If you are fighting a country not abiding by the geneva convention do you have to abide by it?

Question

I understand the purpose of the Geneva convention.

Powel for example explains it very well. However, Al Quada most clearly does not abide by it. So why should we expect the US to?

I do have some concerns about jailing innocents but if one has proof that one they are combattants, why does the US have to respect them at all?

what about revolutionaries that actually follow the said conventions?

I mean, do we want to only endorse the status quo? Some countries do have unjust governments.

Answer 1

you should not need to... this is an incentive for nations to follow the geneva convention.

if you have people who aren't aligned with any nation, then again, more incentive to only act on behalf of nations who follow the geneva convention.

Answer 2

The Geneva Convention does not apply to Al Qeda members who are not citizens of either Afghanistan or Iraq. Any combatant who is a citizen of a neutral country is not protected. If a protected person doesn't abide by the Geneva Convention, he doesn't lose the protection of it. He stands trial for war crimes.

Uniforms are irrelevant with regards to protection. Any inhabitant of an area that takes up arms in the face of an invading force or under occupation, is a protected person that must be afforded the full scope of the Geneva Convention protections. That includes all Iraqi and Afghan insurgents. They have a right to kill Americans occupying their countries, just as an American would if another country occupied us. France, in WWII, was under the same set of circumstances as Iraq and Afghanistan are; there was a French government set up by the German occupiers. The French Resistance qualified as protected persons (though they weren't treated as such).

If we have proof that a prisoner is guilty of a crime, we have to try him in a court where he can see the 'proof' and refute it, have a lawyer and translator, and speak on his own behalf. We don't even afford them that much, let alone all the other infractions we commit. That's why one of the first things Bush did when he got into office was exempt the military from the International Criminal Court.

Answer 3

It boils down to this. Do we ignore our conscience and except the fact that we're hypocrites turning our backs on what made our country special throughout the world?

Or do we continue civilization as best we can as we knew it before 911, upholding our humane values and expecting the same in return?

That is one reason why terror suspects are not brought to any of our territories, so the Geneva Convention can legally be ignored. Do two wrongs make a right? Maybe its just too soon for anyone to make a determination on the correct answer to your question and not be burned at the stake. In the meantime, I still think we are more humane than the terrorists by miles.

Another point is that the terrorists do not ally themselves with any particular country and they did not align themselves with the Geneva Convention.

Answer 4

truthfully the Geneva convention regulations of conflict purely word if the two aspects are treaty individuals. If one side isn't and the different side is, neither side has to abide by using those regulations. So if the united states of a fights a rustic that would not comprehend the Geneva convention, the united states of a would not could abide the two. even with the undeniable fact that we the united states of a are the good adult males and could abide by using those regulations regardless and would additionally prosecute our very own who violate them.

Answer 5

Not all countries signed on to the Geneva convention, but by implied consenes, all countries were to abide by it. It's all relative anyway. There were battles fought all over and I've never heard of any in any theater where the convention was totally obeyd.There are 'Mistakes' made. The convention was to stop systematic collateral damage on civilians and POW's

Answer 6

Whoever and whatever does not abide by the Geneva Convention are no excuse for the U.S. not to follow it. To me, that's like saying, 'I see this guy shoplifting, so I will, too.' I would hope all Americans have some concerns about jailing innocents, not to mention failing to charge them while they are warehoused in Guantanamo and who knows where else.
I think you wanted to start a good discussion. Wish I were more articulate.

Answer 7

al queda and non uniformed combatants are not afforded the privilege of the Geneva conventions. They only apply to uniformed combatants of a sovereign nation.

Answer 8

The good guys are the ones who follow the rules the bad guys don't

If you can prove them as a combatant then that is a military assignation, not civil not criminal, simply un-uniformed

Answer 9

If your country is a signator of the Geneva Convention, then you must comply to the rules and regulations therein.

Answer 10

Because that makes us as bad as them and you cant be found guilty of something until you have been charged and many of them haven't and also we are supposed to be civilized will we start beheading people soon because thats what they do.