Does the Geneva Convention still stand the tide of time?

[Argyll]

Following the recent abuse claims made against the US and the UK and the ramifications that will follow,are the Geneva Conventions something of the past,and need to be ammended to cover things such as Insurgents,Terrorists and the Security contractors etc,who defines those who are captured etc.

I shall run a poll asking does the Geneva Convention need amended Yes or No.

Do the insurgents fighting in Iraq follow the GC,when many of them are not Iraqis,and are not part of any orginisation,other than AQ and their offspring?

Should they be given POW status?

Please try not to turn this into an Anti American viewpoint,and not just about Iraq ,and remember the past conflicts in the Balkans,where the GC were flouted on ALL sides.

[mustamato]

I voted no. Basically it´s good, but it need to be modified a little to become up to date.
In example so that modern ammunition will be taken into consideration and so forth.
And of course so that people like these would be protected by some kind of rules:

http://www.dewaarheid.nu/mrt01/guantanamo.jpg

http://www.dewaarheid.nu/wwwboard/gitmo_prisoners.jpg

[edit]Hm, I should have voted Yes that is, well well[/i]

[Herrmannek]

Yes it should...Alowing non lethal wepons, curently ussualy falling into WMD's or for other reasons noncoventional...
Strict and more clear definitions non leting for free/creative interpretation...

[Tane Angle]

Yes, it should be ammended. It has good intentions, but it doesn't really address the modern issues, such as terrorist (and terrorists vs. insurgents), ammunition (granted, that's been a problem since the Conventions were signed) and less-than-lethal munitions.

mustamato, if you think it needs to be modified a little, that isn't a yes vote?

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[scott]

yes- simply because any effective international document needs amending frequently
should it be amended to not cover terrorists and insurgents? no

i believe very strongly that the prisoners at guantanamo and captured in iraq should be treated as POWs.
they are enemy combatants that have been captured and their treatment should reflect that, even if they are not attached to a nations military.

but maybe this shouldnt so much be a poll as a call for essays ;)

[Argyll]

This is good,and positive,I too think it's in need of a long overdue overhaul,these "grey areas" need to be more difinitive.

[HELEX]

Every prisoner should have basic human rights, regular or not regular Fighter the same.

In addition to that the regular captives should have some special privilegs.

And the text should be shortened, modenized and made more clear in vague points.

[scott]

helex...
have you ever been to a conference on international legal issues?
its not getting any less vague
:)

[Herrmannek]

I would also add something about cleaning after war... I don't think there is any chance to ban mines or casete bombs..but cleaning from them should be duty of people who trew/planted them...

[henksmoeder]

I voted 'no', because it should always be the goal that captured soldiers/insurgents/whoever are treated with respect. Everyone who fights for his ideals in a war (thus ready to sacrifice himself for a cause) should be treated with respect. Whether it's a russian soldier, or an iraqi insurgent, the same rules should apply to both them.

[scott]

i share that view henksmoeder, but isnt clarification and updating necessary to include "non-traditional" combattants as well and reflect the changed face of war?

[henksmoeder]

As long as no extinction between combatting groups exist, it could probably need some updating concerning language and the such. Let's say I would not necesarily (spelling :roll: ) be agianst a change as long as armies don' get anymore freedom concerning treatment of POW's.

[Tane Angle]

One of the many problems is that many of these concepts in question are just that-merely extremely vague concepts. What exactly are "basic human rights?" What exactly is torture? What exactly is coercion? Who is a POW, who is a criminal, who is an "unlawful combatant?" What is the difference between terrorist and guirella and insurgent and militiaman and freedom fighter?

And if someone breaks such rules, who punishes them? "The World?" Punishing them requires capturing them, and capturing them usually requires a war, which usually requires killing hostiles, capturing enemy POWs or unlawful combatants or whoever, and risking killing civilians by accident.

It seems like every time someone proposes an answer, it just raises more questions.

I don't know what the answers are, but unless Argyll would rather that his thread remain strictly about answering his already-posed question, any thoughts, my friends?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts/questions...

[California Joe]

Most people only have a vague idea what the Geneva Convention actually contains anyway. They know it deals with the "humane" treatment of prisoners of war but that's about it. My frame of referrence is Hogan's Heroes.

[scott]

CJ brings up a great point and some clarification is needed.
are we only talking about the treatment of prisoners?

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

i think POWs are what everyone wants to talk about anyhow so heres the full text of the third convention... enjoy!
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument

[Tane Angle]

But what is it to be a POW? Who is one? Are terrorists POWs or criminals?

[California Joe]

But what is it to be a POW? Who is one? Are terrorists POWs or criminals?

Very good point and way to much of a gray area for us to probably do justice to. But I'm figuring that people who intentionally target civilians will always be seen by the opposite side as criminals, not soldiers.

[Tane Angle]

Very good point yourself, Joe. Perhaps it is not the attacker so much as the intended target that determines who is a POW and who is an "illegal combatant?" Perhaps that is the difference between "us" and at least some of "them." Of course, what would perpetrators of the USS Cole attack be then? They would be AQ, but not terrorists? And that would make the Sadrists POWs as well. Leaves much to think about.

This brings to mind the question of who of the Westerners captured in Iraq is a hostage and who is a POW. Do the demands/threats change it? Would a death threat mean that one is a hostage? Are prisoner exchanges allowed?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[California Joe]

Very good point yourself, Joe. Perhaps it is not the attacker so much as the intended target that determines who is a POW and who is an "illegal combatant?" Perhaps that is the difference between "us" and at least some of "them." Of course, what would perpetrators of the USS Cole attack be then? They would be AQ, but not terrorists? And that would make the Sadrists POWs as well. Leaves much to think about.

This brings to mind the question of who of the Westerners captured in Iraq is a hostage and who is a POW. Do the demands/threats change it? Would a death threat mean that one is a hostage? Are prisoner exchanges allowed?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I'm figuring that the nature of warfare is changing to the point where things like the Cole attack are considered an act of war by the people that perpetrated it but still not by us. They were "soldiers" that attacked a military target. There are not going to be formal declarations of war by independent groups that owe no allegiance to a country in particular. We are going to have to become used to a fluid enemy that will give no warning of impending attacks.

[scott]

many would argue that any "combattant" should be given POW status when taken into captivity.
thats why the icrc argued for the prisoners at guantanamo to be included under 3gc

do terrorists engaged in 9/11 or USS Cole style attacks warrant this inclusion? i dont think so but it could easily be argued both ways

the definition of terrorism comes into play , the most complete of which (i think) is the 1992 Schimd version

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"

that being said, i see a possible distinction between these actions and combat insurgency/guerilla warfare as in iraq, afghanistan etc (combat to gain or keep territory)

terrorists should be prosecuted and treated according to a nations own laws, captured combattants should be treated as POWs.

just some thoughts...