If so, why?
2006-09-29 06:59:04 · 15 answers · asked by Curt 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No uniform and fighting under no flag, no. They are enemy combatants. In WWII they were executed.
2006-09-29 07:05:24 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Boof 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why?? Many believe they do qualify due to "concerns" that "others" will perceive them as "uncaring inhumane types". Their concern with THEIR SELF image and the image/perception's of "others " ALLOWS them to justify THEIR denial of man's dual nature.
Barbaric cruelty exist in ALL humans. It 's use is most likely when the individual believes their life or the lives of their loved ones is threatened and or when the individual is convinced /duped into believing that the human before them deserves death due to their act or set of beliefs.
FOR THEM the following is not ever considered.
The Geneva Convention specifies who is protected...
--Is the word "terrorist" contained in the Geneva Convention document?? NO
--Un-uniformed participants ARE named and given treatment guidelines.
--not all countries in existance today have "signed on".
-- conflict with a nation can occur from "groups / organizations / religious / racial zealots/fanatics ..etc
Since protection under the Geneva Convention is subject to whether the parties in conflict CHOSE to abide by the protection specifications, WHAT VALUE is there in a Document of Promises ?
2006-09-29 07:35:04 · answer #2 · answered by ymicgee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they don't. The 5 supremes ruled incorrectly when they said the Gitmo prisoners had ANY Geneva Convention protections.
Now, we can choose to give them protections, but that's not the same as them actually having protections in the first place, which they don't.
2006-09-29 07:18:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Geneva convention covers treatment of both prisoners of war (soldiers involved in combat) and treatment of civilian captives. Terrorists would be in the latter group.
Look, I hate terrorists as much as the next guy. But I also realize that if we start treating captured terrorists as badly as the terrorists treat the people they kill, kidnap, etc. -- then we are as bad as they are. We are supposed to be a beacon of democracy and human rights in the world, not a bully who breaks treaties we've signed when it suits us, and treats prisoners as less than human.
2006-09-29 07:03:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They do. Play it in reverse...they get one of our guys, they call him a terrorist, they don't think he deserves the consideration of the protection of the Geneva Convention...they murder him. That's how they see us.
2006-09-29 07:11:34 · answer #5 · answered by smecky809042003 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it really is what seperates the sheep from the wolves. we are a rustic that changed into outfitted upon only criteria. no count number how cruel our enemy is or how evil they are of their reason, we upward push above this because the rustic lower than God and instruct them the blunders of their techniques. that would not advise we received't pop the lil' bastards at the same time as they start up stuff with us, yet we income this with tact. no longer each rattling man or woman in Iraq is a foul guy, you recognize.
2016-11-25 02:39:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No but those bleeding hearts that think, well I supose that they think but am not sure, that they are soldiers because they are fighting are wrong. The GC says that people who are in UNIFORM get the rights and those who are not in UNIFORM are to be treated as SPYS and can be shot on the spot! The U.S. has not done that but rather treated most of them very well.
2006-09-29 07:02:00 · answer #7 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
any prisoners of war do. That goes for US soldiers as well. I sincerely hope, for the safety of our sodiers, that the supreme court ruling (the correct one) is upheld. Otherwise, who knows what will happen to our soldiers. They are important enough to protect.
2006-09-29 07:22:17 · answer #8 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are not criminals and should not be treated as such. They are not military of a state and should not be treated as such, however as it was neatly explained to me, we are a signatory of the treaty and in its spirit we should treat them accordingly. I do not agree with that as probably you do not either, but I think it is right.
2006-09-29 13:38:00 · answer #9 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Geneva Convantion covers all people whether they abide by it's rules or not. That is the sacrifice made by those who follow it.
2006-09-29 07:01:08 · answer #10 · answered by camus0281 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋