Rumsfeld ordered prisoner hidden from inspectors
- Thread starter jlabsher
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Maybe you can, then, clarify what the Geneva Conventions are supposed to be.
As far as my reading of them goes, it seems to me they are an agreement amongst signatory nations regarding the rights and privileges of prisoners of war and civilians, between belligerent nations at war with each other. So that, if we go to war with Germany, who is a signatory, we both must comply (because if we *don't*, then all bets are off regarding to how OUR prisoners will be treated). However, if we go to war with *Japan*, they didn't sign the treaty, and they're not bound by it - AND *neither* are *we*. This is how I understand it. It's a treaty signed among nations that they have agreed to honor even during war.
Now we have a situation where we're capturing enemy combatants who are not soldiers of a foreign government. The best that can be said of them is that they are criminals. But they also work under the umbrella of an extra-national organization which HAS declared war on us - and they also have not signed the Geneva Convention, nor have they made the slightest effort to abide by them, or to respect the Red Cross (or Crescent).
So, *we're* bound by the Geneva Convention - a treaty we signed - but THEY *don't* (because, they're not even a nation).
I think the precedent we should take, is the actions we took in the past against *piracy*. Many pirates were working for foreign governments, back in the days, but flew under the skull and bones, and not under any flag. I think we need a new set of international laws, because quite honestly, the present ones won't do for dealing with organizations such as al-Qaeda, which aren't going to be signing on. They're not a nation, and therefore, they have no civilians, they have no land, they can't be blockaded or economically sanctioned. They have no agreements with any other nation, and no pressure can be put on them. BUT they possess the money and resources that a nation can have. (Something that strongly suggests to me - they ARE receiving help from foreign governments).
We need a new set of rules. The old catch and release pattern of the Geneva Convention is useless against an army of fanatical, deadly martyrs.
As far as my reading of them goes, it seems to me they are an agreement amongst signatory nations regarding the rights and privileges of prisoners of war and civilians, between belligerent nations at war with each other. So that, if we go to war with Germany, who is a signatory, we both must comply (because if we *don't*, then all bets are off regarding to how OUR prisoners will be treated). However, if we go to war with *Japan*, they didn't sign the treaty, and they're not bound by it - AND *neither* are *we*. This is how I understand it. It's a treaty signed among nations that they have agreed to honor even during war.
Now we have a situation where we're capturing enemy combatants who are not soldiers of a foreign government. The best that can be said of them is that they are criminals. But they also work under the umbrella of an extra-national organization which HAS declared war on us - and they also have not signed the Geneva Convention, nor have they made the slightest effort to abide by them, or to respect the Red Cross (or Crescent).
So, *we're* bound by the Geneva Convention - a treaty we signed - but THEY *don't* (because, they're not even a nation).
I think the precedent we should take, is the actions we took in the past against *piracy*. Many pirates were working for foreign governments, back in the days, but flew under the skull and bones, and not under any flag. I think we need a new set of international laws, because quite honestly, the present ones won't do for dealing with organizations such as al-Qaeda, which aren't going to be signing on. They're not a nation, and therefore, they have no civilians, they have no land, they can't be blockaded or economically sanctioned. They have no agreements with any other nation, and no pressure can be put on them. BUT they possess the money and resources that a nation can have. (Something that strongly suggests to me - they ARE receiving help from foreign governments).
We need a new set of rules. The old catch and release pattern of the Geneva Convention is useless against an army of fanatical, deadly martyrs.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
He was not an "imported mercenary" (like many of our Halliburton 'consultants' are) he was an Iraqi citizen. Since Iraq was a country when we invaded it, aren't the citizens there offered protection under the Geneva convention from the invading nation who was a signatory?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Well, my discussion wasn't dealing with specifics. It was dealing with the larger issue of how to deal with terrorists.
And every terrorist is going to be a citizen of *some* nation, which makes forming law MUCH more difficult. It's one thing if you're Blackbeard, and floating on the high seas, a citizen of no nation. It's another if you're Zacharias Moussaoui, or Abu Anas Al-Liby, an actual citizen of a foreign nation. Are they international criminals? Or prisoners of war? Which laws should apply?
We're at war now with several terrorist organizations which do not even have the kinds of objectives nations typically go to war over - land, resources, slaves, conquest. They just want to kill us, which is their stated objective. They belong to no land, and the conventional approach to war is not going to work.
The problem with all of this is - how do you ensure that nations or law enforcement agencies around the world don't exploit a bad law by labelling every one it considers dangerous as a terrorist? Sure, *we* know bin Laden is a terrorist, and as such, requires new rules to be applied to him. But what about in Russia, our ally in the global fight against terror? What's to prevent THEM from labelling all Chechens as terrorists?
Are you following me yet? It's not that "oh my, the administration won't follow the rules". It's because in a war against global terror where the enemy has the kinds of weapons it possesses, and the will to use them (because, for example - we wouldn't worry if the Mafia had nukes, because they *don't* want to use them) you cannot just do business as usual. This man IS a terrorist. The usual rules cannot apply.
I'm not saying what they did isn't illegal, but dammit, make some new goddamned laws because as it is, the present ones work strongly in the favor of terrorists.
And every terrorist is going to be a citizen of *some* nation, which makes forming law MUCH more difficult. It's one thing if you're Blackbeard, and floating on the high seas, a citizen of no nation. It's another if you're Zacharias Moussaoui, or Abu Anas Al-Liby, an actual citizen of a foreign nation. Are they international criminals? Or prisoners of war? Which laws should apply?
We're at war now with several terrorist organizations which do not even have the kinds of objectives nations typically go to war over - land, resources, slaves, conquest. They just want to kill us, which is their stated objective. They belong to no land, and the conventional approach to war is not going to work.
The problem with all of this is - how do you ensure that nations or law enforcement agencies around the world don't exploit a bad law by labelling every one it considers dangerous as a terrorist? Sure, *we* know bin Laden is a terrorist, and as such, requires new rules to be applied to him. But what about in Russia, our ally in the global fight against terror? What's to prevent THEM from labelling all Chechens as terrorists?
Are you following me yet? It's not that "oh my, the administration won't follow the rules". It's because in a war against global terror where the enemy has the kinds of weapons it possesses, and the will to use them (because, for example - we wouldn't worry if the Mafia had nukes, because they *don't* want to use them) you cannot just do business as usual. This man IS a terrorist. The usual rules cannot apply.
I'm not saying what they did isn't illegal, but dammit, make some new goddamned laws because as it is, the present ones work strongly in the favor of terrorists.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
A noble idea, but won't happen. Actually I prefer the muslim brand of justice on most criminals or terrorists, but like you said, who is to judge how to define a terrorist? Trouble is, we are a western nation, and most western nations are even against the death penalty. There isn't a level of global cooperation that existed when the Geneva convention was signed. If anything the world is more fragmented, like politics here.
If I knew the solution, I wouldn't be here.
If I knew the solution, I wouldn't be here.