If terrorists have rights in the Geneva Convention(s), then why even have them? I thought the point of the Conventions was to give men reasons to “behave” in wartime treatment of other armies, civilians and prisoners. There is problem if we treat terrorists like POWs, which is part of what the left is trying to do.
No uniform = No Convention
My comment is in answer to a statement by another Freeper, who thinks we committed terrorism by violating the 8th Amendment, and Foreign Terrorists have no right to US Constitution protection.
“The article of the Geneva Convention bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs”
Who were we at war with, Iraq? We took down Sadaam Hussein, and how many of those terrorists captured were from Iraq?
A group of Terrorists known as Al Queda were captured from various nations, and although we invaded Iraq over WMDS, we were not at war with the citizens of Iraq, but Hussein and sons human rights violations.
At the same time we were dealing with the group of Terrorists who attacked us, and at that time there was no nation claiming the terrorists, nor had any nation stated they supported Al Queda.
ISIS is a state claimed caliphate; with whom we would have ‘prisoners of war’ (POWs). ISIS has declared war on us...so I am in agreement with the drone attacks....don’t take prisoners.
What we had in Bush terms were terrorists aka ‘enemy combatants’ from a group at war with us.... a separate issue from Iraq itself?
So we have no obligation under the Geneva Conventions in my opinion with groups of terrorists, although McCain and others may think so, because wasn’t the GC meant to provide for nation to nation soldier conflicts with citizens of those nations.
As part of a roaming group with no GC nation, unless we are at war with them, then what if they are operating outside of their home nations approval, then do they qualify for GC protection?
A ‘terrorists group’ declaration of war on America? That doesn’t fit in the explanation of Geneva Convention coverage does it?
Now, what will that mean for ISIS terrorists we capture? As they have declared a national Caliphate? Al Queda was not a nation, but a group, so would they qualify under GC?
This is just my opinion, however, I am not an attorney. I agree that soldiers are POWs and under the GC protection.
If they qualify for GC protection, they should have it.
If terrorist groups do not, then what’s the point of this torture report, it’s bogus?
Bush took the care to hire attorney’s familiar with international law and GC.....and they said it was legal. On what did they base it? I think something similar.