There are about 150 signatories to the 4th Geneva Convention accords, and they are all soveriegn countries. Non-soveriegn insurgents are outside its' scope.
There were some new protocols added in 1977 to deal with anti-colonial wars, but less than half of the signatories signed up for those. Most sovereign countries don't want to be constrained by the rules of war when it comes to rebels.
It is essentially that now. Hezbullah is not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Right. Neither are the detainees at Gitmo. But the Federal courts recently ruled that they must be treated as if they are. This is a very fluid issue.
There are no formal rules that Israel must obide by in fighting Hezbullah.
Technically correct. However, this seems to be a major world secret. Only a few weeks ago, the world press was wailing and gnashing their teeth because of what they called Israel's "disproportionate response".
If ya get enough people making up new rules and people listen, before long everybody thinks it's a real rule. And of course, any new rule that goes to the detriment of western civilization is automatically supported by all the little piss-ant dictatorships in the UN.
But the civilized world still expects civilized behavior. Israel can't go in and commit genocide against Lebanon, because Hezbullah operates on their territory, even though Hezbullah is not covered by the Geneva Convention.
No, I wasn't suggesting that. I suggested they wipe out Hezbollah, not Lebanon. However, that would conceivably include Lebanese members of Hezbollah, and their infrastructure related to their fighting capability.
Lebanon is either a soveriegn country or it's not. And right now it's not, it can't control it's own territory, and has ceded the right to use military force against another country to Hezbollah.
Now, if the reason for that is military weakness on the part of the Lebanese, they would welcome Israel coming in and liberating their country from the bandits who control the south.
But I think that "poor Lebanon is a victim" stuff has proved itself to be folly. I think that to a very great degree, Hezbollah IS Lebanon. If the Lebanese army takes sides with Hezbollah against the Israelis, well, it's just a war between Israel and Lebanon.
I never got clear on exactly what the courts ruling meant. But an explanation from Cornell University on the Supreme Court ruling, follows. I understand this to mean first, that there must be a proper judicial process to determine the status or the detainees and that they are under the convention's protection until that judicial process determins they are not. In other words, the military can detain them but can't determine their status relative to the Geneva convention unilaterally, a court must do that. And secondly, that the tribunals as proposed by the Bush administration lacked certain rights of redress that wouldn't have fit under either scenario, that of a Geneva POW or under U.S. Military law for a tribunal for a non-Geneva POW.
"that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear."