Should Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, and the taliban be treated as P.O.W.'s?

Question

Considering a recent question regarding Jane Fonda and treason, some replied with "Without a declared state of war, there can be no treason." While it's true congress did not declare a state of war in Viet Nam, and still has not for Iraq, we still find ourselves with many POW's. My question is this: If someone cannot be held responsible for treason because there is no state of war, can the laws of the Geneva convention be bypassed as well? Additionally, can ununiformed combatants with no national allegiance be protected by such laws?

Answer 1

these are rfanatical adical leftist muslims and they should be subjected to firing squad. they do not have mind of their own they acted on the teachings and advise of their religous advisors. A hunt should be made for their religous advisors and be put into damnation. You release one of them and believe me you wil be sorry for revenge is always on their blood.

Answer 2

This is a tricky one! Being that i work in a prison over here in Iraq I can give you what I know. P.O.W's are enemy combatants, uniformed and of an organization with a commander. Like when the war first started we were fighting Sadaams republican gaurd, they were an organization and uniformed combatants under Sadaams command. Insurgents are not uniformed combatants and they do not follow rules of engagement or geneva convention and they don't have a commander. Every Iraqi that is captured in Iraq is not labeled a prisoner of war but a "detainee" a detained person. They all go through a process where evidence is looked at, most go to trial and are found innocent or guilty. Some get sent to do a long hard time in prison. P.O.W is not a term that is used anymore because we don't know who the hell we're fighting over here. A lot of the time the guy that is shooting at us or planting bombs on the side of the road is a local farmer, store owner, vendor, kid - anybody.

Answer 3

The Geneva Convention only applies to combatants of the nations involved in the war (possibly only "uniformed" ones - I would have to check) rather than other foreign nationals ... we are back to the age old problem that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

I think it is fair to say that the insurgents cannot claim the moral high ground on treatment of prisoners either.

I'm not taking sides just commenting on question posed.

Answer 4

The Geneva Conventions apply "to all cases of declared war OR OF ANY OTHER ARMED CONFLICT (emphasis mine, obviously) which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

So yes, the Conventions would apply, and they should be treated as POWs.

Answer 5

Sort of, except they don't meet the Geneva convention definition as legal combatants. As the Geneva Convention is read, it refers to them as guerrilla fighters, meaning if we wanted to we could execute them on the spot.

The thing is we are treating the enemy better than they treat the people they capture.

Answer 6

They should only be allowed to claim POW status if the meet the rules to qualify as lawful combatants.

Only people who meet the legal standards required for 'combatant' status can become POWs.

Technically, we would be well within our legal rights to hold quick battlefield tribunals - then have them shot.

Answer 7

the geneva convention applies only to military personnel. it clearly states that you must be a uniformed member of the military. terrorists do not work for the military or the government. we dont have to treat them as pows. they are murderers and criminals.

Answer 8

they should be treated as war criminals and tried by a military tribunal and hung by the neck until dead just like the Nazi war criminals were.

Answer 9

Aren't they prisoners of your War On Terror. If so, they are P.O.W.s