must be considered a saboteur and could be shot on the spot? If so, how come Al-qaeda are allowed to wear anything including pajamas so that they can blend with the general population but are protected under the Geneva Convention as in Guantanamo. Seems like everyone else is in uniform except the Muslim jihadist radicals.
2007-09-09 17:02:18 · 16 answers · asked by Don S 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
UN is trying to change this - but it has not been done yet...
2007-09-13 11:31:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any combat soldier wearing civies behind enemy
lines can be shot.
Al qaeda is not a uniform service,and are teariest.
they are not protec'd by the Geneva convention.
they are protect by law because they are prisoners
uder the terms of Geneva conviction.
food,clothes,and medical attention,and to worship
there on religion.
2007-09-10 00:22:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Al-Qaeda shouldn't be protected under the Geneva Convention whether they wear an uniform or not. The Geneva Convention Rules are for soldiers not for d amn terrorists. If anybody goes into somebody else country and kills hundreds of people for no reason (9/11) then they shouldn't be protected under any circumstances. They are not people, a normal person wouldn't do that. They don't have any rights. They forfeited all their rights when they joined the Al-Qaeda.
Don't you people realize that they are trying to destroy the freedom of the very country under whose law they claim to have "rights" when they are caught?
They trying to destroy our freedoms, so if they succeed, we all could be treated like them at Guantanamo. So, all you liberals out there, SHUT UP!!!
This is our country and we are going to protect it at all costs!
2007-09-10 00:09:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Under normal circumstances, of which these are not, I'd say yes. This war isn't like any of the prior conflicts we've been involved in though.
With the exception of the Viet-Cong, every enemy we (the US) have fought, have been uniformed soldiers fighting for a specific nation, government. al-Qeada, the Taliban and other terrorist organizations do not belong to, or fight for any specific nation located on the map.
Everyone and their mothers are still arguing over whether or not the Geneva Convention even covers them, or if it SHOULD even pertain to them because they don't wear any recognizable uniform, etc.
They'll be arguing over this BS for years to come...
2007-09-10 00:15:43 · answer #4 · answered by kill-joy 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A combatant caught not in uniform is considered a spy and can be shot. Think about it, how many prisoners do you hear about us taking in Iraq?
2007-09-13 23:33:38 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are most correct. This is something that the left wing does not want to talk about. The modern UN is trying to change this - but it hasn't been done yet. During WW2 ( the last time America fought like it really wanted to win a war ) those out of uniform were subject to being shot on the spot or very quickly after.
2007-09-10 00:10:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
The Law of Land Warfare (Geneva Conventions) define who is a legal combatant. It's one with a definable chain of command, wears a distinctive uniform, and brandishes his weapon openly. If one does not meet this definition, then one is an illegal combatant.
2007-09-10 00:59:29 · answer #7 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
You are exactly right. We have the authority, according to the Geneva Convention, to stand up the prisoners at Gitmo and shoot them dead, as we should. Then we can close the god- forsaken place, and take away the political fodder the democrats keep spewing when they run out of things to criticize.
2007-09-10 00:09:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
That's the whole problem with applying the Geneva convention to guerrilla troops who do not themselves follow the geneva convention.
2007-09-10 00:07:55 · answer #9 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No it's not that we're not allowed to kill them until they shoot us, it's just that it's against the Geneva Convention to massacre a whole crowd of people because some of them might be jihadists.
2007-09-10 00:11:35 · answer #10 · answered by TheUber1337 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
No it doesn't. It says that combatants in uniform captured in enemy territory must be treated differently that persons not in uniform, as prisoners of war and not as spies. Nothing allows immediate execution without a trial. Guantanamo's prisoners either fall under the Geneva Convention or they fall under our laws. Bush wants them to fall under neither and treat them he wants - no lawyers, no rights.
And there is always the question of whether people captured in their own country and foreigners captured by foreigners in a third country are in the wrong place and out of uniform.
2007-09-10 00:11:20 · answer #11 · answered by Mike1942f 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋