The hidden benefit for applying Geneva Convention to the war on terror

It has been much lauded lately that the US will be giving Geneva Convention protection to the captives of the "War on Terror" at Gitmo and around the world. This topic is being celebrated by some and much bemoaned by others.

It seems to me that if they are being granted Geneva Convention protections that other aspects of the Geneva Convention must also come into effect.

Of particular interest is:

Children under 15 must not participate in hostilities and must not be recruited into the armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 2; Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 3c)

It's not uncommon to see children as young as 12 (or even younger!) with weapons. That means that forces using them are in violation of this and subject to International War Crimes proceedings.

Other articles of interest that change the scope of these activities in the strictly legal sense from "crimes" or "partisan issues" to actual, internationally recognized war crimes.

civilian immunity

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)

Not particularly that the taking of hostages is prohibited.

One can't expect the protection of the laws of combat without also obeying those self same laws.

It seems to me that this should pressure the other nations of the region (indeed the world) to either support these war criminals or take an active stance against them in support of the Geneva Convention and international law.

One can't expect the protection of the laws of combat without also obeying those self same laws.

...

The SCOTUS is saying that those laws should be applied regardless of whether or not the captives were obeying those laws. (actually I don't think that the scotus said that the geneva convetions apply, but rather that the military commissions were improper and that courts martial would be acceptable).

There is no legalistic way to make jihadis and insurgents participat in the geneva conventions.

Great connection Marid Audran, you are 100% correct.

BUT…

But these guys don’t play by any rules, they just want everybody else to comply. That’s what this is all about after all, compliance to Islam. It’s not important that Islam comply with anything. It actually sates so in the Quran. Not like that matters, as they make up their own interpretations of Islamic law and rule as they go anyways. What ever suits their evil they are doing at that moment they justify.

Your point also makes one thing very clear: This is why the West is a better more civilized culture, and why the war on terror has been as difficult as it has been. We are arguing about how fair and humane the treatment of these people should be, all the while not one Islamic terrorist group cares in the least bit about anybody or anything, quite the contrary actually. Their goal is to cause as much terror, suffering, and general evilness as they possible can. But here we are spending BILLIONS a year caring for the captured terrorists better than some people live all together. And then arguing and bickering on how fair it is.

The moment, and I mean the very instant, the west decides to fight the terrorists the way the terrorists fight them, the west will crush them. But as long as our hearts bleed, the terrorists will thrive and take advantage. And they may win as a result…




[edit on 14-7-2006 by skippytjc]

There's evidence aplenty that Western nations too have behaved like terrorists. Iraq, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are stark, recent indicators. If there is no leash on their progress, where do they draw the line? In trying to assume separation from legal oversight to defeat its terrorist enemies, the Western Executive branch is becoming its enemy.

That modern day combatants need not be recognised by the Geneva Convention illustrates the historical context of the conventions and the present day sophistry of lawyers and politicians. There's something ridiculous about the whole concept of 'rules of war' anyway. 'If you must kill the bastard, do it tastefully and technologically, hey old chap.'

Violence, no matter the uniform worn, equipment used or inspiration vaunted is aimed at some degree of terrorising a victim.

Civilian deaths or 'collateral damage' from even the most targetted military actions are officially regretted but explained with accusations that terrorists use civilians as human shields. Don't these actions also reveal a willingness to kill civilians if they kill terrorists? A utilitarian motive? The greatest good for the greatest number leaves room for the loss of innocents, but when does their loss or maiming exceed the good?

If we stoop to standards below our apparent own in order to defend them and the freedoms they provide, then we destroy those standards, inviting terrorists to be justified in active hatred. We end up living a lie that incriminates us, not for freedom, but for advantage. Maybe, however flowery our blood stained institutions bloom, we'll always be the ape that stood on two feet so we could see farther and swing a club at more. Have Western standards been a presumptuous lie all along? Idealism, meet emotion. Grrrr.