al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents and the Geneva Convention - Page 3




 
--
 
January 10th, 2005  
SwordFish_13
 
 
hi,

Quote:
Terrorist Organizations are not Goverments. They do not rate protection under the Geneva Convention.
Yep , ...............They Can't get Protection Under Geneva Convention........... and they are not getting any (Well mostly) ..........and in my View they Shouldn't get any..........BUT Human Rights are a Different Story Altogether . (Don't know why But i still Consider them Humans)

[Edit]

I Actually tried Giving a read to What Geneva Convention is .........this Caught my eye

Quote:
Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


Read the whole Document Here
Food For thought ..............it states Declared Or Undeclared between Two Parties(not countries) ................All these terrororists need to Do is Form a United Front (to represent them )to come under geneva convention


Peace
-=SF_13=-
January 10th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
I already stated they deserve humane treatment where and if appropriate.

I have a hard time applying that article of the Convention to terrorists. I do not believe the convention was written to protect. Murdering, cowardly bas**rds who prefer to target civilians.
January 10th, 2005  
SwordFish_13
 
 
Hi,

I would Like to Correct My self here In my Previous Post I stated

Quote:
it states Declared Or Undeclared between Two Parties(not countries) ................All these terrororists need to Do is Form a United Front (to represent them )to come under geneva convention
and the Geneva Convention say's

Quote:
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties,
It categorically and specifically States Conflict between High Contracting Parties and ther is a List of them under various Conventions You can see the List of High Contracting Parties Here............ and No terrorists can't be under the Convention ...............it ended when Saddam was removed form Power....................all the Baath party leaders and Solders Come under the Convention but not these terrorist who came after Saddam's removal .

Peace
-=SF_13=-
--
January 10th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
I know I'm probobly in the minority here but I say if the oposition force isn't going to play by the rules we are not required to either. Of course there are sound military reasons for treating prisoners well but if the oposition is going to torture and chop off the heads of captured U.S. servicemen then they are not entitled to all the protections we would afford a force that treats our servicemen well.
January 11th, 2005  
Porion
 
This entire post is imo

I would say that although they do not follow the terms of POW's, they should still be treated liek human beings, and the simple fact that they are not subject to the POW standards doesnt mean they cannot be captured and interrogated as one.

i would also like to agree that anyone who tapes a beheading of a helpless man and uses children as hman shields does not deserve the same treatment as a green recruit who wet himself in his first skirmish and was captured.

i'm not saying all the Iraquis should be arrested and improsoned, i'm just saying a lot of "insurgents" have shot a civilian and used meat shields.
January 11th, 2005  
AsianAmerican
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabal
Traditional sense? There is no such thing as "Traditional sense" in terms of combat. There is only the unconventional and the conventional. Or sometimes you need to improvise in case of tough situations. If the enemy knows that the opponent has to follow the rules, which is creating obstacles of achieving an objective, they'll immeditately take that as an advantage. That's what terrorists do. They exploit humans.
Traditional Sense. Soliders serving in uniform in a standing military or attached there to. Terrorist Organizations are not Goverments. They do not rate protection under the Geneva Convention.
I agree with you. Those terrorist do not follow the rules, but there aren't many rules when u are fighting those insurgents.