Should terrorists recieve the benefits of the Geneva convention?

Question

I phrased that really bad, but basically should captured militia/terrorists in Iraq be protected by the rules of war? or can we interrogate the crap out of them?

By the way, if you don't know...
The convention applies to soldiers who openly carry their weapons and are uniformed.

.....And it was in existence BEFORE world war 2.

And we know that captured American Soldiers aren't being given the benefits of the Geneva convention, MC. That is the bloody point. If they are not giving it to us then why should we give it to them.

Bring it on I can defend this question in every possible way....

Answer 1

Yes- but "creatively"- because not observing it has become yet another anti-american propaganda weapon, especially since the power to disgard it has been given to individuals with the lowest capacity to handle it- such as the National Guard MP's at Abu Gharib.

A BIG part of winning the war on terrorrism is winning the Propaganda and political war and that is the one area you can say for sure is being lost- and where no matter how much of a Bush supporter you may be- you have to admit that the Republicans need to do a much better job at fighting back in the Propaganda wars with the Democrats and Europeans.

Answer 2

Did we not learn anything from WW2 and why we ourselves set up the Geneva convention. OFCOARSE we need to follow our own laws. This should not even be in question. We should expecially follow the Geneva convention even more than following regular laws.
The Geneva convention was made because of people like Adalf Hitler and so if America does not follow these laws? You would prove you are no better. Humane beings

Answer 3

Try reading a dictionary. Since you clearly don't own or never opened one, download this free dictionary and install it:

http://www.wordweb.info/contact.html

A terrorist is someone who attacks non-military targets to cause fear. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Terrorism is a criminal act and is prosecuted in civilian courts, which means civilians legal protections such as due process.

A resistance is an organized opposition to an illegitimate occupying force such as the White Rose against the Nazis and the Iraqis against the US. It is a legal opposition to an invader.

As well, according to the Geneva convention, ALL captured opponents in war are to be treated as "prisoners of war" until a hearing has been held to determine their legal status. NO SUCH HEARING has ever been held for the kidnappees in Iraq or at Guantanamo Bay. Yes, they ARE kidnapped.

If you "think" they are not entitled to due process, then do not complain when US soldiers and mercenaries captured are not given "due process" by the resistance.

Remember the "indian wars" in the US? The native North Americans did NOT escalate their violence first; they did it in response to the Union Army's escalation of violence. In the same way, the resistance escalated theirs AFTER the US used rape and torture at Abu Ghraib, violence and terrorism of the civilian population, and used WMDs in places like Fallujja. The US army is making it worse.


.

Answer 4

The problem with the rules of war is that if people stop respecting them, they stop being rules. If the US government is going to dream up reasons to exempt suspected enemy combatants from the conditions of the Geneva Convention, then every other state will do likewise: including those that detain US citizens. The US needs to keep trhe moral highground by fostering confidence in the Geneva Convention and respect for international law. Failing to do so can only be counterproductive.

Answer 5

the word terrorist says it all. anyone who is accused of afflicting terror on the masses should be accused of and interrogated as such, a terrorist. Have we re-written the laws to cover this type of situation yet? Or is this something that the government is sitting on its laurels about? I don't know the answer to that and am curious. I suppose the "rules of war" aren't as simple as "Roberts Rules"....Terrorism is wrong and we need to protect ourselves and our young people that are protecting us.

And I agree that human rights need to be universal...but lets face it, we need a plan in place to protect and to support thr young people out there who face official terrorists every day. These are every day individuals that may never be identified by a leader of a country

Answer 6

The Geneva Convention needs to apply to everyone. Human rights need to be universal. Otherwise what stops any president of any country to just put a label of terrorist on somebody they don't like or go along with their beliefs and they are kept away for years with no lawyer or contact or anything.

Look at Jose Padilla. They are barely taking care of that case now. After 3 1/2 years of having no contact with family or lawyer. If he is such a dangerous criminal, prove it and send him away. Don't be all secret about it. That makes way for Gestapo like activity.

Answer 7

We go and on and on about this being a war...so these guys are the other side are POW's. Plain and simple folks. The Geneva Convention applies.

The Nazis tried this baloney too...as they insisted that French, Polish, Yugoslav, Italian, and Russian partisans were criminals who weren't entitled to treatment under the Geneva Convention.

Are we like them....

Answer 8

If they fought in uniform and not mixing in with innocent citizens ,yes. Most of them are are not in uniform and fire missiles from residential areas.They have no rights as far as I am concerned.

Answer 9

No...NO.....and, NO.

Before one is entitled to human rights, one must first act like a human - and not a like a demented, blood lusted animal.

Answer 10

NO!!!
WHY SHOULD THEY SINCE THEY AREN'T GOING BY THE RULES!
BY THE WAY WHY SHOULD A TERRORIST HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN THEY ARE ACTING INHUMANE!!!