Do the Geneva Conventions Cover Terrorists?

Two questions:

1) Do the Geneve Conventions protect terrorists? This is a question of fact.

2) Should the Geneva Conventions protect terrorists? This is a question of opinion.

I'll let Ace answer the latter first:

There are many reasons to object to extending Geneva Convention protections with full force to those, like Islamicists, who delight in cruelty and inhumanity. But one reason is psychological in nature, and nevertheless worth considering.

We cannot agree with the Islamists that we are subhuman and only they are entitled to honorable and humane treatement. We must insist, particularly with these racist thugs who consider those who do not share in their creed to be animals, that honor is based on reciprocal conduct and by compact.

We cannot agree that their status as fervent Islamists makes them our superiors and creates obligations towards them that they do not extend in return towards us.

For, if we do, are we not confirming their racist beliefs? Are we not telling them that we are, just as they believe, inferior to them by God's decree, and as such, fit only for slaughter or subjugation?

Do I have to even say read the rest?

So, the answer to #2 is no, terrorist [my word] ought not be covered by the Geneva Conventions. But are they covered? This is a question of fact.

The Conventions apply to all prisoners of war. Should we consider Islamist insurgents prisoners of war? Let's see if they meet the conditions of a prisoner of war according to Article 4:2 of the Conventions:

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Do the brave mujahidin wear uniforms or other regalia recognizable at a distance? No, they do not. Unless, of course, one considers Addidas knock-offs a distinctive sign. There's a reason those involved in armed conflict are required to wear uniforms: to protect non-combatents. Blending in with local civilians may be good strategy for assymetrical warfare, but it is also a recipe for getting a lot of civilians killed. The only people who can be rightly blamed for so many civilian deaths in Iraq are insurgents who do not follow the rules of war.

Do they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war? Do the Conventions talk about what these laws and customs might be? Why, yes, they do. Including this from Article 3:1 which prohibits:

b) Taking of hostages

The mujahidin aren't guilty of that, are they?

Further, from the Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

So, all of those alleged violations at Gitmo? Throw them out the window.

And Article 68 of the above Convention distinguishes between normal acts of resistance in an occupied zone and what the media likes to call insurgents--those dressed as civilians who engage in military operations:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment

And when a member of the resistance is engaged in espionage, sabotage, or killing?

may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons

Of course, all this only applies if the person is 'protected'--meaning a civilian or a uniformed member of an armed force. The Conventions are explicitly not extended to those who engage in acts outside the generally accepted rules of war.

The Additional Protocal is even more specific about who is and who is not a combatent, protected by the Conventions. Article 43: 1:

The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates....[they] shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict

While I'm sure Zarqawi and co. have some sort of internal discipline, it would be hard to argue that they enforce the rules of war.

Article 44: 3 conitnues:

In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Insurgents do not carry their arms openly. In fact, they try their hardest to blend in with the civilian population.

Burying an IED in the dead of night, wearing civilian clothes, cannot be considered within the rules of war. Detonating that IED with a cell phone while blending in with a crowded market is also outside the bounds.

This does not mean that such prisoners ought to be summarily executed, but that they lose their 'POW' status.

But wait, there's more. Various reports indicate that the muj are, in fact, substantially rewarded for their efforts. That they are mercinaries. And mercinaries, according to Article 47:

shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

The Conventions, as Ace mentions in his post, are built upon mutual obligations. When one side has no regard for rules of war, the protections of those rules no longer apply to them.

The Conventions should not apply to Islamist insurgents, and they do not.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:02 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1162 words, total size 8 kb.