NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everyone, I've been preparing for a debate on this topic and I was wondering what the general opinions are about this question. If you can point me in the direction of any useful research materials on this topic as well I'd appreciate it immensely. Try not to send this thread to hell with bashing back and forth, as I know that that will probably happen. Keep it as intellectual as possible and try to respect everybody's opinions. Again I'm looking for what the general opinions are so I'm going to have a vote too. So start typing!

Define terrorist.

Terrorists for the purposes of this are those that are fighting outside the authority of any recognized government and employ the use of deliberate attacks on civilians to attain their goals.

Terrorists don't qualify for protection under Geneva, because (gah, my history teacher told me the reason why the other day - I forgot it. Something about how the Convention stipulates protection for those who fight in uniform, enlisted in a gov't-sanctioned military force?). There is the issue to what rights they do have, however.

I'm against gratuitous torture, but if ya gotta use it on a terrorist then be smart about applying it.

Terrorists for the purposes of this are those that are fighting outside the authority of any recognized government and employ the use of deliberate attacks on civilians to attain their goals.
Define deliberate attacks. Also, are we counting people who are joining the army (ie carbombs outside of recruiting stations) as civilians.


Oh, and most people don't use terrorist like that. I highly suggested getting a better definition for it (like the 'terrorists' in iraq who attack US troops and supply convoys...they aren't terrorists, they are resistance fighters).

I used to think "lock them up and throw away the key" when I was a kid, but after taking an interest in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the IRA in Northern Ireland that things weren't as clear-cut as I thought.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And for you Americans ready to jump on me for even suggesting that those behind 911 deserve to be treated like human beings, stop and think about how many of your precious US dollars went into funding the years and years of terrorist activity against British troops in mainland Britain as well as Northern Ireland.

Define terrorist.

Websters Dictionary defines terrorist as: A combatent who is usually poorly dressed, has a bomb fetish and likes to wave ak-47s while being videotaped. They are always part of the group opposing what your group wants and they make great villians in movies and on tv.

Always check the dictionary my friend. the dictionary.

Yes, define terrorist. And tell me which parts of the Geneva Convention you would prefer them to not be covered by. They should get significant protections, or shall we all lose the right to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. Most of the so called terrorists have never had the opportunity to defend themselves, but they are terrorists because someone said so.

officially, terrorists don't have protection because they don't belong to a government sponsored militia so they can't be defined as enemy soldiers. However, I think terrorists deserve the protection due to human rights issues (think abu ghraib and gitmo).

One man's terrorist is another man's sandwich. You touch my sandwich and I'll frickin' kill ya.

officially, terrorists don't have protection because they don't belong to a government sponsored militia so they can't be defined as enemy soldiers. However, I think terrorists deserve the protection due to human rights issues (think abu ghraib and gitmo).
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:

One man's terrorist is another man's sandwich. You touch my sandwich and I'll frickin' kill ya.
Oh yeah?
Well my sandwich is protected under the Geneva Convention!

Terrorists for the purposes of this are those that are fighting outside the authority of any recognized government and employ the use of deliberate attacks on civilians to attain their goals.

But all governments employ such people.

Should terrorists be protected by the Geneva Convention?Convicted Terrorists should not be Protected by the Geneva Convention.

Please take note of the Word CONVICTED...as in Judged by a real Court...a Public Court...not by a BullShit Military Kangoroo Court..

I used to think "lock them up and throw away the key" when I was a kid, but after taking an interest in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the IRA in Northern Ireland that things weren't as clear-cut as I thought.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And for you Americans ready to jump on me for even suggesting that those behind 911 deserve to be treated like human beings, stop and think about how many of your precious US dollars went into funding the years and years of terrorist activity against British troops in mainland Britain as well as Northern Ireland.

precious US dollars? I have never considered them precious. Old and ratty, yes, precious no. As an American I ain't gonna jump on ya, I agree the govment should of shut down the Irish terrorist supporters in Chicago and New York a long time ago.
But seeing as they did not, are we not all the more responsible to fight terrorism now? You don't stop fighting something just because you understand it more.

woops, kinda got off the topic of the thread. gomen. (sorry)

One entry found for terrorism.


Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

That covers just about every violent criminal, every policeman that pulls you over, and certainly every man in an army suit or not with a gun bent on killing you.

You don't stop fighting something just because you understand it more.
Can you get some troops on the streets of Belfast next time "freedom" negotiations break down then, please?

The whole world will of course appreciate it incredibly. :cool:

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:

ah, so terrorists are protected. Sorry, I haven't read the convention yet.

Convicted Terrorists should not be Protected by the Geneva Convention.

Please take note of the Word CONVICTED...as in Judged by a real Court...a Public Court...not by a BullShit Military Kangoroo Court..

Of course this means that All the Men,Women and Children been Tortured at Guantanamo should be either Crarged with Terrorism...or Freed inmediately.

Under the strict definition of terrorist, the French Resistance and the ANC are terrorists. Rather or not people are called one depends on who's side they fight on.

Can you get some troops on the streets of Belfast next time "freedom" negotiations break down then, please?

The whole world will of course appreciate it incredibly. :cool:

The world never appreciates anything. It complains a lot, it nitpicks and sits on its ass but it doesn't appreciate. Thats fine though, its all just peachy keen and fine. . .tick tick tick. . .

Hey everyone, I've been preparing for a debate on this topic and I was wondering what the general opinions are about this question. If you can point me in the direction of any useful research materials on this topic as well I'd appreciate it immensely. Try not to send this thread to hell with bashing back and forth, as I know that that will probably happen. Keep it as intellectual as possible and try to respect everybody's opinions. Again I'm looking for what the general opinions are so I'm going to have a vote too. So start typing!

I guess it depends on what you mean by terrorist.

The Geneva convention states that even though the prisoners belong to an army or organization not recognized by the detaining power (most likely the yanks), they should still be treated according to the treaty.
The Geneva convention also applies to resistance fighters who don't have or wear uniforms (In Iraq they are defined by the americans as "terrorists")
If any of those prisoners were members of the taliban or Saddam's army, the geneva convention applies to them, since they belonged to the armed forces of the now occupied country.
Members of militias and volunteer corps and organized resistance against occupying forces are also supposed to be treated according to the geneva convention.

So, the people taken prisoner in Iraq or Afghanistan are by definition not terrorists, but prisoners of war and should therefore by treated according to the Geneva convention and should not be sexually assaulted, detained endlessly and tortured.

Websters Dictionary defines terrorist as: A combatent who is usually poorly dressed, has a bomb fetish and likes to wave ak-47s while being videotaped. They are always part of the group opposing what your group wants and they make great villians in movies and on tv.

Always check the dictionary my friend. the dictionary.Ahh those "terrorists" ...well if those the ones you talking about...then they desreve Geneva...and they deserve a medal.

they are figthing for Freedom from the Empire...may the force be with them.

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/star_wars/_group_photos/alec_guinness5.jpg

One man's terrorist is another man's sandwich. You touch my sandwich and I'll frickin' kill ya.

I have a button on my coat that says "One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter". I wear it with my John Kerry button. Sure, Bush won. I accept that. Doesn't mean I agree with it.


I think the best way to think of this is what Dr. Logan said in Geoorge Romero's Day of the Dead.... SOmething along the lines that if we're going to teach other people civility, we must be civil ourselves. i.e, set a good example. If we treat our enemies inhumanely, we shouldn't have the right to whine when they kill our civillians. Not to condone September 11th, but it's very hypoctrical when some of the same people who got "patriotic" over September 11th and think we need to punish all the terrorists turn a blind eye to the innocents being killed in Iraq every day... And all the American men and women coming home in the flag draped coffins they don't want the media showing you...


And besides, I want protection by Geneva while playing as a T on Counter Strike. ;) :mp5: :sniper:

"Terrorists" is a term defined by the leadership of the population which has been subject to "terrorism".

While I must stress that in 90% of all cases, you would have to misguided to be a terrorist, we must remember that "terrorists" actions have led to the development of civil society.

It is only in those societies which commit (and aid and abbet) repression are victims of terrorism. And in those cases, it is not the populations' desire to abbet repression, but the leaderships. The reason why terrorists target civilians is that the leadership is too hard to get at.

Only when the root causes of injustice and poverty are addressed by their respective governments and their allies, then will terrorism stop. Terrorism is a method (albeit violent) message of political expression, but sometimes it is the only method through which injustices (beyond the ideological drivel) can be heard, and hopefully addressed.

If these people are captured, they will never be prosecuted fairly. They need as much protection as they can get from a vengeful society, otherwise the right to a fair trial (which is a pillar of democracy) will be eroded, and the government could call you a "terrorist" in a few years for opposing the Iran invasion.

No, I do not beleave that terrorists should be coverd by the Geneva Convention. First, they are no formal army, ranging from a few to 1000(s).
Second, they will target combatants and non-combatants alike. (now, I understand that civilians do get hurt and killed in war zones. However If it wasn't delibarate it's not as bad though it still very much sucks. The delibarate killing of non-combatants I simply can't agree with)

Hey everyone, I've been preparing for a debate on this topic and I was wondering what the general opinions are about this question. If you can point me in the direction of any useful research materials on this topic as well I'd appreciate it immensely. Try not to send this thread to hell with bashing back and forth, as I know that that will probably happen. Keep it as intellectual as possible and try to respect everybody's opinions. Again I'm looking for what the general opinions are so I'm going to have a vote too. So start typing!

Either its a military affair and we're treating them like soldiers, in which case they go under the Geneva Convention. Otherwise they're just murder suspects, in which case they go to civilian courts. What Bush is doing is what all empires do when they think they need to consolidate power. He's pretending he's above the law. And he will be as long as Neo-cons think (for want of a better word) that a president who never shuts up about religion must always be right just because he belongs to the party of racism and money.

Yes.

The moment you allow for exceptions and redefinitions; other exceptions and redefinitions will follow.

I think the best way to think of this is what Dr. Logan said in Geoorge Romero's Day of the Dead.... SOmething along the lines that if we're going to teach other people civility, we must be civil ourselves. i.e, set a good example.

... ah yes, Dr "Frankenstein" Logan, pioneering research into zombie domestication.

Not an ad hominem, just giving the guy props.

It's not that they don't deserve it, persay....

It's that there's nothing that stops the terrorists from not following the Geneva Convention itself.

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"
Now THERE'S a quote people don't repeat enough [/sarcasm]

the party of racism and money.

Funny, the Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Dixiecrats (conservative Democrats from the South) were just as racist as any Republicans back in the day.

It's not that they don't deserve it, persay....

It's that there's nothing that stops the terrorists from not following the Geneva Convention itself.

Theres not much stopping anyone from not following the Geneva Convention. I mean isn't one of Israel's favorite pasttimes violating the Geneva Convention? And they're "not terrorists."

Alright. Sure, there are some legitimate freedom fighters in Iraq. Those who attack ONLY US MILITARY TARGETS are not really terrorists, but guerillas.

However, many of the insurgents participate in attacks on CIVILIANS. Car bombs, beheadings, executions of those who help the US, etc. These people are terrorists. Since they are clearly not following the Geneva Convention, I do not see how they are entitled to protection by it.

That said, how can we know if they are guilty of terrorism if they are not given a fair trial? They must be granted that right at least.

Theres not much stopping anyone from not following the Geneva Convention. I mean isn't one of Israel's favorite pasttimes violating the Geneva Convention? And they're "not terrorists."

My definition of terrorist involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. To my knowledge, Israel keeps deliberate attacks on civilians to a minimum. Their targets are leaders and members of terrorist (or resistance) groups.

Alright. Sure, there are some legitimate freedom fighters in Iraq. Those who attack ONLY US MILITARY TARGETS are not really terrorists, but guerillas.

However, many of the insurgents participate in attacks on CIVILIANS. Car bombs, beheadings, executions of those who help the US, etc. These people are terrorists. Since they are clearly not following the Geneva Convention, I do not see how they are entitled to protection by it.

That said, how can we know if they are guilty of terrorism if they are not given a fair trial? They must be granted that right at least.

Since when does our set of laws and morality apply to a foreign people who have been fighting like this for thousands of years?
The americans and its coalition of the stupid are invaders and occupiers.
Those who help the invading armies are considered traitors.
We jail and or execute traitors, sometimes shooting them on the battlefield.
I don't agree with killing civilians but whats the difference when they aren't jailing americans for dropping bombs on civilian houses?
The iraqi resistance as well as other groups opposing the zionist american armys do not have tanks and planes to fight with so a suicide bomber is a poor mans weapon.
If the americans weren't installing and or supporting dictators in the middle east that they later claim they have to attack to get their oil then they wouldn't have a reason to hate us !

As I understand it the most basic rule of the Geneva convention was reciprocity, you treat your prisoners nicely so that the other side will be decent to theirs. As such, I would say until there is some indication by the terrorists that they intend to treat any prisoners they take within the Geneva convention protocols the nation fighting these terrorists would not be obligated to treat captured terrorists under the convention rules.

However, I would think that captured terrorists should have legal protection even if there is no indication the terrorists will ever do the same with any government forces they capture, simply because captured prisoners deserve humane treatment. Plus there is always the chance (though I doubt it would happen) that treating captured terrorists under the Geneva convention would result in reciprocity, which would certainly be good.

You don't wear a uniform, you don't get the protection of the Geneva Convention.

As soon as you grant "rights" and "protection" to anyone who runs around killing civilians while wearing plainclothes you have a problem. The purpose of uniforms is to identify who is and who is not in the military. Take away that uniform and all you have is a disorganized combat zone where no one can for certain identify their allies, their enemies and the non-combats.

Basically, you increase friendly fire and civilian casualties. Granting people protection who refuse to wear uniforms creates chaos and civilians casualties. Anyone who supports the idea of the Geneva convention being extended to non-uniformed combatants supports increasing civilian casualties.

Cheers.

A terrorist is a combatant who does not follow the laws of war. The Geneva Convention is part of the laws of war (or rather a formal statement of some of them) and it defines the proper treatment of *lawful* combatants and of civilians. Terrorists are neither, and the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

Taking a birds' eye view, all laws of war must be based on reciprocity, i.e. "if you don't do this then we won't do it either". The terrorists do not apply the Geneva Convention (actually they seem to try and violate every single rule at the same time), therefore neither should we apply it to them. If we truly apply reciprocity to terrorists, we should use any prisoners as hostages, cut their heads on TV if our demands are not met, and indiscriminately bomb any civilians who support them in reprisal. However, there is also common decency which says we should not do these things, and thank god for that.

The Geneva Convention is always broken in wartime, the only question is to what degree, and who does it first. In Normandy (WW2) American troops commonly killed any Germans in SS uniforms, regardless of whether they tried to surrender or not. That was due to the fact that a SS division executed a large number of American and Canadian prisoners-of-war early in the invasion. In that the troops (even acting against orders) applied reciprocity, and so they were acting within the spirit of the laws of war (if not the letter).

My take: in the heat of battle, anything that the other side (routinely) does first is lawful for you to do *to them* as well (although some things such as refusing surrenders are extremely counterproductive). This should under no circumstances be interpreted to allow attacks on civilians, however. Afterwards, prisoners should be treated with presumption of innocence and given a hearing in court the same as a civilian would get (but if required for operational security, the hearing may be delayed). If found guilty of violating the laws of war in an egregious way (e.g. attacking civilians or killing hostages) then *anything goes* as punishment. Otherwise, apply the same punishment as a civilian would get for the same acts in peacetime.

I think the problem here is that war has been declared (actually, it hasn't been formally declared that I know of) between a state entity (The US) and a non-state, non-militia organized body (terrorists).

The Geneva Conventions don't have strong stipulations for that situation; its far too open to interpretation; BECAUSE no one had considered declaring war on an word (terrorism) and taking members of said word (ie terrorists) prisoner before. There was always some degree of understanding that the people captured represented a movement, a nation, or were simply criminals.

Now we have been told that the terrorists are not criminals, they are people we are at "war" with. But they are not soldiers; of course not, before 9/11 they were simply criminals. So now we have non-soldier non-criminals with no useful legal designation!

So we took to calling them "Illegal combatants"...criminals in a war? Criminals BECAUSE they are at war? Its hard to say.

The Geneva Convention covers WAR...right?
Crime can occur during war, and there are War Crimes, which only occur during a war. There are methods of dealing with each. Why not treat the prisoners as common criminals, unless they are suspected of war crimes, in which case treat them as war criminals?

Our desperation for intellegence and our percived inability to get it without the use of torture or at the very least extreme methods of interrogation led to our classifying these prisoners instead as "illegal combatants." This classification allowed the US to claim that they slipped between legal loopholes against treating them as criminals OR as war criminals or POWs.

As such, this new designations makes these prisoners legal non-entities for international law. Only the most broad standards apply to their treatment. As one US judge said to a member of the current US administration, "You could boil them in oil and not tell me couldn't you?" The simple answer is yes; these prisoners simply "did not count" until the Supreme court started enforcing standards on these prisoners.

This kind of legal limbo will likely be fairly short lived, within 10 years the new designation of "illegal combatant" will be written into international law. Standards will be reached, and the legal process will churn on. Until then though, there remains the risk of horrible behavor or practices being used against the prisoners.

Second, they will target combatants and non-combatants alike. (now, I understand that civilians do get hurt and killed in war zones. However If it wasn't delibarate it's not as bad though it still very much sucks. The delibarate killing of non-combatants I simply can't agree with)

And what gives you the right to force your morals and laws on them, in their own country/society ?
You are of course quite right when they attack you on your own soil btw.

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"
One man's terrorist is another man's used ammo receptacle.

And what gives you the right to force your morals and laws on them, in their own country/society ?

I'm sorry, are you saying that it's acceptable behaviour to kill innocent civilians? :confused:

I'm sorry, are you saying that it's acceptable behaviour to kill innocent civilians? :confused:

According to *my* moral system: no - but I can imagine those terrorists believe differently. They can e.g. think that every foreigner in their country is an invader and therefor not-innocent. Or they can consider infidels sub-human. Or believe that the ends justify the means. They can consider honour more important than life. Or think that every innocent victim will be sent to heaven, so he is doing them in fact a favour.

And I am torn between the choice: do I respect that culture, since there is no way to actually prove my morals are superior, or do I simply judge them from my own beliefs ?

Funny, the Republican Party was founded to oppose slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Dixiecrats (conservative Democrats from the South) were just as racist as any Republicans back in the day.

How the times change, eh? :D

Worth noting that the Republicans under Lincoln were the left-leaning party at the time.

My definition of terrorist involves the deliberate targeting of civilians. To my knowledge, Israel keeps deliberate attacks on civilians to a minimum. Their targets are leaders and members of terrorist (or resistance) groups.

http://images.polarisboard.org/arancaytar/politic/image02.png

I'm sure Rachel Corrie would disagree with you there. (http://www.rachelcorrie.org)

hahaha!!!

Man the terrorists probably didnt see this comeing. If you arent recognized as a soldier of a known military,
you are sooo screwed.

Last time I checked thats what the tif was about with the Geneva Convention.


I suppose world law is pathetic like that. Trying to govern over people who arent apart of it, dont care for it, and wont enforce it.


The way I figure it, if a representitive of the Terrorists Union didnt sign in on the Geneva Convention, terrorists anywhere are screwed.

Of course this means that All the Men,Women and Children been Tortured at Guantanamo should be either Crarged with Terrorism...or Freed inmediately.

Well, lawyers would like to be able to work on some of these cases. OF course, the government keeps throwing up more and more roadblocks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40624-2005Feb20?language=printer)


ATTORNEYS FOR the Justice Department appeared before a federal judge in Washington this month and asked him to dismiss a lawsuit over the detention of a U.S. citizen, basing their request not merely on secret evidence but also on secret legal arguments. The government contends that the legal theory by which it would defend its behavior should be immune from debate in court. This position is alien to the history and premise of Anglo-American jurisprudence, which assumes that opposing lawyers will challenge one another's arguments


Hell, they won't even tell defence lawyers what their legal arguments are now regarding the incarceration of these people....
:rolleyes:

all terrorists ought to be summarily shot

a president who never shuts up about religion must always be right just because he belongs to the party of racism and money.

the democrat party always has been and still is the party of racism.

Why? They keep minorities down.
Why? Because if kept poor, minorities are more likely to vote democrat.

Succesful blacks tend to be republican because the republicans allow blacks to be succesful (Powell, Rice, Thomas) and the democrats don't. Democrat blacks like Sharpton and J Jackson are racist themselves.

The democrat party is the party of babykillers and queer marriages.

First of all, define the term: Terrorist.......once I have a better idea of what the word means, then I'll reconsider my vote and my views.

First of all, define the term: Terrorist.......once I have a better idea of what the word means, then I'll reconsider my vote and my views.

those who deliberately (with explicit intent) target civilians in order to get governments of nations (or companies, or individuals) to give in to their demands. They commit these actions with the specific intent of threatening to kill or killing innocent civilians.

precious US dollars? I have never considered them precious. Old and ratty, yes, precious no. As an American I ain't gonna jump on ya, I agree the govment should of shut down the Irish terrorist supporters in Chicago and New York a long time ago.
But seeing as they did not, are we not all the more responsible to fight terrorism now? You don't stop fighting something just because you understand it more.


Look above buddy, you can't use the blanket term 'terrorists' about the IRA, my friend. Sinn Féin represent the majority of Northern Nationalists, who are very much still searching for freedom from a political system which has treated them like second class citizens since before you or I were born. If any group can be classed as freedom fighters it is them. Not that I expect you to understand the troubled history of this island,which leads to the ignorant role casting of the British media, and comparisons between Republican groups and psychotic Islamic Fundamentalists.

The protections of the Geneva convention are specifically extended to uniformed combatants.

The idea is that by wearing the uniform you are declaring yourself to be a combatant - people get to shoot at you and vice versa. The upside of wearing the uniform is that other 'uniform wearers' (understanding that they may be in your shoes some day) won't 'off' you once wounded, won't torture you once captured, and will provide you decent holding conditions until your exchange can be negotiated. (The conventions are MUCH longer than that - proscribed bayonet shapes etc).

Non-uniform wearers, at the time of the signing, were routinely executed as soon as they were apprehended. This had the effect of convincing would be combatants to either 'suit up' or go home.

Personally I don't understand the fuss. When the terrorists take a prisoner they execute them painfully and post video on the inernet. Anything America wants to do up to AND INCLUDING that behavior is simply a response in kind. Mirroring that behavior is the only response I can imagine that would actually have any affect on the terrorists.

(Well OK, I like burying them wrapped in pigskin, but that may just be intolerance on my part).

Look above buddy, you can't use the blanket term 'terrorists' about the IRA,


You're right. They're thugs, criminals and murderers.

Hell, they won't even tell defence lawyers what their legal arguments are now regarding the incarceration of these people....

Note the case in question involves detainment of a US citizen. In this case the US government has a serious legal problem - but all of the other detainees are ununiformed combatants. America's legal problem does not exist - it has the right to summarily execute them.

Look above buddy, you can't use the blanket term 'terrorists' about the IRA, my friend.

Are you claiming that the IRA aren't terrorists?

First of all, define the term: Terrorist..
http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=16&y=14
Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- terrorist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terror&x=14&y=14
Main Entry: terror
...
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

The Geneva convention was meant to prevent cruel behavior during war. Breaking the rules of the Geneva convention makes you a war criminal (that means you Rumsfeld). Even if our opponents are war criminals, they need to be treated as such as there are no legitimate reasons to break the conventions. People are people, no matter how desperate their environment has made them become. Furthermore, it's one thing to capture a guy on the field shooting at you, and far another to detain "Suspected Terrorists" without any kind of legal liabilities.

The Geneva convention was meant to prevent cruel behavior during war. Breaking the rules of the Geneva convention makes you a war criminal .... Furthermore, it's one thing to capture a guy on the field shooting at you, and far another to detain "Suspected Terrorists" without any kind of legal liabilities.

Geneva only applies if the enemy is in uniform. Which has been stated again, and again, and again in this thread. So whatever the treatment the prisoners are recieveing is violating - it's not Geneva.

Hey everyone, I've been preparing for a debate on this topic and I was wondering what the general opinions are about this question. If you can point me in the direction of any useful research materials on this topic as well I'd appreciate it immensely. Try not to send this thread to hell with bashing back and forth, as I know that that will probably happen. Keep it as intellectual as possible and try to respect everybody's opinions. Again I'm looking for what the general opinions are so I'm going to have a vote too. So start typing!

I think it depends on the evidence against them. Just being present at the wrong place at the wrong time or having an Arab last name doesn't make you a terrorist.

I second the early poster who said, "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

I'd also like to add, "Just because they're bad guys doesn't mean we can't be good guys."

Well, if I'm going with the argument that I used in my 2nd Amendment thread, that people (also according to our Founding Fathers) have natural rights regardless of the existence of laws to enumerate those rights, then I have to give the captured terrorist some consideration.

That doesn't mean that I might necessarily apply the Geneva Conventions. As written, they don't provide protection for non-state fighters, or fighters from states that are not signatories to the Conventions.

I would rather come up with a new generic standard for treatment of all captured personnel.

I would still divide the difference between captured by law enforcement and captured by military. The type of trial/tribunal would be different (in fact, I would have the military make a decision before a board of three officers to determine whether or not to turn the prisoner over to law enforcement).

I would, after that, probably use the standard of the summary field court martial in cases involving terrorist acts, sabotage, spying, etc. And I would use the death penalty (by rifle fire or hanging - prisoner's choice).

I don't believe that I would use painful torture. But I would permit the use of drugs to get people to talk. I wouldn't allow information gained by drugs to be used for a conviction - but I would allow its use in an investigation. I would also allow complete deception of the prisoner - that's not torture by any means.

terrorists are uncoventional armies, they are therefore niot protected by the geneva convention, thus they are treated as animals even though they have human rights, thats how america gets away with it andy yes paramilitary armies should have their own convention

terrorists are uncoventional armies, they are therefore niot protected by the geneva convention, thus they are treated as animals even though they have human rights, thats how america gets away with it andy yes paramilitary armies should have their own convention

All they have to do as an organization to get Geneva protections as prisoners of war is:

1. Always wear a fixed emblem on their clothing, at all times.
2. Have their organization indicate that for the duration of this conflict, they wish to abide by the provisions of the Convention. A simple public statement by Osama would do.

Then they would be "prisoners of war".

I second the early poster who said, "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."


"Fire fighters fight fire. Crime fighters fight crime. Freedom fighters fight..."

:D

Not covering these guys under SOME law would be showing how inhuman the laws are. If this is a moral country then they must be given respect as human beings even if they do not 'deserve' it.

I think Jesus said something about loving your enemy. We should probably take his advice.

According to *my* moral system: no - but I can imagine those terrorists believe differently. They can e.g. think that every foreigner in their country is an invader and therefor not-innocent. Or they can consider infidels sub-human. Or believe that the ends justify the means. They can consider honour more important than life. Or think that every innocent victim will be sent to heaven, so he is doing them in fact a favour.

And I am torn between the choice: do I respect that culture, since there is no way to actually prove my morals are superior, or do I simply judge them from my own beliefs ?

Torn between what exactly? Respecting a culture that says "Those guys, those Iraqi civilians over there who have been living in this country for the past 400 years, those guys, yeah them. I'm going to shoot them to make a point about giving them their country back."

The "insurection" in Iraq makes no distinction between American soldiers, Iraqi peace officers and Iraqi civilians. They are not attacking forgeinors invading their country, they are attacking their own country-men.

If they don't strap on a uniform, their dick is a dog toy.

<--- Your biased westerner who believes in the moral superiority of a people who actually think killing innocents should be avoided.

Terrorists have no rights and deserve none.

I second the early poster who said, "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

I'd also like to add, "Just because they're bad guys doesn't mean we can't be good guys."

an old arguement, and it has some validity.

But just who are these people trying to "free"? Or is it a matter of blind revenge for perceived wrongs that may or may not have directly involved US policy (or anyone elses for that matter), or is it the blind lashing out at the Western culture and the changes that culture has brought about even in the most traditional cultures?

or are they simply the pawns of men who fear the loss of their power. Men who teach that their version of the Koran and Islam is the only right way, and who prey on the disenchanted and hopeless and bored in such a way as to convince them to not only kill themselves (either as part of the mission or as a consequence of it), but also innocents who just happened to be there?

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that indicates to me that even the current crop of Moslem terrorists are fighting to "free" anyone.

Torn between what exactly? Respecting a culture that says "Those guys, those Iraqi civilians over there who have been living in this country for the past 400 years, those guys, yeah them. I'm going to shoot them to make a point about giving them their country back."

Suppose your country was conquered by nazi's, or whatever you perceive to be the source of all evil. You then see that some of your fellow countrymen embrace these demons. Would you not call them "collaborators" and shed few tears about their deaths ?

But that is not what I'm torn between. My problem is that I see that some societies contain elements that I despise - like the terrorist mindset we are discussing, like the oppression of women in many countries or the discrimination of homosexuals in the USA. However, I also recognise that I'm not a citizen of those countries, and that *my* morals are for a very large part the result of being brought up in a different society. If I were raised in a society where the belief that women or black people are inferior is commonplace - like it was in almost every western culture about 100 years ago - I can not guarantee I would have been against it. Some of the most enlightened minds of that time did not speak up against slavery after all.

Because of this I think I have no objective reason to believe my morals or that of my society are superior to those of others, just a subjective one. For me, that also means I can try to convince others of my righteousness, but I can not force them.
But this also means I should condone the things I consider horrors some people commit in their own country. THAT is what I'm torn between.

1. Is there a war? (The so called War on Terrorism does not really qualify here, war is between two or more states, so you need a particular case)
2. Are they combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions?
3. Have they done anything to lose their protection?

Even if they're not covered by Geneva, which in most cases I don't believe they are, they are covered by International Human Rights Law. They are, for example, covered by the ICCPR, which prohibits torture.

THe difference between being a combatant and not being a combatant, is that they're subject to criminal prosecutions as a non-combatant and therefore they get all their rights to fair trials etc etc. If they're combatants then they are NOT subject to criminal trials. Hence, those suspected terrorists being held, clearly are seen as non-combatants, which implies that this War on Terrorism is not a war in the technical sense of the word and means that terrorists do not automatically classify as combatants and therefore do not get the benefit of Geneva.

If it is an act of war, they have the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

If it a criminal act, they have the protections of criminal prosecution.

These protections exist to protect the innocent accused as well as our own soldiers and citizens. They are engrained into our constitution. People are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, no matter what they are accused of.

an old arguement, and it has some validity.

But just who are these people trying to "free"? Or is it a matter of blind revenge for perceived wrongs that may or may not have directly involved US policy (or anyone elses for that matter), or is it the blind lashing out at the Western culture and the changes that culture has brought about even in the most traditional cultures?

or are they simply the pawns of men who fear the loss of their power. Men who teach that their version of the Koran and Islam is the only right way, and who prey on the disenchanted and hopeless and bored in such a way as to convince them to not only kill themselves (either as part of the mission or as a consequence of it), but also innocents who just happened to be there?

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that indicates to me that even the current crop of Moslem terrorists are fighting to "free" anyone.

I agree that there are shades of gray to this. The 9/11 hijackers are a radically different animal from the insurgents in Iraq. The 9/11 hijackers had definite motives, primarily rage over the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia and U.S.-Isreal policy. The insurgents in Iraq also have definite motives, one being an attempt to hang onto power (as you mention) but another being resisting an occupying force. Which is the textbook definition of "freedom fighter," no? There isn't a single crop of "Muslim terrorists" with a single agenda and single motive. To classify all in a single category is a dangerous thing.

As for the good guys/bad guys side of this, what is the point of the U.S. going out to "make the world safe for democracy (some more)" if we roll in, liberate a nation, and then hang the "under new management" sign at Abu Gharib? If we talk the human rights talk, we gots to walk the walk.

To a large extent the way a group is viewed after the fact depends on who wins. I can imagine that if the US revolutionary war had gone a different way, the american "freedom fighters" might now be viewed as terrorists.

During the US civil war there was a lot of fighting in the middle states (Kansas, Missouri) between differing groups. They did not wear uniforms and did not hesitate to kill "civilians" that they believed were on the other side. These activities (killing, raping, torture, burning of houses) occured on both sides and was very destructive to the population in these areas.

I can imagine that a person in Iraq that hates America for whatever reason might feel the need to fight back. Just because the US has said the "war" is over doesn't mean that all the Iraqis' are done fighting. How are they supposed to act if they want to fight back? They fight back in the only way they can; car bombs, suicide attacks, etc.

I believe the Geneva Convention was created in part to recognize that although different groups may disagree sometimes, and this may lead to armed conflict, that the participants need to remember that they will still be accountable for the way they fight. Just because one side commits some acts that are viewed as barbaric does not mean that the other side is then allowed to do so also.

I think that if the UN wasn't so closely controlled by the US that there would be some war crimes trials against some of the US combatants as well as the Iraqi combatants.