To: FreedomCalls
I just read most of the Convention agreement. I found it interesting. Instead of just speculating, maybe we should all read it. As it turns out, both parties do not have to be signatories for it to apply to the one who has signed it. Right or wrong, like it or not, it is the law of the land.
GE
To: GrandEagle
Couple things, the Taliban was not considered a legitimate government, not by the US and not by the
UN:(from 1998)
"The United Nations Tuesday refused to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government for the third time in as many years and kept the U.N. seat with the representative of ousted President Burhanuddin Rabbani."
So the Geneva convention would not be granted to them.
Also, even if they had been a legitimate government, if their soldiers do not abide by the rules of war, ie uniforms, then they are considered spies and all bets are off.
Either way, cremating the dead and insulting the enemy is not a violation of the Geneva convention.
To: GrandEagle
As it turns out, both parties do not have to be signatories for it to apply to the one who has signed it. You misunderstood what I said. It applies to us alright. We have to follow it. But if we follow it, that means we have to apply what it says. IT SAYS that should do not do those things it says we have to do to POWs who do not follow a simple formula. The Taliban do not follow the formula. To apply it means to not give protection to the Taliban. We are following it. We are doing what it says.
It's as if you signed a contract promising to pay union wages to union subcontractors. You hire union subcontractors so you pay the union rate for wages. You then hire another subcontractor who is not union, so you don't pay them union wages. You are still following the contract. It still applies to you even though one side is not a party to the agreement. You are not in violation. You are following the terms of the contract.
In this case, we would be violating the terms of the Geneva Conventions if we extended POW status and the rights and priviledges therein to the Taliban since it says we should not. The whole point of it is to give an incentive to follow the rules and fight in a civilized manner.
129 posted on
10/19/2005 3:18:05 PM PDT by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson