That’s the point. Once a government is toppled, the previous state of affairs no longer holds. This is exactly as true for Saddam Hussein’s government as it was for the Kingdom of Iraq in 1958.

Since the creation of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003, Iraq has been ruled by a series of governments. None of those governments have rejected the Geneva Conventions, and all thus gained the legal protections allowed to non-signatories who nevertheless abide by the treaty’s conditions.

I didn’t say the ‘us vs them’ thing is unjustified. The blue wall of silence makes it a reasonable response and things like the ‘don’t snitch’ campaign have institutionalised it among communities which have had a particularly bad time with police behaviour.

My point is that in spite of distrust being a rational response the vast majority of the public still give the police the benefit of the doubt unless the evidence against them is overwhelming (and sometiems even them). That makes it particularly galling for a police officer to reference a public wall of silence which doesn’t exist.

As I said, it’s a guilty reaction akin to a habitual liar who, because everyone else could be like them, doesn’t trust what other people say.

The government that signed on to the Treaty in 1956 was overthrown in 1958. Are you saying that the treaties signed by the previous government apply? I don’t think it works like that – either in theory or in the mess we call real life.

I don’t think cameras really change that except in situations where cops either (1) make reasonable allowances for people they like, while being exceedingly strict with those they don’t [e.g. a cop mostly ignores cars driving 34 in a 25 zone, but nails people with Ralph Nader bumper stickers if they drive over 26], or (2) demonstrate wanton indifference toward patently-illegal conduct which targets people the cops don’t like [e.g. a cop stands by and does nothing while some crooks vandalize a car sporting a Ralph Nader bumper sticker]. And in those cases I think the cop’s “wiggle” room should be curtailed. In the former case, video of the cop ignoring cars going 34 should constitute evidence of a de facto speed limit of 34 or above; in the latter case, the video should be grounds for firing the cop, and perhaps for regarding him as an accessory to the crime.

The normal correct response to that justification is “I do have things to hide, but they’re not illegal, and they’re nobody’s business but my own”. Government employees on the public payroll, however, are generally supposed to be operating above-board. They’re really not supposed to have much to hide, at least with regard to their official duties.

That’s not a “problem”–that’s an essential part of why anyone was willing to ratify the Geneva conventions in the first place. If non-signatories would receive the same benefits as signatories, what’s the benefit to signing, or abiding by the agreement once signed? The reason countries signed and (mostly) abided by the Geneva Conventions is that they wanted to ensure the well-being of those captured by the enemy. If Germany had believed that we would treat their solders well no matter what they did to hours, they would likely not have treated ours as well as they did.

I can’t speak for anybody else, but for me the situation is very much “us vs. them”. The police are the enemy of truth, freedom, justice, and much more that We The People hold dear. They kill dogs, children and old people just for sport, and then they look you right in the eye and tell you that they had to shoot your 7 year-old because she was a “threat”.

There is a VERY GOOD REASON the police are called “pigs”.

Firstly he acknowledges police recordings will under no circumstances be used to exonerate a falsely accused citizen. Good. I’m glad that at least some police admit that the blue wall of silence precludes the possibility of evidence incriminating cops ever seeing the light of day.

But his reasoning the other way is bizarre. The idea that people wouldn’t come forward with recordings exonerating cops who are falsely accused of malfeasance relies on an assumption that the ‘us vs them’ mentality that the cops have built up is mirrored by the public at large. In fact the evidence from juries and political campaigns is that the opposite is true. People give the police a huge amount of leeway and will go to great lengths to imagine that they’re innocent unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

This feels like a guilty conscience talking, in that this police officer has come to expect the kind of unanimous public derision that some aspects of the current policing hierarchy deserve even though the public don’t actually feel that way. It’s like the habitual liar who sees everything other people say as questionable because their own conduct is the baseline.

Article 2 paragraph 3: 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.

“the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations” would mean “the people who sign the treaty are bound by it in their treatment of each other [that's what "mutual relations" would mean in this context] even if there are other groups in the same conflict who are not signers of the treaty.”

That is, if you don’t sign the treaty, you don’t benefit (well, the treaty doesn’t demand that you do, anyway). In general, I think torture is bad, etc, and it’s good for us not to do it, etc, but the Geneva Conventions only apply in conflicts between signatories – third parties don’t have to follow them, nor do signers have to follow them when fighting third parties.

Now, some things (such as torture) are generally held to be war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc, whether you’ve signed any given piece of paper or not. No sense bringing up the Geneva Conventions when they are not required (especially when they are also not applicable).

How about our little Cuban-American Treaty that gives us access to Gitmo?

Aha! So if toppling a government means the “state” goes away for purposes of the Conventions, then the Fourth Geneva Convention now applies instead of the Third, and has since the moment Saddam’s regime fell, wouldn’t you agree? The Fourth, you’ll remember, contains the same language about detention and torture.

And yes, the US could state whatever the hell they want, but it’d still be a war crime by any rational measure, since the text of the treaty allows for no such exceptions.

Article 2 paragraph 3: 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.

Seems to me you don’t have to sign it to benefit from it. Assuming those who sign it abide by it.

Mike, how does one recently captured have an “operational role in active hostilities”? Unless the active role was to be captured, but then that would end with the capture therefore negating any “operational role”. /shrug

and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause

Furthermore, the US could simply state “we interpret detention to mean detention as a person of minimal interest to active hostilities, not one recently captured and who has an operational role in active hostilities.”

Iraq ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956. What’s your basis for claiming that they don’t apply?

That government was overthrown. Treaties are between governments, not countries. The Geneva Convention no more protected the Ba’athists who overthrew the signatory state than the anti-missile defense treaty we signed with the Soviet Union is still applicable with the Russian Federation.

Because, like a religious cult, they insulate themselves from any other perspective. They live in the megolamaniac echo chamber where they are surrounded by flatterers and ass kissers who constantly tell them they are heros. This more than anything else has created that dangerous us vs. them mentality. The only good non-cops are the ones who kiss their asses and worship them as gods. They are headed for a huge fall.

Most who say they’re fine with it say they’re fine with it because they’re good cops, and because citizen video is far more likely to protect them against false accusations than to incriminate them.

If truth be told, change it to:
Most who say they’re fine with it say they’re fine with it because they know their union, The State (prosecutors, judges, idiot citizens) and the Blue Wall of Silence has their back, so they know they will get away with just about anything regardless of evidence.

This language appears in the text of both the Third Geneva Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention:

1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; [...]

Iraq ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956. What’s your basis for claiming that they don’t apply?