Should terrorists be treated according to the Geneva Convention?

The Geneva Convention IMO is a contract between two combatants. When one of the combatants breach the contract, it is null and void on the other side as well.

 

The Geneva Convention IMO is a code of conduct. If one of the parties breaches the code, the other must continue to abide.

Sometimes it's not easy being the good guys.

 

Agreed 100%.

When the Japanese beheaded Allied POWs during WW2, we did not ditch the Geneva Convention.

When our POWs were tortured in Korea and Vietnam, we did not ditch the Geneva Convention.

We are supposed to be above our enemies. Why do so many Americans want us to slink to our enemy's level?

 

I'm not sure being the good guys is worth the lives lost from following the Geneva Convention while the other side is taking liberties.

 

Not wearing uniforms and targeting civilians prevent al Qaeda from being covered under Geneva.

 

I'm not going to vote for this because its a much more complicated question than you phrase it. What you appear to be referring to are the 3rd Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war where as the 4th governs the treatment of civillians. Under that standard an insurgent fighting an asymetric war would still be subject to Geneva convention protections.

4th Geneva Convention :
Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

So while the a terrorists may have been said to have forefieted the rights of communication and as a POW they are still entitled to be treated with humanity and have the right to fair and regular trial.

So in an occupation situation even if one behaves as you've stated they are still afforded Geneva Convention protections. If its not an occupation situation then that's a different matter such as like Jose Padilla but that then beomces a matter of whether the government's own constitution affords them rights.

 

Like every vote that only includes two options, I vote for more options.

 

So true.
I'd also say that if the government can't charge those suspected of terrorism within 12 months, they need to be released. I know it's dangerous, I know it could bite us in the ass, but the saying "freedom isn't free" applies to more than just war.
I'd rant on the Patriot Act about now but I want this thread to stay on track.

 

It actually is worthy. If the principle or standard can be given up under some certain "special" circumstances, it can never hold. If you are claiming justice, you have to act justly, not simply pointing the finger that they broke the rule first. Otherwise, what's the difference between the two? Democracy and freedom are great, but they don't come cheap.

 

How are you defining terrorist here? Part of the problem with denying them GC rights is that we have a habit of detaining people and letting them go a year or two later when we determine they didn't do anything. So are those nebulous people (pretty much 95% of the people we capture) covered under your question? Or are you referring to people who are only proven and/or known terrorists?

The reason this has become an issue is the people that we capture, torture and/or hold for extended periods and then just let go because they didn't do anything.

 

I think this means that the GC needs to be amended to address the case where if one party does not follow the GC, then what appropriate actions can be taken. This is needed considering there is no real punishment for failing to follow the GC except for war crime tribunals that take place WAY after the fact.

 

I don't get it. If we question the motivations or feasibility of the Iraq qar we're aiding terrorist propaganda, but if we sanction torture we're not? How do the neo-cons reconcile those two conflicting positions? Rounding up a bunch of suspects and torturing them is everything that it seems Bush would stand against when he claims to fight for freedom and the "nonnegotiable demands of human dignity."

Here are two questions:

1. If someone is merely a terrorist suspect, then what grounds do we have for classifying them as enemy combatants and torturing them without any proof? How can you justify torturing someone until they're proven guilty?
2. What evidence, if any, is there that current torture policies are doing anything? Is there any proof that torturing a bunch of suspects has helped anyone? Until there's concrete proof that it has saved lives, I don't think anyone who believe in human dignity can even begin to entertain the diea that "enhanced interrogation techniques" can be justified.

 

Except for those pesky torture allegations.

 

Remember we are at War with the Terrorists (tm). Geneva War Conventions should apply.

But then again we are calling our opponents Enemy Combatants (tm). Maybe we should change the conflict name to The Engagment Against Enemy Combatants (tm).

 

I agree with Sishir, and would add that the insurgents in Iraq are not terrorists, but men and women fighting for the freedom of their country from occupation. The real terrorists in Iraq, just to focus on that country, are those who are connected with AQ and are made up largely of foreign nationals. They are the ones that are targeting civilians, and conducting suicide bombings, in the main. I have considerably less sympathy for them, but they deserve the same treatment under the GC that you, and Sishir, pointed out.

When we sink to the level of our enemy, we begin to lose what makes us great, and they begin to win, by making us change our values and our system. It's what they want. Bush is an idiot for a lot of things, and giving the terrorists what they want is just another in a long list, in my opinion.

There is one thing we must adhere to before all else... someone is innocent until proven guilty.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Are you suggesting that the Geneva Convention has been followed all along? Interesting. Seems silly for the admin to make such a big deal about their contention that it not be applicable.

 

Really? Not even putting someone out in the cold Afghanistan night until they freeze to death? Not even repeatedly beating an innocent man until he dies of internal injuries?

Both of these cases have been documented here on this BBS.