Do terrorists deserve to be protected under the Geneva Convention?

Question

Wow, I'm sorry to say, but as much as I love this country, it will probably take an attack that would dwarf 9-11 to make the left realize that there are millions of jihadists out there who will stop at nothing, including taking their own lives, to murder us ALL ! I will never forget watching innocent men and women diving out of 100 story windows on 9-11, to keep from being incinerated. I asked a question a few minutes ago entitled "Geneva Convention Please!"
And I am under attack by left wingers. Israel's guilty, the US is guilty, the entire western world is guilty. How dare we live as free people, not bound to religious laws and edict. How dare we retaliate against tyrants and terrorists who are bent on our destruction ? Israel has done nothing more than defend it's citizens against animals who blow themselves up in market places. We have removed from power , a tyrant who has killed 1/2 a million Kurds, who are extremely grateful for our presence in Iraq. Jihadists waged this war !!!

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

First of all - why do you call Dr Haneef 'a terrorist'? Did I miss something? Has he been tried and convicted already, when I wasn't looking? In Australia, people are innocent until it has been proved they are guilty in court of law. So think a little before you go around calling people names like 'terrorist' or 'Dr Death', you are only proving your ignorance. The other thing is that in case you don't know - Australia is a civilised country and ALL people have rights under our law and ALL people should be treated according to those rights. Rights like being able to defend yourself and being entitled to a fair trial and (at the risk of repeating myself - but it is a pretty big one) The right to be regarded innocent until proved guilty!! That is why people are defending Dr Haneef. EDIT: Just so you all know - Dr Mohammad Haneef is an Indian born medico that has been working in Australia and is a second cousin of a person who has been arrested in connection with the failed car bombings in Glasgow (I doubt if the asker would actually know all this!) Anyway, the whole thing has been botched by our Federal Police and by our government and it looks like............well .........it is here if anyone is interested:

Answer 3

You are correct. People confuse legitimate combatants (known by uniform and national affiliation) with terrorists (individuals or groups acting without national backing). Legitimate combatants deserve the respect the Geneva Convention was designed for. Terrorists deserve death.

Troops out of uniform used to be shot as spies. Times have changed, but the reasoning is still legit.

Answer 4

The left isn't going to realize anything no matter what, they just want to see the current system dismantled any which way. If lefties ever took over they would deal with the terrorist in the same way all leftist regimes deal with any dissidents. They wouldn't mind using Islamist as a tool for their ultimate agenda, their jsut figure that they can dispose of them afterward.
What a big terrorist attack would do is turn regular people against anything leaning slightly left for a long time to come.

Answer 5

Everybody deserves protection under the Geneva Convention.
Yesterday's terrorists are today's governments.
Read the historys of Israel and the American War of Independence.

Answer 6

Do you know what separates "us" from "them"? Compassion!!!! I remember watching the horrors of 9/11 with a knot in my stomach, not knowing what to think or feel. I worked graveyard at the time and heard about the attack at 6am. I went home and watched all day long without sleep, horrified at the events. But I asked myself if the same event happened in Baghdad, would I enjoy it? Would I find happiness in it? The compassion that I have, that my parents taught me, would not allow me to do so. But "they" seemed to enjoy it! "They" had parades and celebrations about it. It was a momentous occasion in "their" society. So you see, "we" have compassion for life where "they" do not.

Now to your question. Another thing I believe is that two wrongs don't make a right. By allowing our military to torture captured terrorists, we are committing the second wrong. And there is no right in this. Everyone should be protected by the Geneva Convention not because "they" deserve it which they don't, but because "we" deserve it. The respect that we should have is not for "them", but for "us". And once again this is what separates "us" from "them", and it is what makes "us" better.

Answer 7

NO. A terrorist is considered an enemy combatant or illegal combatant. The only people in a war subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention are members of a recognized nations military forces.

Answer 8

No, they don't. One of the biggest mistakes our side has made in this war is the enemy combatants term. If they are not in the uniform of a recognized government and taken while fighting they are supposed to be shot on the spot. The only reason not to is if they have intelligence. Then the rule is extract that and shoot them. Makes sense doesn't it?

Answer 9

No I do not believe that they should be protected.
They fight in a sick, evil way in targeting innocent people that have dont nothing to them individually and I do not think that they should be given the same rights as, such as, a person who has robbed somebody or has lied under oath. They put peoples lives in danger and will stop at nothing to destroy mankind as we know it. I am talking abot Arab terrorists, of course.
They will stop at nothing to see the destruction of Israel and the US.

Answer 10

Not just no, but a hellllllllll nooo!!!
Remember any images you may have seen on television of them dancing in the streets as the towers fell, or what they do to soldiers bodies, tear them apart, drag them through town as they sing and dance and spit on the bodies. They deserve no better than a dogs death. Why should we care, they have no honor, fight for no country and care nothing for human life.

Answer 11

No, for the same reasons that they can be tried in military tribunals. From the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Quirin (1942);

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."