2007-01-03 06:16:32 · 17 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are not part of any country's military so they should be considered as the criminals that they are.
2007-01-03 06:21:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. In order to receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions, you have to be in uniform and fight for a recognized state military, and fulfill other requirements. In other words, the "rules of war" are trying to give people incentives to "fight fair."
POWs are NOT allowed to be questioned at all. I doubt anyone seriously wants this standard applied to terrorists.
Then again, POWs are not to be tried either - just held indefinitely until hostilities end. Are people who want to apply the Geneva Conventions advocating this too? Obviously not.
There seems to be some crazy-quilt effort going on to fight wars against terrorists in the courtroom rather than in the real world. For what purpose, I do not know. Misguided idealism, or a desire to see the defeat of Western civilization, I am guessing.
Ironic, too, how many who say they "support the war on terrorism but not the war in Iraq" are among the first to question these types of programs as well.
Lincoln and FDR used many methods to fight the war. Almost all of them should still be allowed today. I do not believe these men were war criminals.
2007-01-03 14:26:08 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a tough one. We can't interrogate POWs, we just keep them in a camp until the war is over. If we treat them like criminals, we have to grant them ALL Constitutional rights, including laying out cases. Doing that might well expose gov't strategies and tactics.
2007-01-03 14:33:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
N O, because terrorists are not associated with a particular country, so, therefore, they should not be afforded POW status under the Geneva Convention!!
2007-01-03 14:21:32 · answer #4 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If they don't wear a uniform,then they should not benefit from the Geneva Convention. So no, they should be treated as terrorist captives..
2007-01-03 14:21:51 · answer #5 · answered by bereal1 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Classically, the government has not correctly viewed terrorism as an act of war, so using that logic, no, they are not technically POWs.
If done correctly, acts of terrorism would no longer be viewed as criminal acts, but acts of war. Then, any terrorist captured and not killed would be correctly termed a POW.
2007-01-03 14:20:50 · answer #6 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We should be what the terrorists are! Or we can treat people like human beings. Maybe?
2007-01-03 14:20:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. When we treat them nicely, they are encouraged to dress like civilians--like cowards--and it is dangerous to innocent bystanders.
It would be more humane to the civilians if when we can shoot a militant out of uniform in a civilian area that we shoot him on the spot.
2007-01-03 14:22:15 · answer #8 · answered by Curt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course, starting with Mr. Bush
2007-01-03 14:45:19 · answer #9 · answered by Sudamérica Puede 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Terrorists should be tried in a court of law and not held indefinitely in jail.
2007-01-03 14:20:10 · answer #10 · answered by Raven 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋