Geneva Convention protects terrorists? (1 Viewer)

[conserv.pat15]

Should the Geneva Convention protect terrorists?

 

[Tashah]

Why not? The UN does

 

[GarzaUK]

Why not? The UN does

Sigh another UN snub.

Glad your okay Tashah!!! :2wave: So what do you think? Was the war an Israeli win or a draw??

 

[Tashah]

Glad your okay Tashah!!! :2wave: So what do you think? Was the war an Israeli win or a draw??

Thanks Garza!

The war? I'll let ya know after intermission :2wave:

Tash

 

[akyron]

Glad your okay Tashah!!! :2wave: So what do you think? Was the war an Israeli win or a draw??

Yeah. I await an in depth report of your time away.. Get on that AAR soldier!

 

[Donkey1499]

Should the Geneva Convention protect terrorists?

HELL F---ING NO! They don't even comply with it (i.e. Nick Berg).

Why not? The UN does

:rofl

 

[Donkey1499]

Y'all should see "Article I of the Terrorist Bill of Rights" in my signature. :mrgreen:

 

[The Mark]

Should the Geneva Convention protect terrorists?

Poorly worded question, in my opinion.

Would be more accurate if it read: Does the Geneva Convention protect terrorists?

Because "should" implies that it currently does or does not, and that it needs changed to do the opposite.

Currently, I believe this link shows the relevant portion of the Geneva Convention.

Article 4 gives descriptions and explanations as to who is covered by the GC.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5 has this to say:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Which might apply to terrorists.

But if you read Article 4, it definitely seems that the Geneva Convection does not protect Terrorists.

BUT.

If I respond to the actual question, I must say that I do not think the Geneva Convection should protect terrorists.

 

[Billo_Really]

The following Protocol to the GC is something our Congress has ratified and, therefore, is part of our law. It also adds "combatants" to the issue this thread is addressing.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) Adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armned Conflicts entry into force 7 December 1979, in accordance with Article 95


Article 1.-General principles and scope of application

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.

2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Although I do not believe persons convicted of terrorism should be afforded the same rights and protections as a "prisoner of war", they should at least be treated humanely. If we don't, then we are no better than they are.

 

[Diogenes]

Although I do not believe persons convicted of terrorism should be afforded the same rights and protections as a "prisoner of war", they should at least be treated humanely. If we don't, then we are no better than they are.

Bill O'Reilly reported the other night that Zubayda broke when he was stripped, placed in a chilly room, and forced to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. O'Reilly then played about 15 seconds of one of their videos, and shut it off saying "Okay, okay! I'll talk!"

Do you think that discomfort and annoyance constitute torture forbidden by the GC? I don't, but I'd be interested in your arguments if you disagree. (I didn't mind RHCP so much, but opera has the same effect on me as fingernails on a blackboard.)

I also see some validity in the argument that the GC shouldn't apply at all. A treaty is an agreement to be honored among signatories to that agreement and, given the examples of Danny Pearl and Nick Berg, I don't see why we should be legally bound to treat these animals "humanely."

 

[ProudAmerican]

absolutely not.

while we are treating them humanely, they will be murdering and beheading anyone that does not asimilate.

 

[Topsez]

The following Protocol to the GC is something our Congress has ratified and, therefore, is part of our law. It also adds "combatants" to the issue this thread is addressing.Although I do not believe persons convicted of terrorism should be afforded the same rights and protections as a "prisoner of war", they should at least be treated humanely. If we don't, then we are no better than they are.

I simply think terrorists qualify by protections of the GC or your reference... Your reference basis for inclusion is apparently paragraph 4 where you highlighted portions as emphisis.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The terrorist must display reason to qualify that he/she: are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination
How would a person qualify oneself for protections under the GC if they are flying planes into towers or blowing up mass transit? America and Western Europe would first admit being racist towards Islam. There is no alien occupation of nations of origin of most terrorists in captivitiy. I see no protections for terrorists outside of those who can prove they are part of an insurgency and are a member of a nation with a dog in the fight. A Syrian or Iranian terrorist in Iraq simply doesn't qualify.... nor would a Saudi, British or American citizen captured and charged with terrorism in Afghanistan. What reference would these terrorist require for such protections against the superior power holding them?
I think the US Supreme Court has given terrorist the only rights they enjoy.

 

[Binary_Digit]

They were inhumane and evil, so therefore we can be inhumane and evil to them as well? I mean, they aren't signatories to the GC and they don't abide by the regulations so why shouldn't we stoop to their level without moral reprive? Surely we should cut their heads off with a Rambo knife like they did to Nick and Danny, right? Anything short of that is a hint of compassion for terrorists, God forbid.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Topsez
I simply think terrorists qualify by protections of the GC or your reference... Your reference basis for inclusion is apparently paragraph 4 where you highlighted portions as emphisis.

Actually, it was paragraph 2 that was the basis for protection. Paragraph 4 describes some of the conditions for such inclusions.

Article 1.-General principles and scope of application

2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.

As for your other statements...

Originally posted by Topsez
The terrorist must display reason to qualify that he/she: are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination
How would a person qualify oneself for protections under the GC if they are flying planes into towers or blowing up mass transit? America and Western Europe would first admit being racist towards Islam. There is no alien occupation of nations of origin of most terrorists in captivitiy. I see no protections for terrorists outside of those who can prove they are part of an insurgency and are a member of a nation with a dog in the fight. A Syrian or Iranian terrorist in Iraq simply doesn't qualify.... nor would a Saudi, British or American citizen captured and charged with terrorism in Afghanistan. What reference would these terrorist require for such protections against the superior power holding them?
I think the US Supreme Court has given terrorist the only rights they enjoy.

I don't know why you are talking about the GC when using the examples you stated. Your examples are more of a criminal nature and would be dealt with as a police action, not a military one. It was the FBI that was investigating the Twin Towers incident before the Rambo President decided to violate International Law.

I would also think that an Iranian or Syrian terrorist in Iraq would be classified as a "spy", and treated accordingly. But we don't know who, or what, they are until they are given due process. People are not guilty by accusation. That isn't what this country is about.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Bill O'Reilly reported the other night that Zubayda broke when he was stripped, placed in a chilly room, and forced to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. O'Reilly then played about 15 seconds of one of their videos, and shut it off saying "Okay, okay! I'll talk!"

Do you think that discomfort and annoyance constitute torture forbidden by the GC? I don't, but I'd be interested in your arguments if you disagree. (I didn't mind RHCP so much, but opera has the same effect on me as fingernails on a blackboard.)

I also see some validity in the argument that the GC shouldn't apply at all. A treaty is an agreement to be honored among signatories to that agreement and, given the examples of Danny Pearl and Nick Berg, I don't see why we should be legally bound to treat these animals "humanely."

How about 10 year olds? Is it OK to torture them?

Iraq's Child Prisoners By Neil Mackay

A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture

This wasn't a result of torture.
But it is a result of our presence in Iraq.
Is this what you support?

 

[Topsez]

Actually, it was paragraph 2 that was the basis for protection. Paragraph 4 describes some of the conditions for such inclusions.

As for your other statements...
I don't know why you are talking about the GC when using the examples you stated. Your examples are more of a criminal nature and would be dealt with as a police action, not a military one. It was the FBI that was investigating the Twin Towers incident before the Rambo President decided to violate International Law.

I would also think that an Iranian or Syrian terrorist in Iraq would be classified as a "spy", and treated accordingly. But we don't know who, or what, they are until they are given due process. People are not guilty by accusation. That isn't what this country is about.

OK ... I got it... you think all terrorists should be treated by criminal law or qualify, in the case of America, equal protection as criminal law. I happen to disagree and don't find Bush's actions as CIC in Afghanistan or Iraq as Rambo.... He is doing his job and doing it quite well... Liberals thinking like "all terrorists should be treated by criminal law or qualify, in the case of America, equal protection as criminal law" are usually in a category of defeat in evolution of man... Give you odds you have no brothers or sisters... liberals with the loss of the belief of a higher god normally don't procreate in quantities to sustain existence... thinking of this kind is equal to the greed of parents that want one child to sustain a nice lifestyle since it will assuredly cause you to cease to exist as a barterer in the future as you fail to reproduce illogical nonsense that ends organized freedom created by those who believe in a superior god.

I'm sure you think I make many assumptions in my statements above but will you deny them? Good men and women fight for your freedoms to hold your ridiculous opinions on the leader of our nation. These people love America and acknowledge ownership of America and America's right to exist... You see if you can't acknowledge the manifest destiny of America's forefathers is based on the fact they had evolved to the highest class of culture then you will always argue America belongs to the Indians. In other words the Europeans had a superior god, brain and culture than the resident American Indians who were defeated by them.

Do you also think no one in America has the right to their property since it was stolen from the Indians? To be American you must acknowledge we have the right of property and to acknowledge that you must acknowledge the founders who "took" the land also gave you your rights. It is the CIC's job, his main job to protect America... rights of freedom given to people ... even people thinking like you come from a government that deserves protecting... If you don't have clear title for America then you don't have the freedoms protected by the American government. Choose, and please don't choose the world court for who gives them authority and what virtue do they hold higher than America? Lines on maps are placed there by superior cultures and superior cultures determine how inferior cultures must be dealt with... Where am I going wrong?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Topsez
OK ... I got it... you think all terrorists should be treated by criminal law or qualify, in the case of America, equal protection as criminal law. I happen to disagree and don't find Bush's actions as CIC in Afghanistan or Iraq as Rambo.... He is doing his job and doing it quite well... Liberals thinking like "all terrorists should be treated by criminal law or qualify, in the case of America, equal protection as criminal law" are usually in a category of defeat in evolution of man... Give you odds you have no brothers or sisters... liberals with the loss of the belief of a higher god normally don't procreate in quantities to sustain existence... thinking of this kind is equal to the greed of parents that want one child to sustain a nice lifestyle since it will assuredly cause you to cease to exist as a barterer in the future as you fail to reproduce illogical nonsense that ends organized freedom created by those who believe in a superior god.

I'm sure you think I make many assumptions in my statements above but will you deny them? Good men and women fight for your freedoms to hold your ridiculous opinions on the leader of our nation. These people love America and acknowledge ownership of America and America's right to exist... You see if you can't acknowledge the manifest destiny of America's forefathers is based on the fact they had evolved to the highest class of culture then you will always argue America belongs to the Indians. In other words the Europeans had a superior god, brain and culture than the resident American Indians who were defeated by them.

Do you also think no one in America has the right to their property since it was stolen from the Indians? To be American you must acknowledge we have the right of property and to acknowledge that you must acknowledge the founders who "took" the land also gave you your rights. It is the CIC's job, his main job to protect America... rights of freedom given to people ... even people thinking like you come from a government that deserves protecting... If you don't have clear title for America then you don't have the freedoms protected by the American government. Choose, and please don't choose the world court for who gives them authority and what virtue do they hold higher than America? Lines on maps are placed there by superior cultures and superior cultures determine how inferior cultures must be dealt with... Where am I going wrong?

Excuse me while I pull up my pant legs before I read more of your bullshit! I don't want to get them dirty, ya know.

Your wrong in just about everything you said. First off, you don't know the first thing about GOD. If you did, you'd know GOD looks at everyone equally. If you did, you wouldn't be talking in terms of superior or inferior cultures. WTF makes you think your better than anyone else. Your no better than a terrorist! Because you have that same irrationalizing mindset that justify's your rape and torture of others.

What the hell makes you think America has virtue? We attacked a nation that did not attack us. We violated our own Constitution by attacking. Do you not believe in obeying the law? Are you advocating lawlessness?

I've said this before, and I will say it now, I don't care who you are or what you have done, everyone on this planet deserves due process of law. Anyone who doesn't believe in that is anti-American. Because that is what we are all about!

All men created equal (unless you are muslim)...

...is that what it says to you?

BTW, I have a younger sister who is a Pediatrician and a devout Catholic. I myself, went to parochial school for 8 years. I'm baptised and confirmed. So don't be talking religion to me, you...

As far as the good men and women fighting for my freedom, I disagree. I am free enough. I am just as free as I would be if we never attacked that country of goat-herders that barely has any running water or electricity.

Your a pretty sick individual to condone forcing a country to disarm, then attacking with the most technologically advanced military on the planet, if that's what your doing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh, it looks like you ran away while I was typing my response.

Figures you'd cut and run!

 

[Topsez]

Excuse me while I pull up my pant legs before I read more of your bullshit! I don't want to get them dirty, ya know.

Your wrong in just about everything you said. First off, you don't know the first thing about GOD. If you did, you'd know GOD looks at everyone equally. If you did, you wouldn't be talking in terms of superior or inferior cultures. WTF makes you think your better than anyone else. Your no better than a terrorist! Because you have that same irrationalizing mindset that justify's your rape and torture of others.

What the hell makes you think America has virtue? We attacked a nation that did not attack us. We violated our own Constitution by attacking. Do you not believe in obeying the law? Are you advocating lawlessness?

I've said this before, and I will say it now, I don't care who you are or what you have done, everyone on this planet deserves due process of law. Anyone who doesn't believe in that is anti-American. Because that is what we are all about!

All men created equal (unless you are muslim)...

...is that what it says to you?

BTW, I have a younger sister who is a Pediatrician and a devout Catholic. I myself, went to parochial school for 8 years. I'm baptised and confirmed. So don't be talking religion to me, you...

As far as the good men and women fighting for my freedom, I disagree. I am free enough. I am just as free as I would be if we never attacked that country of goat-herders that barely has any running water or electricity.

Your a pretty sick individual to condone forcing a country to disarm, then attacking with the most technologically advanced military on the planet, if that's what your doing.

So you don’t believe in Social Darwinism? Have you read writings by social anthropologist experts of culture like Lewis Henry Morgan. He believed cultures had evolved in stages and some cultures were superior to other cultures. He believed that brain capacity was attributed to higher stages of development of culture founded on a society held together by a superior God. That is why Western Europe had had no problem in the colonization or taking of slaves as is evident in our constitution. Likewise, we considered ourselves superior culture of the American Indians and took America rather than colonizing it according to British anthropologist Sir Edward Taylor who surmised that people evolve through stages of religion from the belief in spirits, the belief in many gods, to the belief in one god.

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, I’m sure you have heard of them used Morgan’s and Taylor’s assumptions and saw communism as the next evolutionary stage for society as apparently you do. Or you believe in the fact that America belongs to the Indians... which is it? You may make up a fairy tale as to how the glorious freedoms Americans enjoy came to be but they were a result of people who thought other people were lesser than they were.

I believe the GC was established for rules of higher culture nations that shared like desires of treatment of captives... you believe apparently, that any punk on the street with a big enough bomb can take over your government as your government's rules protects the punks rights. In history punks and losers like the American Indians hit the reservations and the superior government passed out freedoms to its citizens.

You either want communism, want to be an Indian or are just a twisted liberal not procreating and whining about how your freedoms are delivered to you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Topsez
So you don’t believe in Social Darwinism? Have you read writings by social anthropologist experts of culture like Lewis Henry Morgan. He believed cultures had evolved in stages and some cultures were superior to other cultures. He believed that brain capacity was attributed to higher stages of development of culture founded on a society held together by a superior God. That is why Western Europe had had no problem in the colonization or taking of slaves as is evident in our constitution. Likewise, we considered ourselves superior culture of the American Indians and took America rather than colonizing it according to British anthropologist Sir Edward Taylor who surmised that people evolve through stages of religion from the belief in spirits, the belief in many gods, to the belief in one god.

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, I’m sure you have heard of them used Morgan’s and Taylor’s assumptions and saw communism as the next evolutionary stage for society as apparently you do. Or you believe in the fact that America belongs to the Indians... which is it? You may make up a fairy tale as to how the glorious freedoms Americans enjoy came to be but they were a result of people who thought other people were lesser than they were.

I believe the GC was established for rules of higher culture nations that shared like desires of treatment of captives... you believe apparently, that any punk on the street with a big enough bomb can take over your government as your government's rules protects the punks rights. In history punks and losers like the American Indians hit the reservations and the superior government passed out freedoms to its citizens.

You either want communism, want to be an Indian or are just a twisted liberal not procreating and whining about how your freedoms are delivered to you.

You talk like a racist. Are you? Because you have the same lame rap as a racist. You've got it all figured out. Except me. You don't have a clue as to what I'm all about. You like to think you do. But you don't.

You say I'm for communism? What do you base that on?

You say I think a punk with a big bomb can take over my government?
What do you base that on?

Did you ever think of bringing logic and reason into your debates. Or do you always have to play make believe and create your argumentative scenarios.

As for the issue of what we did to native americans, that is one of the biggest black marks on this country. What we did to them was on the same level as the Holocaust.

 

[Stinger]

They were inhumane and evil, so therefore we can be inhumane and evil to them as well? I mean, they aren't signatories to the GC and they don't abide by the regulations so why shouldn't we stoop to their level without moral reprive? Surely we should cut their heads off with a Rambo knife like they did to Nick and Danny, right? Anything short of that is a hint of compassion for terrorists, God forbid.

Why do you frame it as we either treat them as guest or cut off thier heads as if there is no in between?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
Why do you frame it as we either treat them as guest or cut off thier heads as if there is no in between?

If they ever cut your head off, I don't think you'd notice!

 

[jfuh]

The Supreme court has long since already ruled on the matter. Yes, Article three of the Geneva conventions applies also to Terrorists.
Yet it seems Bush has a problem with words

“What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?”

You don't know what outrages upon human dignity means Mr. Bush? Interesting, perhaps you should consult that bible you keep next to your pillow.
Or as goes the evangelical line: "What would Jesus do?"

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I voted yes because the Geneva Convention protects everyone to a certain degree including terrorists. Prisoners of War and Protected Persons are given far more rights, priveleges, and protections by the Convention than those who are not qualified for those status' but said persons are still given the right to fair and regular trial and humane treatment in the Convention.

Do you think that discomfort and annoyance constitute torture forbidden by the GC? I don't, but I'd be interested in your arguments if you disagree.

That depends on whether or not such discomfort and annoyance causes physical or mental harm. In the case of music: if the decibal level is high enough to cause damage to the detainee's eardrums then it can be classified as torture. In the case of stripping someone and tossing them into an ice cold room: If the detainee is left in that room to the point of becoming ill then it can be classified as torture. Such practices are a very slippery slope.

 

[Binary_Digit]

They were inhumane and evil, so therefore we can be inhumane and evil to them as well? I mean, they aren't signatories to the GC and they don't abide by the regulations so why shouldn't we stoop to their level without moral reprive? Surely we should cut their heads off with a Rambo knife like they did to Nick and Danny, right? Anything short of that is a hint of compassion for terrorists, God forbid.

Why do you frame it as we either treat them as guest or cut off thier heads as if there is no in between?

Thank you Stinger, I was hoping someone would ask that.

I didn't say we should treat them as guests. We either treat them how we want to be treated, or we don't. There's no gray area in that. It's not about international law or who signed what treaty, it's about morals. Even if we put restrictions on how far we'll go, if it's ultimately not how we would want to be treated then we can't expect the same from them. Whether or not they would adhere to those expectations is irrelavent.

If we capture someone and treat them in accordance with the GC, then they capture one of our guys and treat him like dog ****, does that give us the right to toss the GC out the window? Does their detainee become fair game now? No, absolutely not. When one individual or group violates international law, it's not a blank check for other individuals or groups to also violate international law. What would be the point of having international law in the first place, if everyone is free to violate that law to reciprocate crimes against themselves? That would be anarchy.

Some parts of the GC need to be updated because they're too vague, but the spirit of intent should not be ignored while those changes are pending. Their purpose was to curb the tendancy of human beings to do horrible things to one another. Human rights atrocities are unacceptable, no matter who the victim is.