If Al-Qaeda is not really considered part of any countries government, what are the rules of engagement and if

Question

we capture an Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW) are they protected by the Geneva Conventions since they would not really be considered an EPW because they are not the government of any country! And don't say that is why we went into Afghanistan! We thought that Afghanistan was harboring them, Al-Qaeda is not part of the Taliban's government. And if they are not protected by Geneva Conventions....well?

Answer 1

Excellent question because this was the exact argument Bush used to get around the Geneva Convention in the treatment of G.Bay prisioners.

This question was examined by the US Supreme Court in July... finding that the prisoners ARE protected under the Geneva Convention. In summary, they basically said you can't pick and choose when or when not to follow the Geneva Convention. That it is meant to be the standard for ALL types of prisoners when at war.

With that said, they went on to order Bush to go back to congress and work out the procedure for each prisoners trials, that under the G.Convention, they have a right to.

Just today, I saw on The Newshour, how Bush was finally making those ordered arrangements for the trials... if he doesn't, he is walking a fine line of being charged with war crimes.

Answer 2

You misunderstand the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

They limit the actions of the member nations, in specific situations, regardless of who they are fighting. The Conventions have two categories, combatants and non-combatants. Anyone wielding a weapon is a combatant. Anyone who has not, or has surrendered is a non-combatant.

The requirements of the Conventions, and our own Constitution by the way, are limitations on government action, regardless of who the government is acting against.

Rules of engagement are entirely different, and deal with the actions of military units on the field. The Conventions, and our own Constitutional requirements in the 6th Amendment, only apply after the people in question are out of combat, captured or killed.

Answer 3

The US signed the Geneva Convention. We are supposed to be bound to it. And it was supposed to cover anyone we might war with.

But more importantly, it's about COMMON MORALE DECENCY. Any attempt to deviate from the Geneva Convention lines - which covers prisoners, people in your custody - betrays how morally bankrupt someone truelly is.

American's are supposed to believe in a higher standard. I am ashamed of those people who would not want to follow the Geneva Conventions.

Answer 4

well what? If a thug approaches you on the street and wants to pound your face like hamburger, do you think twice and wonder whether it's legal to defend yourself? Do you hem and haw and allow the embicile to beat you into submission? Or ....do you fight back and defend yourself? Do you do whatever it takes to protect yourself and your family and friends from this bad guy, not pausing to consider the ethics issues or the moral implications or whether or not this reprisal of yours would engender bad feelings among the populace?? or, as I would do, would you use every tactic imaginable to deal with the invading force and retaliate? Whether it be William Wallace sacking York or the United States Marines invading Afghanistan, makes no difference the color of the flag or the politics or the boundaries or the cultures. "It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom."

Answer 5

This was done so that we can NEVER achieve a victory in the war on terror and can continue to wage it wherever we want in the world (well, the parts with oil anyways) for the next billion years.

Answer 6

that is why our Government labeled them as Enemy Combatents