalling corrupt regime that was in the North at the time.

Time to go, folks, and leave them stew in their own juices.

International law - the Geneva Convention - doesn't allow that -- there's a "you break it, you fix it" rule in the Geneva Conventions, for the protection of civilians in times of war. You can't just bomb the fuck out of countries and let the civilians pick up the pieces. That would be illegal.

Really? Please cite that provision.

Fourth Geneva Convention. Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers and numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Example: Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Art 55:To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

Art. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Essentially - once we're in Afghanistan, we can't just leave it and let things go to hell and let people starve. We have obligations as an occupying power.

An interesting side-note is the modern assumption that all occupations are illegal. They aren't. Some are. Some aren't.

Nice try, but bombing the ever-living fuck out of terrorists and then leaving isn't "occupying" the country. And both countries must be signatories to the Geneva Convention for it's provisions to apply. Japan was not a signatory and engaged in egregious violations all during WWII, which was why it was perfectly fine for us to nuke them and walk away. Of course we didn't walk away, but that's beside the point.

You think we're going to "fix" Libya? We fucking well better not.

Oh, and we are only obligated under those provisions if we are "occupying" Afghanistan, which we're not. We are there AT THE INVITATION of the legitimate, democratically-constituted government.

[Coito ergo sum]

Agreed with major reservations. The agreement is basically that the Taliban are vicious, fundamentalist arseholes, not "freedom fighters", no doubt whatsover.

The disagreement is this: "the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan" are a bunch of rabidly corrupt and evil arseholes too. The US has this weird habit of ending up siding with appalling corrupt regimes; various South Vietnam governments, anyone?

Sure, but the U.S. is attempting to fix that, and leave Afghanistan with some semblance of a rational representative government. That is what the Obama Administration is trying to do, isn't it?

The U.S. sided with the South in Vietnam, yes, but plainly, if it was appropriate to pick a side, I'd pick that side too, over the appalling corrupt regime that was in the North at the time.

Time to go, folks, and leave them stew in their own juices.

International law - the Geneva Convention - doesn't allow that -- there's a "you break it, you fix it" rule in the Geneva Conventions, for the protection of civilians in times of war. You can't just bomb the fuck out of countries and let the civilians pick up the pieces. That would be illegal.

Really? Please cite that provision.

Fourth Geneva Convention. Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers and numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Example: Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Art 55:To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

Art. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Essentially - once we're in Afghanistan, we can't just leave it and let things go to hell and let people starve. We have obligations as an occupying power.

An interesting side-note is the modern assumption that all occupations are illegal. They aren't. Some are. Some aren't.

Nice try, but bombing the ever-living fuck out of terrorists and then leaving isn't "occupying" the country.

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to JimC. He said "time to leave" referring to Afghanistan. I responded that that would not be acceptable under the Geneva Convention, if we would leave them in disarray.

And both countries must be signatories to the Geneva Convention for it's provisions to apply.

They don't have to be signatories. If the occupied country accepts and applies the convention, then the High Contracting Party must abide by its provision. Afghanistan has.

Japan was not a signatory and engaged in egregious violations all during WWII, which was why it was perfectly fine for us to nuke them and walk away. Of course we didn't walk away, but that's beside the point.

Yes, but, the Geneva Convention didn't exist until 4 years after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were dropped, so it's really beside the point.

You think we're going to "fix" Libya? We fucking well better not.

It's Britain and France's baby. We're just providing "support."

Oh, and we are only obligated under those provisions if we are "occupying" Afghanistan, which we're not. We are there AT THE INVITATION of the legitimate, democratically-constituted government.

We occupied many parts of Afghanistan, and therefore became an occupying power under the Convention. Once we've put them back together again, we can leave. However, if we leave before the new government is able to stay up, well, then arguably we are violating the convention. You can't just walk in, appoint some titular head of government, have him invite you, and then claim there is no more occupation. The facts dictate what the reality is, not the form.

[Seth]

Fourth Geneva Convention. Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers and numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Example: Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Art 55:To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

Art. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Essentially - once we're in Afghanistan, we can't just leave it and let things go to hell and let people starve. We have obligations as an occupying power.

An interesting side-note is the modern assumption that all occupations are illegal. They aren't. Some are. Some aren't.

Nice try, but bombing the ever-living fuck out of terrorists and then leaving isn't "occupying" the country.

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to JimC. He said "time to leave" referring to Afghanistan. I responded that that would not be acceptable under the Geneva Convention, if we would leave them in disarray.

Sure it would. We're not "occupiers" of Afghanistan, therefor the provisions do not apply to us. We are there at the invitation and request of the legitimate government of Afghanistan and we can leave whenever we want, or whenever that government asks us to leave.

And both countries must be signatories to the Geneva Convention for it's provisions to apply.

They don't have to be signatories. If the occupied country accepts and applies the convention, then the High Contracting Party must abide by its provision. Afghanistan has.

Okay, not "signatories," but it still doesn't matter in Afghanistan, since we're not "occupiers." Nor are we "at war" with Afghanistan, which is another requirement of the Convention. We are at war with a terrorist insurgency that is not a nation or state and therefore has no protections under the Geneva Convention.

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
...
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Quaeda are "powers" or "High Contracting Parties." We are not at war with or in armed conflict with the legitimate Power of Afghanistan, which is its legitimately elected government. We are assisting them in fighting terrorists.

Article 4
...
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Note: Afghanistan is not a state bound by the Convention Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Japan was not a signatory and engaged in egregious violations all during WWII, which was why it was perfectly fine for us to nuke them and walk away. Of course we didn't walk away, but that's beside the point.

Yes, but, the Geneva Convention didn't exist until 4 years after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were dropped, so it's really beside the point.

Wrong. The first treaties were signed in 1864, 1906, and 1929. The 1949 document is the Fourth Geneva Convention.

You think we're going to "fix" Libya? We fucking well better not.

It's Britain and France's baby. We're just providing "support."

The same is true of Afghanistan. We are providing "support" to the legitimate government in it's war with insurgents and terrorists, nothing more.

Oh, and we are only obligated under those provisions if we are "occupying" Afghanistan, which we're not. We are there AT THE INVITATION of the legitimate, democratically-constituted government.

We occupied many parts of Afghanistan, and therefore became an occupying power under the Convention.

Nope. We've provided troops and logistics at the request and with the permission of the government. That is different from "occupying" a country under the Convention.

Once we've put them back together again, we can leave.

We can leave tomorrow with no obligations because it was a primitive shithole when we arrived, and it's still a primitive shithole, but a slightly better one since we arrived because we've been engaged in spending billions of American dollars to build infrastructure and improve their lives.

However, if we leave before the new government is able to stay up, well, then arguably we are violating the convention.

Cite the provision.

You can't just walk in, appoint some titular head of government, have him invite you, and then claim there is no more occupation.

Sure we can, and did. Which means we can leave any time. Or be asked to leave at any time.

The facts dictate what the reality is, not the form.

And the fact is that we have never occupied Afghanistan against the legitimate government. We entered Afghanistan in hot pursuit of terrorists and terrorist supporters and we RESTORED the legitimate government which had been taken over by the Taliban against the wishes of the Afghan people, which did indeed then ask us to stay and help. At that moment, any "occupation" ceased and we became invited guests of the legitimate government.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Oh, and we are only obligated under those provisions if we are "occupying" Afghanistan, which we're not. We are there AT THE INVITATION of the legitimate, democratically-constituted government.

Mind you, it is a totally corrupt sham government that most Afghanis detest. The key point is that the western powers have given it a shot, and it's now time to get out of Dodge...

[Coito ergo sum]

Fourth Geneva Convention. Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers and numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory.

Example: Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Art 55:To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

Art. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Essentially - once we're in Afghanistan, we can't just leave it and let things go to hell and let people starve. We have obligations as an occupying power.

An interesting side-note is the modern assumption that all occupations are illegal. They aren't. Some are. Some aren't.

Nice try, but bombing the ever-living fuck out of terrorists and then leaving isn't "occupying" the country.

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to JimC. He said "time to leave" referring to Afghanistan. I responded that that would not be acceptable under the Geneva Convention, if we would leave them in disarray.

Sure it would. We're not "occupiers" of Afghanistan, therefor the provisions do not apply to us. We are there at the invitation and request of the legitimate government of Afghanistan and we can leave whenever we want, or whenever that government asks us to leave.

That begs the question. One, when we initially went in there, we were not there at anyone's "invitation." We occupied areas of Afghanistan, and as such we are supposed to follow the Geneva Convention as an Occupying Power. You can't just leave the civilian population to starve or descend into civil war, and so that is what we've been fighting for - to get the country back up and running. If the country is back up and running and can stand on its own two feet, then we ought to leave. If it isn't able to stand on its own two feet, then arguably we have a Convention obligation to make it so.

In the old days, pre-Convention, countries just slaughtered people and let them starve, but the idea of the Convention was to place more responsibilities on occupying powers for the protection of civilians.

And both countries must be signatories to the Geneva Convention for it's provisions to apply.

They don't have to be signatories. If the occupied country accepts and applies the convention, then the High Contracting Party must abide by its provision. Afghanistan has.

Okay, not "signatories," but it still doesn't matter in Afghanistan, since we're not "occupiers." Nor are we "at war" with Afghanistan, which is another requirement of the Convention. We are at war with a terrorist insurgency that is not a nation or state and therefore has no protections under the Geneva Convention.[/quote]

Once a country is "occupied" there is generally not a government left to be "at war" with. Once you occupy a country you're by definition no longer at war with it. We WERE at war with Afghanistan when it was run by the Taliban. We are now fighting an insurgency. The insurgency is not what is protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention - civilians are.

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
...
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Quaeda are "powers" or "High Contracting Parties." We are not at war with or in armed conflict with the legitimate Power of Afghanistan, which is its legitimately elected government. We are assisting them in fighting terrorists.

Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?Rea ... d=375&ps=P

The Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan in 2001.

So, yes, Afghanistan was, and is a "High Contracting Party."

We did occupy Afghanistan. When that occupation ended or will end depends on the facts. The point remains, we occupied Afghanistan and can't simply run out of there and leave the country to founder. If, however, Afghanistan is reasonably safe and secure, then our obligations stopped. It doesn't have anything to do with some fiction about invitations. We weren't invited there.

Article 4
...
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Note: Afghanistan is not a state bound by the Convention Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Well, yes, Afghanistan is a signatory, and has been since 1949. What are you talking about?

That provision you quoted means, in the case of Afghanistan, Afghanis who are in land occupied by the United States. Afghanis are not nationals of a neutral state. Afghanistan was the country invaded.

Japan was not a signatory and engaged in egregious violations all during WWII, which was why it was perfectly fine for us to nuke them and walk away. Of course we didn't walk away, but that's beside the point.

Yes, but, the Geneva Convention didn't exist until 4 years after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were dropped, so it's really beside the point.

Wrong. The first treaties were signed in 1864, 1906, and 1929. The 1949 document is the Fourth Geneva Convention.

That's not what "Fourth" means - criminy, dude. There was no Convention that covered the same subject matter.

First Geneva Convention: Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies
Second Geneva Convention: Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
Third Geneva Convention: Treatment of Prisoners of War
Fourth Geneva Convention: Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

As I said - the Fourth Geneva Convention did not come about until 4 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it's really beside the point. The prior three Conventions don't deal with the Occupying Power and protection of civilians subject matter, as noted above.

So - in short - you're wrong - way fucking off base.

You think we're going to "fix" Libya? We fucking well better not.

It's Britain and France's baby. We're just providing "support."

The same is true of Afghanistan. We are providing "support" to the legitimate government in it's war with insurgents and terrorists, nothing more. [/quote]

We're supporting the invading countries, not Libya. Libya is being invaded. If the Brits and the Frogs occupy the place then they will have to honor their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Oh, and we are only obligated under those provisions if we are "occupying" Afghanistan, which we're not. We are there AT THE INVITATION of the legitimate, democratically-constituted government.

We occupied many parts of Afghanistan, and therefore became an occupying power under the Convention.

Nope. We've provided troops and logistics at the request and with the permission of the government. That is different from "occupying" a country under the Convention.[/quote]

That's a bunch of bullshit. In 2001, the government of Afghanistan told us to fuck right off, and so we invaded Afghanistan, and we occupied it (or parts of it). We weren't invited, and we didn't "provide logistics." When did the government of Afghanistan, 2001, ask us for anything?

Once we've put them back together again, we can leave.

We can leave tomorrow with no obligations because it was a primitive shithole when we arrived, and it's still a primitive shithole, but a slightly better one since we arrived because we've been engaged in spending billions of American dollars to build infrastructure and improve their lives.

You may be right, because we may have fulfilled our obligations as an occupying power. There is a reason we're staying there, though, and basically that's because we know that there are folks who would re-Talibanize Afghanistan and there would be a civil war, probably costing hundreds of thousands of lives. That's part of what the Convention is designed to protect.

However, if we leave before the new government is able to stay up, well, then arguably we are violating the convention.

Cite the provision.

You can't just walk in, appoint some titular head of government, have him invite you, and then claim there is no more occupation.

Sure we can, and did. Which means we can leave any time. Or be asked to leave at any time.

Well, you "can" do whatever you want, but that wouldn't be in compliance with the Convention. It would be creating a fiction to avoid the obligations.

The facts dictate what the reality is, not the form.

And the fact is that we have never occupied Afghanistan against the legitimate government. We entered Afghanistan in hot pursuit of terrorists and terrorist supporters and we RESTORED the legitimate government which had been taken over by the Taliban against the wishes of the Afghan people, which did indeed then ask us to stay and help. At that moment, any "occupation" ceased and we became invited guests of the legitimate government.

Of course we did, and the government doesn't have to be "legitimate." Of course we always label the government that we're invading "illegitimate." Was Hitler's Germany "legitimate?" Was Iraq under Hussein "legitimate?" No, but it's still a State Party to the Convention, so once we occupied iraq, we had obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. End of story.

[Seth]

That begs the question. One, when we initially went in there, we were not there at anyone's "invitation." We occupied areas of Afghanistan, and as such we are supposed to follow the Geneva Convention as an Occupying Power. You can't just leave the civilian population to starve or descend into civil war, and so that is what we've been fighting for - to get the country back up and running. If the country is back up and running and can stand on its own two feet, then we ought to leave. If it isn't able to stand on its own two feet, then arguably we have a Convention obligation to make it so.

We might have an obligation to keep the civilian populace from starving while we're there, but the civilian population is not starving. As for civil war, there's nothing about "peacekeeping" in the document that requires us to stay and set up a government

In the old days, pre-Convention, countries just slaughtered people and let them starve, but the idea of the Convention was to place more responsibilities on occupying powers for the protection of civilians.

Nobody's starving in Afghanistan who wasn't starving before we arrived. They have a functioning economy and government. We've far exceeded any requirements of the Convention you cited and are free to leave whenever we like.

Once a country is "occupied" there is generally not a government left to be "at war" with. Once you occupy a country you're by definition no longer at war with it. We WERE at war with Afghanistan when it was run by the Taliban. We are now fighting an insurgency. The insurgency is not what is protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention - civilians are.

And the civilians democratically voted in a new government, which is now in charge. We are no long at war nor are we occupying Afghanistan. We are assisting them in fighting an insurgency, which relieves us of any responsibility to further "rebuild" Afghanistan.

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
...
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Neither the Taliban nor Al Quaeda are "powers" or "High Contracting Parties." We are not at war with or in armed conflict with the legitimate Power of Afghanistan, which is its legitimately elected government. We are assisting them in fighting terrorists.

Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?Rea ... d=375&ps=P

Thanks for pointing that out.

The Taliban was the Government of Afghanistan in 2001.

No, it wasn't.

So, yes, Afghanistan was, and is a "High Contracting Party."

Yes, it is, but the Taliban was not the legitimate government, it was a terrorist insurgency that overthrew the legitimate government, which we restored.

We did occupy Afghanistan. When that occupation ended or will end depends on the facts. The point remains, we occupied Afghanistan and can't simply run out of there and leave the country to founder.

Yes, we can. Nothing in the Convention requires us to support the country after we cease to occupy it.

If, however, Afghanistan is reasonably safe and secure, then our obligations stopped.

Cite the provision that says that a Power which has ceased to occupy another Power is obligated to make that other Power "reasonably safe and secure." I see that an occupier is required ONLY to provide food, shelter and medical care to civilians, nothing more.

It doesn't have anything to do with some fiction about invitations. We weren't invited there.

Yes, we were, and we remain there by invitation.

That provision you quoted means, in the case of Afghanistan, Afghanis who are in land occupied by the United States. Afghanis are not nationals of a neutral state. Afghanistan was the country invaded.

Japan was not a signatory and engaged in egregious violations all during WWII, which was why it was perfectly fine for us to nuke them and walk away. Of course we didn't walk away, but that's beside the point.

Yes, but, the Geneva Convention didn't exist until 4 years after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were dropped, so it's really beside the point.

Wrong. The first treaties were signed in 1864, 1906, and 1929. The 1949 document is the Fourth Geneva Convention.

That's not what "Fourth" means - criminy, dude. There was no Convention that covered the same subject matter.

First Geneva Convention: Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies
Second Geneva Convention: Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
Third Geneva Convention: Treatment of Prisoners of War
Fourth Geneva Convention: Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

As I said - the Fourth Geneva Convention did not come about until 4 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it's really beside the point. The prior three Conventions don't deal with the Occupying Power and protection of civilians subject matter, as noted above.
So - in short - you're wrong - way fucking off base.

Goal post shifting. You said "The Geneva Convention didn't exist till 1949." You were wrong. You might have said "The Fourth Geneva Convention pertaining to the protection of civilian persons in time of war didn't exist until 1949, but you didn't. I called you on that error.

You think we're going to "fix" Libya? We fucking well better not.

It's Britain and France's baby. We're just providing "support."

The same is true of Afghanistan. We are providing "support" to the legitimate government in it's war with insurgents and terrorists, nothing more. [/quote]

We're supporting the invading countries, not Libya. Libya is being invaded. If the Brits and the Frogs occupy the place then they will have to honor their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

And if the newly-elected Libyan government invites them in to help secure it against the insurgency and illegitimate despotism of Kadaffy, there are no such obligations because those obligations fall on the Libyan government.

Oh, and we are only obligated under those provisions if we are "occupying" Afghanistan, which we're not. We are there AT THE INVITATION of the legitimate, democratically-constituted government.

We occupied many parts of Afghanistan, and therefore became an occupying power under the Convention.

Nope. We've provided troops and logistics at the request and with the permission of the government. That is different from "occupying" a country under the Convention.[/quote]

That's a bunch of bullshit. In 2001, the government of Afghanistan told us to fuck right off, and so we invaded Afghanistan, and we occupied it (or parts of it). We weren't invited, and we didn't "provide logistics." When did the government of Afghanistan, 2001, ask us for anything?

The Taliban were never the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They were insurgents and oppressors who overthrew the legitimate government, which remained in exile, and which granted us permission to assist in retaking the country from terrorists.

Once we've put them back together again, we can leave.

We can leave tomorrow with no obligations because it was a primitive shithole when we arrived, and it's still a primitive shithole, but a slightly better one since we arrived because we've been engaged in spending billions of American dollars to build infrastructure and improve their lives.

You may be right, because we may have fulfilled our obligations as an occupying power. There is a reason we're staying there, though, and basically that's because we know that there are folks who would re-Talibanize Afghanistan and there would be a civil war, probably costing hundreds of thousands of lives. That's part of what the Convention is designed to protect.

That's a political decision on our part, not a requirement of the Geneva Convention. We can withdraw tomorrow and have no more obligations towards Afghanistan.

However, if we leave before the new government is able to stay up, well, then arguably we are violating the convention.

Cite the provision.

You can't just walk in, appoint some titular head of government, have him invite you, and then claim there is no more occupation.

Sure we can, and did. Which means we can leave any time. Or be asked to leave at any time.

Well, you "can" do whatever you want, but that wouldn't be in compliance with the Convention. It would be creating a fiction to avoid the obligations.

Show me in the document where it says that we are required to support the returning government once a terrorist insurgency has been defeated and the legitimate democratically elected government has been restored.

The facts dictate what the reality is, not the form.

And the fact is that we have never occupied Afghanistan against the legitimate government. We entered Afghanistan in hot pursuit of terrorists and terrorist supporters and we RESTORED the legitimate government which had been taken over by the Taliban against the wishes of the Afghan people, which did indeed then ask us to stay and help. At that moment, any "occupation" ceased and we became invited guests of the legitimate government.

Of course we did, and the government doesn't have to be "legitimate."

Sure it does. The Taliban were not signatories to the Convention, nor did they honor the Convention, neither does Al Quaeda. "Afghanistan" is not "The Taliban." The Taliban never held legitimate power in Afghanistan, so we were justified in assisting the legitimate government-in-exile to be restored.

Of course we always label the government that we're invading "illegitimate."

That's because we don't invade legitimate governments, we invade terrorists and despots. Nice little loophole, that.

Was Hitler's Germany "legitimate?" Was Iraq under Hussein "legitimate?" No, but it's still a State Party to the Convention, so once we occupied iraq, we had obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. End of story.

Big difference: Both Germany and Iraq were recognized by our State Department and we had diplomatic relations with them. We never had diplomatic relations with, or recognized as legitimate, the Taliban. They were always and at all times considered to be despotic terrorists and not the legitimate Afghan government.

Nor have you demonstrated how, under the Convention, even if it does apply to Afghanistan, we are obligated to provide more than emergency relief to civilians by way of food, shelter and medical supplies. There's nothing in the document about "nation rebuilding" at all.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Big difference: Both Germany and Iraq were recognized by our State Department and we had diplomatic relations with them. We never had diplomatic relations with, or recognized as legitimate, the Taliban. They were always and at all times considered to be despotic terrorists and not the legitimate Afghan government.

Nor have you demonstrated how, under the Convention, even if it does apply to Afghanistan, we are obligated to provide more than emergency relief to civilians by way of food, shelter and medical supplies. There's nothing in the document about "nation rebuilding" at all.

I agree 100%. And there is nothing to stop the international community (including the US) still providing a certain amount of humanitarian aid after a troop pull-out, whatever happens to the current government. (although that may depend on the attitude of whatever crazies take over...)