Alberto R. Gonzales and the Geneva Conventions
Remember this when all the Anti-Americans start throwing around their tripe about Alberto Gonzales and memo that clarified the status of terrorists with respect to the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions is a term that is loosely thrown around to cover the Law of Armed Conflict, the "rules" that nations use to provide some level of sanity to the violence that they are willing to inflict on each other. Specific aspects of the Law of Armed Conflict include: Not targeting civilians/medical personnel/facilities or population centers, the proportional use of force, and defining combatant and non-combatant status as well as the treatment of prisoners.
The Law of Armed Conflict is reciprocal. You can only claim the protections if you abide by the principles. They specifically define circumstances where one force my exact retribution for violations by the opposing force.
Point A: The terrorists do not represent a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, therefore they cannot claim the right to legal protection. They also do not abide by the principles.
Point B: Geneva Conventions require that members of a combatant force openly wear distinguishable unforms and insignia when in the combat area that identifies them as a combattant of that nation. The terrorist do not do this. They cannot claim legal combatant status. Under the Geneva Conventions, they would be war criminals.
Point C: Under the Genva Conventions, surrendering combatants must be taken prisoner and must be treated humanely. Note: this does not say, helpless combattants, if a combattant does not take action to surrender, he is still a target. Rape, torture and murder by beheading are not humane treatment. Under the Geneva Conventions, they would be war criminals.
Point D: Civilians may not be intentionally targeted and force used to destroy a legitimate target must be proportional to the military necessity. Civilian casualties do not automatically equate to a war crime if the legitimate objective was a military target. The Murder of Margaret Hassan and the WTC attacks are attacks against civilianss without an associated military objective. Under the GC this is a War Crime.
During the Viet Nam conflict, the North Vietnamese beat the hell out of American prisoners, claiming that since there wasn't a declaration of war, and John Kerry said so, all American GIs were engaged in war crimes. Well, since the terrorist are engaged in war crimes, don't wear uniforms to identify them, and aren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions, I say "If they won't talk, beat the hell out of them!"
If you want the protection of the rules, you have to play by the rules. When they start wearing uniforms and stop targeting civilains, we'll treat them like POWs.
By the way, having a pair of panties on your head is not torture. Once, for about 8 hours, in a international training scenario, an allied nation treated me as they would a domestic terrorist. Panties on the head and the chance to wear a leather leash would have been a pleasant break. Hoo-Hah
The Geneva Conventions is a term that is loosely thrown around to cover the Law of Armed Conflict, the "rules" that nations use to provide some level of sanity to the violence that they are willing to inflict on each other. Specific aspects of the Law of Armed Conflict include: Not targeting civilians/medical personnel/facilities or population centers, the proportional use of force, and defining combatant and non-combatant status as well as the treatment of prisoners.
The Law of Armed Conflict is reciprocal. You can only claim the protections if you abide by the principles. They specifically define circumstances where one force my exact retribution for violations by the opposing force.
Point A: The terrorists do not represent a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, therefore they cannot claim the right to legal protection. They also do not abide by the principles.
Point B: Geneva Conventions require that members of a combatant force openly wear distinguishable unforms and insignia when in the combat area that identifies them as a combattant of that nation. The terrorist do not do this. They cannot claim legal combatant status. Under the Geneva Conventions, they would be war criminals.
Point C: Under the Genva Conventions, surrendering combatants must be taken prisoner and must be treated humanely. Note: this does not say, helpless combattants, if a combattant does not take action to surrender, he is still a target. Rape, torture and murder by beheading are not humane treatment. Under the Geneva Conventions, they would be war criminals.
Point D: Civilians may not be intentionally targeted and force used to destroy a legitimate target must be proportional to the military necessity. Civilian casualties do not automatically equate to a war crime if the legitimate objective was a military target. The Murder of Margaret Hassan and the WTC attacks are attacks against civilianss without an associated military objective. Under the GC this is a War Crime.
During the Viet Nam conflict, the North Vietnamese beat the hell out of American prisoners, claiming that since there wasn't a declaration of war, and John Kerry said so, all American GIs were engaged in war crimes. Well, since the terrorist are engaged in war crimes, don't wear uniforms to identify them, and aren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions, I say "If they won't talk, beat the hell out of them!"
If you want the protection of the rules, you have to play by the rules. When they start wearing uniforms and stop targeting civilains, we'll treat them like POWs.
By the way, having a pair of panties on your head is not torture. Once, for about 8 hours, in a international training scenario, an allied nation treated me as they would a domestic terrorist. Panties on the head and the chance to wear a leather leash would have been a pleasant break. Hoo-Hah
posted by ironcross11 | 6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home