NationStates Jolt Archive

guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1746322,00.html)


discuss?

Quick Quotes

John Reid demanded sweeping changes to international law yesterday to free British soldiers from the restraints of the Geneva conventions and make it easier for the west to mount military actions against other states.

Mr Reid indicated he believed existing rules, including some of the conventions - a bedrock of international law - were out of date and inadequate to deal with the threat of international terrorists

Mr Reid declined to say whether he had come round to the US view that detainees at Guantánamo bay should not be allowed the protection of the conventions or the courts. Similarly, he would not say if he thought Britain should support the US practice of extraordinary rendition, the transferring of prisoners to secret camps where they risk being tortured. However, he said, it was not "sufficient just to say [Guantánamo] is wrong".


Today I am not Proud to be british :(

Today I am not Proud to be british :(
Ach, it does need to be rewritten. But this is because warfare has changed considerably since its creation. It's difficult to tell what Mr. Reid wants, but international terrorism and guerrilla warfare is perhaps one of the biggest changes in warfare since camouflage.

He has got a fair point. The Geneva convention is regarding conventional rules. Which is why Bush has had such an easy time with the defintion of enemy combatants and their detention. The geneva convention needs to be added to cope with the changes that have taken place since the beginning of the post-imperial world and and post-cold-war world.

But Reid probably just wants to get rid of the bits that make it troublesome to torture people. Geoff Hoon and John Reid can both rot in hell. Blegh, defence ministers.

Ach, it does need to be rewritten. But this is because warfare has changed considerably since its creation. It's difficult to tell what Mr. Reid wants, but international terrorism and guerrilla warfare is perhaps one of the biggest changes in warfare since camouflage.
Um... no it hasn't International terrorism and guerrilla warfare are very, very old. Just the means have changed.

but international terrorism and guerrilla warfare is perhaps one of the biggest changes in warfare since camouflage.Americans already used guerilla tactics in the war of independence, and the spanish had a good time with terrorism against Napoleon.
Not to mention some occasions from classical history.. It's nothing new really.

Americans already used guerilla tactics in the war of independence, and the spanish had a good time with terrorism against Napoleon.
Not to mention some occasions from classical history.. It's nothing new really.Yes, and those aren't properly treated under the Geneva convention.

Yes, and those aren't properly treated under the Geneva convention.Not because they're new though. Nor because they're old for that matter. It was just out of fashion at the time, I guess.
I very much doubt mister Reid is just talking about a proper update though, more likely he wants more leeway to commit to morally dubious actions against suspects of terrorism.

The Geneva Conventions apply to combatants of the nations that signed the treaties. Nothing more.

Want to be covered by the conventions? Then fight for a government that agreed to them.

Americans already used guerilla tactics in the war of independence

Guerilla is avtually a Spanish word, meaning "small war", and was used by the spanish against napoleon. It was not a new concept, tribe-based civilications have used this tactic against larger/more organized opponents a long time.

the spanish had a good time with terrorism against Napoleon.

Terrorism, as meaning the use of brutal attacks against your opponents population, infra-structure or vital locations in such a way as to strike at his will or ability to fight, is also much older. The Roman Empire, for instance, used such tactics to subdue their opponents.

State-sponsored terrorism is also terrorism, it's all in the eye of the beholder. European WWII resistance fighters, especially the french, were dubbed terrorists by the Germans, and freedom-fighters/heroes by the Allies.

That said, without the Geneva-Convention and International Law to regulate the actions of the remaining global powers, all other nations would be at the mercy of nations such as USA and their satraps.

Terrorism is defined by the fact that it falls outside the geneva conventions hence non-combatants etc. (guerilla warfare is covered if you have a matching uniform of some description as far as i can remember)

Positive points that could come from this :-

1) All civilians in occupied countries are to be considered combatants and are therefore entitled and deserve the protection of the conventions
2) Guantanamo bay and similar camps would become illegal under international law etc.
3) The US might actually recognise/take notice of international law as it applies in these cases

negative points (i'm sure there are many, but the ones that spring to mind are) :-

1) the removal of the protection for combatants captured/injured
2) The freedom to torture for information
3) the increased use of pre-emptive strikes with no legal basis needed for such action
and so on and so forth....

why is this so called Goverment hell bent on destroying the Reputation of the British Military first they tear away at the heritage and Traditions of the Military now he wants thme to change the the Geneva convention so that they act less like a British Serviceman more like some foreign types

Ach, it does need to be rewritten. But this is because warfare has changed considerably since its creation. It's difficult to tell what Mr. Reid wants, but international terrorism and guerrilla warfare is perhaps one of the biggest changes in warfare since camouflage.

I agree. It really does need to be redone. I applaud Mr. Reid for broaching the subject.

Two words: Fuck Reid.
The explanation? We may see change as necessary, but do we want to see the sort of change that removes.... well, everything right about it? Do we want to see PoWs unprotected? Do we want things like Abu Ghraib to be legal in international law? Because, given the Blair government's record on such matters, that'd be what he really wants.

I agree. It really does need to be redone. I applaud Mr. Reid for broaching the subject.

Yes, by all means, let's give them the right to rape, pillage, plunder and kill, as Bush wants. Including Civilians. That way we won't need to fight the terrorists anymore, because we'll be joining them.

Hei, who is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world?

Hei, who is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world?

Iran!

Yes, by all means, let's give them the right to rape, pillage, plunder and kill, as Bush wants. Including Civilians. That way we won't need to fight the terrorists anymore, because we'll be joining them.

Now can you point to the part of the article that states that is what they want to do please?

John Reid demanded sweeping changes to international law yesterday to free British soldiers from the restraints of the Geneva conventions...
Why? For what purpose?
...and make it easier for the west to mount military actions against other states.
Dangerous territory. And I can't help but notice that he wants to make it easier only "for the west"?
Mr Reid noted that last year Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, advised that force could be used only against imminent attack, that it must only be used as a last resort, and that it must be proportionate.

"But what if another threat develops?", Mr Reid asked. "Not al-Qaida. Not Muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment." Terrorist groups were trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, he said.
I have no idea what he sees as troubling with current international law. Although I agree that international law concerning the use of force in some areas might need some tweaking, Mr Reids arguements come across as weak or non-existing. I don't know whether it's because of this article or it's because of Mr Reid though.
Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford University, said: "Some of the biggest coalition problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq have come from failures of the coalition to observe basic norms on certain matters, especially with regard to treatment of prisoners.

"Dr Reid is certainly right to raise the question of whether we need new rules in face of imminent attack. This problem above all requires confidence in government and coalition decision-making processes - confidence that has sadly been undermined by Iraq."
I agree with Sir Roberts on this matter.

Iran!
Ah, yes, well... not quite. A little closer to where I guess your home is.

One would think that a Scot might look to some incidents in his own nations past and see why its really a bad idea. But that would require a level of empathy that seems to be entirely missing from these people.

That's New Labour for you, ****ers with no sense of morality or empathy.

Ah, yes, well... not quite. A little closer to where I guess your home is.

Sorry but I"m not on the other side of the Atlantic nor in the Middle East or in Asia, Central or South America, nor in Africa. They are nowhere near where I live.