I understand that terrorists do not apply to the GENEVA CONVENTION. Can someone explain why?

Question

Im doing a debate on why torture SHOULD be allowed under certain circumstances, and I need a little more information on the Geneva Convention, Terrorists, and why they dont apply. I dont understand the Geneva convention fully, so all help is needed.

Thanks

Answer 1

To answer your question;

Because when it was written it only applied to combatants who wore a uniform and fought for a country or flag (note: spy's are not covered). It is the very reason why terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention, they do not wear uniforms and fight for a flag or country.

It was written to prevent unnecessary killing of innocent civilians because of confusion in the battlefield, when one force dresses like the local population to gain tactical advantage.

Answer 2

The Geneva convention is an agreement between the nations that signed it. It does not apply to fighters who are not in uniform or who fight for a country who did not sign. Fighters who are not in uniform, under the Geneva convention, are considered spies and can be put to death.

Torture is inhumane and not allowed irregardless of the Geneva convention. We do not practice torture and there is no evidence indicating otherwise.

The only reasonable argument for torture would be if you have someone who you believe has knowledge of an imminent attack that will cost American serviceman's or any civilian lives and you need that information immediately. I don't buy into the argument, but it has merit.

Answer 3

It almost seems funny to see movies depicting war during our Revolutionary period. Men would stand in a line and wait their turn to fire a shot.

Opposing generals would have elegant lunches with one another and discuss the fine points of how the battle should be waged in a civilized manner, and at what time they should begin.

War has always had a military code of behavior. For example, if you surrender, you are supposed to be guaranteed medical attention to treat your wounds, food, and treatment that befits a person of your rank in the army. If you surrender, the enemy is bound by internationally recognized military codes of ethics. They cannot say, "Oh, it's too much bother to imprison you. We'll just shoot you now and get it over with".

When you hear about insurgents killing women and children, this is a severe breach in the rules of military engagement. Soldiers are only supposed to fight one another. Civilians are off limits. Wars are fought to make it impossible for the enemy to continue fighting. The general population of a country is not part of the fighting force. As long as they do not fight, they cannot be charged with war crimes.

Terrorists are not fighting on behalf of a single, legitimate government. They are not taking their orders from such a government. If they were, the soldiers would simply be doing their duty, and if we could negotiate a truce or settlement with that government, the soldiers would be bound to obey the directives of their government.

However, terrorists don't operate this way. They don't wear uniforms, so they can't be recognized as combatents. These two important distinctions disqualify them from Geneva protections.

Since the terrorists aren't observing the rules of warfare, since they indiscriminately kill non-combatents and use them as shields, they do not qualify for the Geneva Convention protections which were designed so that soldiers could get fair, decent, and humane treatment. A captured soldier cannot be shot or mistreated. He was obeying the orders of his government, and he has to be treated according to the civilized rules of warfare.

In stark contrast, our soldiers are fighting as if they had one hand tied behind their backs. Terrorists can kill at will. Soldiers are often instructed not to fire at all. They are like sitting ducks. Soldiers can't bomb an apartment building in the hopes of killing a few people they want to target on the third floor. Our soldiers are fighting honorably, taking great personal risk to avoid injuring civilians. The insurgents and the terrorists feel no compulsion to protect the non-combatents. Women, children, the elderly, the wounded... they're all fair targets for the insurgents. Hence, they do not deserve the rights a regular soldier would receive, who was fighting on behalf of his country.

See the difference?

It may sound funny to you, but if there was no exercise of self-restraint in war, it would be complete chaos and barbarism. If everyone participated in the fighting, how could one side offer a truce, or surrender? How could one army lay down its arms if there was no assurance they would not be slaughtered once they gave up their weapons?

Do you know why we can't negotiate with terrorists? Because they do not owe their allegiance to any single government. If we wanted to make a deal with the terrorists, who could enforce the terms of the deal? Who would be authorized to speak on behalf of the terrorists? It just doesn't work this way in the real world.

Answer 4

The Geneva conventions in elementary terms be conscious to the signatories. yet, the U. S. is a signatory, so it is obliged to obey them, although if the enemy isn't. Legally, criminals at the instant are not subject to the Geneva convention's safety of infantrymen or of civilians, yet an "atypical" (being an un-uniformed soldier who isn't concealing his id) is. Civilian non-fighters, medics, newshounds and policemen are secure (for what that's worth whilst bombs are being dropped). yet there's a factor of reciprocity. Germany and the U. S. (with some awful exceptions) complied with the Geneva convention concerning POWs. Germany and the U.S. (additionally a signer) did no longer, and as much as ninety% of Russian and 60% of German POWs did no longer stay on the conflict. Japan became no longer a signer, and we taken care of one yet another harshly - possibly this became a reason of the bonzai quotes and the atomic bombing.

Answer 5

1. Terrorists do not represent the policy of a sovereign state. Since only sovereign states signed the Geneva convention, only their citizens can are covered by it. Although, say, Zawahiri is an Egyptian citizen, he is not acting on behalf of the Egyptian government.

2. Terrorists do not wear uniforms. They aren't "real" soldiers.

You should look into the Articles of the Geneva Convention and see how "soldier" is defined.

Answer 6

Yes, the Geneva ConventionS does not cover terrorists (illegal combatants, enemy combatants, belligerent combatants, enemy aliens, etc). Through the last 2000 years of law, fighters that fight with no loyalty to any nation have had no rights. (The Romans called those fighters the latin term "Homo Sacer")

The geneva conventionS only covers prisoners of war.

The best answer for this question has more information but it lacks detail about ancient law.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071031134953AAwVFCT

Answer 7

the way it was explained to me in the military was that most of the terriorists come from countries not protected by the Geneva Convention. They did not sign the treaty to protect them. Look up the rules of engagement. That should help you.

Answer 8

They don't extend the rights of that agreement to us, so we do not extend it to them. Besides, the Geneva convention is about military captives, something terrorists are not. They fight in civilian clothing which classifies them out of the requirements of that agreement, and technically they could be executed and we'd still be within our right.

Answer 9

Read it yourself:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Answer 10

Because Bush wanted that way.