applies only to soldiers in battle and in uniform don’t you? So why are you being idiotic and using this as a Bush War Crime. Terrorists are spies, not combatants.
Yes. You are correct. The Geneva Convention only applies to the uniformed military of a Nation State.
I suppose one could consider the spirit of the law, but that wouldn’t likely hold up in court.
The phrasing of "Terrorist are spies" isn’t completely apt. Terrorists are worse.
I believe the closest historical parallel in International Law is the pirates of the late 18th century.
They were declared "enemies of all mankind" and hunted down without mercy.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Well, you’ve talked yourself into a corner. How can we be at war with spies?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Why does Bush always refer to it as a "war"????
by the way – you are wrong…..
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
"# 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
# 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Uniform is not mandatory
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Don’t you have to try someone in the usual judicial process before labelling them a terrorist?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Don’t try to confuse them with facts.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
You are correct–must be uniformed soldiers for a Country, but why should facts get in the way of a lie for them.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Most of them don’t know that, though technically, terrorists are unlawful combatants, not spies. Still the Geneva Code of Conventions does not pertain to them, and even if it did, terrorists violate it by their very definition.
It’s much easier for liberals to be shrill about things they know nothing about. Truth has a nasty habit of slapping them in the face.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
That’s not correct. "Irregular combatants" don’t wear uniforms. And they are addressed in the treaty.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
take a step towards reality – it isn’t 1939 anymore
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Who makes the decision as to what constitutes "in uniform"?
As to interrogation guidelines, the Obama administration has interrogators use the Army Field Manual.
So if you have a problem with that, talk to the Army.
References :
The Force!
November 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
no it actually does talk about non-uniformed fighters
References :
basically , it says that spies can be shot…but it doesn’t say non-uniformed fighters caught on the fiield of battle can be summarily executed or tortured
in a hectic situation of total war with a separation from central command, any legitimate military fixture should be lawfully able to deal out justice of a sort…but the situation today is not one of separation from central command
a civilized country at least provides a military tribunal…but the world expects justice to be a bit higher in the USA…because this is the USA
i have no problem with shooting the guilty at dawn…just so they are in fact guilty
November 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
It doesn’t seem like a bit of a loophole to you that you give people rights based on whether or not they all got together and picked out a team uniform. The Geneva Conventions were written at a time when the threat of international terrorist groups was not known so of course they wouldn’t have thought of it. The spirit of the convention however demands that we extend its protection to all enemy combatants.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Terrorists are spies?? Whaa?? Dude, its you guys who can’t tell the difference between a combatant and a terrorist because you throw them into the same place! Many of these people haven’t even been convicted yet.
Go back to watching Fox Noise and come back when you have more worthy talking points to throw at us.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Please do NOT confuse them with facts.
You wouldn’t ask Forest Gump to do complex physics analysis would you?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It was the conservatives and Republican who kept insisting during the campaign that we were at war, and should not elect an "Ay-rab."
And if they’re not enemy combatants, should they not at least get a day in court?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Terrorists are neither spies nor combatants.
They are criminals.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
IS THERE SOME REPUBLICAN RULE SOMEWHERE…
the more wrong the "facts" you present… the more you have to slam other people for being stupid…
do anyone else ever notice this?
the more a question talks about "stupid liberals" and "liberals without facts"… when you go doublecheck what they are saying… they always have the facts WAY wrong?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I just pointed that out in another question and the "thumbs down" were numerous.
You aren’t going to get a rational answer from people who are not in the habit of researching anything for themselves and will probably also get references to Bush ignoring the UN in relation to Iraq, they don’t remember all the UN sanctions Saddam ignored prior to our intervention.
References :
Curt Jones, SFC, USA (Ret)
Registered Republican since 1970
November 5th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
yeahhhhh not so much im pretty sure they fit under the soldier category either way
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Don’t talk to hard core liberals. They are not open to discussion or open interchange of ideas.
Same as their name sakes "National Socialist".
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
trying to reason with a liberal brainwashed lemmings is like trying to hold water in a net
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
To Truth…..it all would jive and add up to your theory IF terrorists were recognized as official military combatants. They aren’t. They are well organized, but unofficial and random. Terrorists who behead journalists on television and would do so in a heartbeat again do not play by the rules at ANY time, they are not entitled to our laws as they follow none. Period. As someone else pointed out very well…you do not extend the Geneva Convention to those who do NOT abide by it and never will.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I read that even though the terrorists do not qualify for the Geneva Convention that Bush would have been smarter to let the Geneva Convention apply to them.
The reason is that the America court system could not touch them and there would be no worry about some American court setting them free.
Any prisoner under the Geneva Convention is outside the jurisdiction of the American courts
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
A better question would be…"Why is the U.S. the only country that has to give a rats butt about the Geneva convention"?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I took my uniform off when I got back from Vietnam and I’m not a Dem; I guess that makes me "un-uniformed.". And I’m an Independent: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Just thought I’d inform you of that.
By the way, the Viet Cong didn’t wear uniforms… guerrilla fighters rarely do… but except for some gruesome exceptions, they were treated under the Geneva Convention when captured alive.
There may be some corollary activity between being a terrorist and spying, but people can be one without being the other, too.
If America and democracy are supposed to be so great, we should set an example. If we ARE perceived as being great, people will want to emulate us, not hate us. That’s my opinion. You are welcome to yours. I defended your right to it…
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
you do know torture doesnt actually work dont you?
if the US was a civilised society theyd apply the rules of geneva convention to these SUSPECTED terrorists anyway. obviously the US is not a civilised society
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
You are right up to the place where you say they are not combatants. They are un-uniformed combatants. They wear no emblem of service, military attachment nor country, therefore are either spies or terrorists in our eyes. They can not be patriots or freedom fighters for they are not a part of an organized militia, government nor are they serving in any way, a nation or principality.
This is called a war because we declared war against the terrorist regimes of the world.
My question is simply, Why do the American people want to take the side of a people who have vowed to kill every American and non-Muslim?
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Actually, that is incorrect. There are twp Geneva Conventions and the combination of them both was intended to be all inclusive:
– (Third) Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
– (Fourth) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Additional information:
– UN Charter:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
– UN Convention Against Torture (CAT):
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
– Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva04.htm
The argument you are trying to present to exclude certain parties from the Geneva Conventions is one that is based upon contractual, rather than Constitutional law. For example, either of us could declare a contract as void if either or both of us failed to fulfill our contractual obligation. Neither of us could declare a law as void if either or both of us decided to break that law. Hope that helps!.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Yes. You are correct. The Geneva Convention only applies to the uniformed military of a Nation State.
I suppose one could consider the spirit of the law, but that wouldn’t likely hold up in court.
The phrasing of "Terrorist are spies" isn’t completely apt. Terrorists are worse.
I believe the closest historical parallel in International Law is the pirates of the late 18th century.
They were declared "enemies of all mankind" and hunted down without mercy.
References :
November 5th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Absolutly right but they sing or look for an escape goat to hide more the crimes of their masters to think first Trotsky who let shoot by musketry farmers because of one hidden rabbit as he nationalised the farms.
The socialist have been or are X pert for repression at any place in the world using all the means that they belong to order you from the pen of the banker to the pistol of the politic commissionner.
Care the Hilda same first name than the justice minister of Walter Ulbrich
she was meaner than Stalin!!!! you get the medal
Find who they were but she let hang the soldiers who tried to jump at west 1962 1963 east germany
References :