[Previous entry: "Why Can't Michael Powell Resign Instead?"] [Next entry: "Hawaii Day 1"]

I posted a version of this yesterday for about 10 minutes, and then I decided that I was uncomfortable with what I had written, that I wasn't getting the point across, and that it pretty much sucked. Then I saw an article coming from the Republican viewpoint that made that same mistake I was pissed about yesterday, so I'm going to try again. And actually, I'm turning a statement into a question, because now I am somewhat unsure of the answer.

Are we fighting the current war in Iraq under the strict legal (not the ethical) terms of the Geneva Convention treaty? In essence, are we legally bound by this treaty during this conflict?

UPDATE: It's gotten murkier, see below for more.

My concern is that pretty much every news source seems to bring up the Geneva Convention when a potential violation occurs (for example, the recent Marine shooting of a wounded Iraqi in a mosque). I have been assuming that the treaty is in effect for this conflict.

But here is the portion of the treaty that concerns the applicability of the treaty:

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.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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.

Article 2 clearly states that the signing Power is bound to the Convention "in relation to the [non-signing] said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Which clearly has not and will not happen. But it also includes the line, "the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations." Which suggests that either (a) we are obligated in every conflict to follow the rules, or that (b) we are obligated only when the conflict includes other High Contracting Parties, and then only to those parties." I think I would read it as (b), but it is poorly worded and it may be widely accepted to be interpreted as (a). Anyone have an answer to this?

This is mostly a semantic argument. It is without question that, whenever possible, the United States is ethically obligated to uphold the principles set forth by the Convention, and we have failed to do so in some regards to this war. But I'm curious as to the technicalities in this case.

There's also a very good discussion about the absolute ludicrous nature of having rules for war that are almost inherently going to be broken by the nature of war. But that's for another day.

Any answers, people?

UDPATE: Okay, here's more stuff. This is a helpful guide.

The occupation clause in Article 2 is relevant because Iraq signed the third convention and is considered a High Contracting Party. Since we are occupying their country, we are obligated to follow the convention treaty.

However, soldiers are required to be in uniform in order to receive the protections. Since this war is fought by an insurgent force and not the actual government of Iraq, and the insurgents don't wear uniforms of any official government, they are not provided such privilege. I could add to this mess by pointing out that the Pentagon declared early on in this conflict that "terrorists" are not going to be convered by the Convention, and I think they consider the insurgents to be terrorists, since the official Iraqi government does not support them.

What a mess! Who's got the mop?