Quote:
Originally Posted by lch
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
For example, the Geneva conventions apply, when both sides of a conflict are signatories, or so long as the non signatory respects the conventions of the geneva accord. Now, Al-Qaeda has not respected said conventions. But in fact it is probably not realistic to expect any terrorist movement to respect such conventions. So what then *are* the standards? Everyone agrees there should be standards, but I don't know what they are - and more to the point - I don't know anyone who does.
|
Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this. |
Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group.
Part of the hallmark of a guerilla or terrorist group is the need to slip into the civilian population. Hence, why I said it was unlikely that Al-Qaeda or similar would be, or could be expected to, follow the convention.
This is just one of multiple complex reasons.
Hence it is incorrect to say that the United States violated the Geneva convention.
Go read Title III of the Geneva conventions to see what I mean.
I for one would argue that there should be standards. However, there are none as I know them now, and hard to imagine the process by which they would be developped. Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, Myanmar in general, Israel in Palestine, Spain with the Basques - each of these countries would have different national goals and perspectives - and developing an accord would be difficult.