Neither the Taliban nor Al Queda are signatories of the Geneva Convention (on the conduct of nations in war). So what prevents us from executing all these guys? Although non-signatories can be protected under the umbrella of the Convention, they must provide written notice of this intention and I believe neither of these groups has done so. "Art. 4. Non-Signatory Powers are allowed to adhere to the present Convention. For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers."
<B>So what prevents us from executing all these guys</B> Morals, ethics, values.... Presumably, we signed this thing because we actually believed in it.
Well moral, ethics and values dont prevent us from executing someone. The whole point of the Convention is to provide an agreement between like minded nations on how they interact in a time of war with each other. If you're not part of the Convention, then why would you get the protection?
<B>. The whole point of the Convention is to provide an agreement between like minded nations on how they interact in a time of war with each other. </B> Well, if the philosophical basis of the treaty is that all human beings deserve a certain basic level of treatment, then the signatories are really irrelevent. Just because a government we don't recognize didn't sign the thing doesn't mean that the individual soliders under that government are any less deserving of those basic human rights.
Our troops will treat them according to the Conventions, though I wouldn't... Our public is full of spoiled little brats who don't understand that war is a dirty, messy business. If there are no violations of the Geneva Conventions in this war, then it will be the first war in the history of the Geneva Conventions where no conventions have been broken. Of course, they were thrown out the window by the other side the second the first plane smashed into the WTC. I'm pretty sure there's a prohibition against intentionally killing civilians... Like I said in another thread, if I were on the ground and I saw a white flag pop up, I'd point the GLLD at it and call in a 1,000 pounder. But that's just me...
Actually the basis of the treaty/convention is to DEFINE who is to get these basic human protections and who isn't. Who is a recognized combatant and who is not, and then how you deal with those separate cases. For instance, in war you can execute a spy (someone not in uniform or posing in your countries uniform). That is not a process where you bring them to your civilian courts and wallow through normal legal channels. Those can be military decisions (tribunals or divisional commanders). So these conventions are not blanket lists of agreed upon human rights that everyone gets.
<B>Actually the basis of the treaty/convention is to DEFINE who is to get these basic human protections and who isn't. Who is a recognized combatant and who is not, and then how you deal with those separate cases. </B> Of course, but the foundation of it is that those who are not combatants have basic rights (combatants also do but I'm using this as an example). That is, the moral basis of the treaty is that you don't murder an unarmed person who surrenders to opposing forces (one example). Now, just because that individual's government didn't agree to the treaty doesn't change the moral "rightness" of murdering the unarmed, surrendering person. Yes, the treaty defines everything to make it a reasonable & useful document, but the morality of it isn't based on the signatories.
That could be true, and its why I started the thread in the first place. Japan didn't sign and didn't follow the guidelines, but the US did (generally), which would go to that I guess. However, execution and murder are not necessarily the same thing. In this case specifically we have a supranational terrorist organization, which by its very nature puts itself outside the laws and conventions and covenants of the international community. Al Queda is not rooted in a particular nation-state, and its goal is the destruction of those covenants and conventions of the nation-states, and to allow them to escape is surely folly. Lining them up and shooting them en masse may not be appropriate, but that does not mean swift justice (such as a front line military hearing and subsequent execution) is also inappropriate or barred by international convention.
In general, the Geneva Conventions have been good at stopping signatories from using chemical weapons and the like, but that's about it. The provisions for prisoner treatment were very often ignored by all sides during WWII (many an allied soldier blew a Jap or Kraut away who was trying to surrender), and the conventions regarding targeting of civilians were thrown out the window altogether. From the Battle of Britian on, both sides purposefully and ruthlessly attacked each others' civilians... I'm not advocating killing civilians (that's one I would never do myself, and would refuse any order to do so), just pointing out that there's plenty of precedent for not worrying too much about pretty concepts like morality and ethics when people are being blown to bits...
But that was not policy. Those were particular incidents where soldiers were not brought up on charges. And I'd probably not use the term 'Jap' as I know its offensive to Japanese-Americans (trust me - previous experience). The Convention (article 23 or 26) prohibits attacking unprotected civilian targets. Not just civilian targets. For instance, Dresden is within the protocol for upholding the Convention. It may have been unnecessary and it may have been immoral, but it wasn't outside the scope of what's allowed because the city was in fact, defended. Same with London. Same with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Sure there is precedent for barbarism, but I think we can execute these guys based on the fact that they are part of an organization outside the bounds normally set for combatants. Not because I want us to disregard all previous attempts to establish some level of agreement on the conduct of war (as ludicrous as that may sound to some - it is important).
Moral issues aside -- there is a strategic value to following the convention. It is in consideration for how we want our citizens and soldiers treated if they are taken prisoner. If we give basic respect to their prisioners, (not shoot them, not beat them, give them food/water/medical aid), then we build a case for how our citizens are treated. This includes not only Afganistan, where the outcome is pretty much known, but in other countries. If we blow away all of the Taliban soldiers and terrorists today, the next time we have a downed airman over Iraq or China... Keep in mind to, that the Taliban controlled government did have several Americans held as prisoners, and did treat them well -- better than their own citizens who were held in captivity.
You liberal pansy ass. Don't you realize that the Al-Qaeda is the root of all our problems. I mean, why don't we just round up all those Jews and put them into gas chambers... errr, I mean terrorists of course. :disconnect treeman helmet: It amazes me how people are swept up in things like this. I mean, most of the soldiers in Nazi Germany weren't born with an innate desire to exterminate Jews. But, their leaders told them that the Jews were the reason that Germany was doing so poorly, in just about every aspect of their lives. The Nazis tried to justify the murder of millions of innocent people. I just don't think the analogy is that far off. You don't just round people up and kill them. If you do, then you too would've been a Nazi had you been born in Germany (of non-Jewish descent) in the early 1900s. I am seriously tired of (and shocked at) all of these "kill 'em all" threads (posts).
What are you talking about? The analogy is TERRIBLE. In this thread the subjects are ARMED aggressors whose stated goal is the destruction of the US and the West. The subjects have actually attacked the West and drawn severe casualties. How is that the same as gassing civilians? It isn't. No one is proposing the extermination of the Afghan civilian population.
agreed...DREAMer, comparing possible executions by our military of the taliban and al qaeda forces to Hitler's mass genocide is just about the worst comparison I have ever seen on these boards.
I don't think DREAMer is even reading my posts anymore. I think he sees my name and just assumes that the writing in the post says "Kill Everyone. Gas 'em All. Murder. Liberals Die. Racist War Good. Kill. Kill. Kill."... Oh, well. Some people only see what they want to see. Liberals...
Once that white flag goes up, they're no longer soldiers, they're prisoners. I'm talking more about the posters/people who are saying we should kill the soldiers we're fighting against instead of capturing them (especially that one thread about the prisoners trying to escape). It's friggin' ridiculous. And, the analogy is a good one, because I was talking about prisoners. The Jews that were gassed were prisoners regardless of whether they were civilian or military, as were people of non-Jewish heritage (Russians and other Allied forces). Somehow, in the mixed up fantasy world that is my mind, I can rationalize my desire to go over there and shoot members of terrorist organizations (in combat), but I can't rationalize just flat out killing them no matter "how" "when" or "where". I guess it's along the old saying, "There's a time and a place...".
Isn't a white flag the Taliban standard? (seriously) And Al Queda members may be something other than soldiers, hence the beginning of this thread, which would make them subject to different rules of engagement than a POW as set in the Geneva Conventions. If it becomes apparent that surrendering and then revolting is systematic, then it would no longer be appropriate to take those surrenders, and Al Queda would have to be left to fight it out. In WWII the Germans were known to 'surrender' and then gun down those who came to 'take them prisoner.' After many casualties and much outrage, it became impossible to continue accepting surrender in some cases (isolated front line situations). No, its not a good one. First you don't have a nation scapegoating a cultural minority and then herding them up and gassing them. Not accepting surrender is hardly the same thing. Executing Al Queda members after a military hearing/tribunal is not the same thing. In fact there are plenty of precedents for executing guerrilla forces who were more terrorist than military. Two, we are at war with the Taliban and (more importantly) Al Queda - which is light years away from the German/Jew situation. Three, if Al Queda fighters pose a future danger, then eliminating them can be justified the same way you'd take a serial killer down for fear of their future actions (without even talking about retribution). And you are trivializing the holocaust by making this massively skewed comparison. With the holocaust one is talking about scientifically and systematically eliminating a whole race, to the tune of 8 million + people. The intent and scope of the holocaust is beyond comparison with the current situation. Terrible, terrible analogy.
So it was okay to say Kraut, but not Jap? Is it because Germans have white skin? Are white people not deserving of the same respectful treatment as others? Nice selective enforcement of your PCness.
Well I don't believe I said anywhere that "Kraut' was ok, did I? As I pointed out I had a personal experience where I used 'Jap' and offended someone of Japanese-American background. At the time the thought had never occured to me that it would be offensive, and I thought the same thing may be true here. I'm not the PC police, just thought it might save some embarrassment. Maybe you should have just pointed out that "Kraut" should be unacceptable as well, instead of needlessly attacking me.
Actually, use of the word "Japanese" in general is incorrect, and I've been told was once considered mildly offensive. They prefer "Nippon" and hence "Nipponese." While Allied behavior wasn't perfect during ww2, the US generally did treat surrending enemy soldiers significantly better than the reverse. They generally: A. were not executed and B. were seldom force marched several hundred miles under horrendous conditions... the Germans and Japanese both had annoying tendencies to execute prisoners or use them as slaves. I think that the Geneva Convention *itself* probably is largely worthless. However, among many nations there is a recognition that random mayhem and looting just isn't acceptable. I believe that a sort of international code of war among developed nations has emerged. I certainly would want to be treated in such a manner as is consistent with the Geneva Convention should Canada conquer the US tomorrow. Hence, I support the US exercising restraint abroad on this issue. The obvious ethical implications add another dimension...
