Thanks…although I was not restricting the time frame of such actions as “lately”. Certainly since after Korea it has been the pattern. America is just another Empire and uses the same means of expanding or at least maintaining its strength as most others.
Very well put notquitekarpov!
There seems to be a near religious fervor to americans wanting to be seen as the “Good Guys”. To be the bestest thing that ever happened to the planet. There seems to be a genuine will to play nice, to play by the rules.
It is however frightening to see how easy it is for the US to trash rules and treaties as soon as there is some profit to be gained. The reaction to breaking the rules usually isn’t ‘Oh dear, these people broke the rules, they should be punished’ but there seems to be some sort of self-identification.
The perpetrators were American, this will destroy the image of “Goodness”, therefore they are either a fluke (best not to play it up) or well, there must be something wrong with the rules. If the rules are wrong, we haven’t done wrong.
So either the meaning of the words must be spun to mean something else or the whole thing is just outdated and doesn’t really apply to the modern world.
Indeed this is not a thing that only started lately.
This has been going on ‘as long as the grass grows and the rivers flow’
US Army regulation 190-8 clearly also needs ‘updting’ since it is being violated on such a regular basis. It clearly sets out that anyone captured by US forces are given POW status by default until a relevant authority such as a 3 officer tribunal changes it by due process of law (ie. not by simply ‘saying so’).
Apolgies, I should have warned that the US Army regs link above is an ENORMOUS pdf file of some 86 pages.
The most relevant bits are Articles 1-5, 1-6 on page 2 and the glossary on page 32 which tells you what all the abbreviations mean.
I would think rebel forces would be required to hold land, which they don’t seem to be doing, by hiding in civilian population, and dressing in civilian clothes, it would seem that the GC would clasify them as spies, which the GC protections do not apply to anyway.
Also the terrorists are rebels, trying to form the “One World Islamic Nation”, but until the time when they are willing to hold land, they have no official uniform and will always be clasified as spies (as they will always be not in their ‘home country’).
As for what happens when the terrorist actual claim and defend their “One World Islamic Nation”, well think about it, do you think they will honor any treaties anway, or fight by a set of mutially agreed upon rules.
Perhaps my interpertation is a streach for some of you, but it could very well apply as well. And it doesn’t require rewriting it.
That’s not a “loophole.” That’s a fundamental consideration of the Geneva Convention. The drafters very carefully excluded combatants who do not follow the conventions of formal, army-to-army warfare. To wit, if you don’t look and behave like a conventional armed force, you are not entitled to the protections afforded to a conventional armed force by the GC. The GC is the product of the first half of the 20th century, when the paradigm for warfare was formal armies fighting other formal armies. It is ill-equipped to handle the sort of warfare seen in Afghanistan and occupied Iraq, much less the broader fight against al Qaeda terrorism.
But the inapplicability of the Geneva Convention is not really evidence that the GC should itself be amended to deal with the sorts of folks who don’t follow the GC rules. Instead, I’d suggest that a new convention is necessary to formalize and regulate the treatment of unconventional prisoners taken in these modern conflicts. The ad hoc, essentially lawless approach taken by the Bush administration is an invitation to abuse of human rights and a blight on our reputation with the rest of the world.