You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
UK defense secretary sez laws of war need to be redrawn
2006-04-03
The laws of war need to be redrawn by the international community, John Reid, defence secretary, will say today, to eliminate the causes of legal anomalies, of which the US detention centre on Guantanamo Bay is the glaring example.

Talking to the Royal United Service Institute for Defence and Security Studies, Mr Reid will argue that the Geneva Conventions, signed in 1949, were written for a world of state-to-state conflict and fail to meet all the needs of today's battles against terrorist groups and insurgents.

"Until recently it was assumed that only states could cause mass casualties and our rules, conventions and laws are largely predicated on that basis," he will say. "That is no longer the case. I believe we now need to debate whether we - the international community in its widest sense - need to re-examine these conventions. If we do not, we risk going on fighting a 21st century conflict with 20th century rules."

One possible move, to which Mr Reid makes an implicit reference, would be to agree a new protocol to the Geneva Conventions to apply the same rules to battles with al-Qaeda-style insurgents, so both sides have a clear duty to obey the standard provisions.
Except that al-Qaeda won't, and hasn't, and wouldn't even if you changed the Convention. This sorta blows the whole theory, doesn't it?
At present the UK and the US say they are not bound by the Geneva Conventions in fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, although the UK obeys its dictates "voluntarily" and that the enemy side is operating in legal limbo.

The US has sought to develop an idea of enemy combatants, who when detained are neither prisoners of war nor ordinary criminals. Extending the conventions would make such fighters subject to criminal proceedings, so ridding the US of any need to detain them in Guantanamo-style centres.
Except that we don't see them as criminals, we see them as terrorists. If they were criminals we'd just return them to Karzai with a sotto-voce hint to dispose of the trouble-makers quickly. They're terrorists, and we're holding them for various reasons, one of the more important being, as long as we hold them, they won't be out there trying to kill Americans.
Mr Reid's speech will focus on updating the international legal system to deal not only with modern terrorism but also with issues of potential genocide and responses to imminent threats.
Sure, that'll go well, just what we need, another definition of 'genocide'. We have one of those already, it's just that no one will do anything about it.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#6  A View From the Eye of the Storm
By Haim Harari
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 15, 2006
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-04-03 22:07  

#5  We don't follow the Geneva rules. We actually detain and later release terrorists. According to the rules, if you aren't wearing a uniform or a symbol of a recongnized country or government, you have no rights and the other side has every right to lynch, shoot or otherwise put you out of their misery.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-04-03 10:35  

#4  I for one look forward to the day when we (the US) follows the letter and spirit of the existing Genevea Conventions that we have already signed.

Of course, that means that anyone caught in the battlefield carrying a weapon, but not wearing a uniform, is, ipso facto, an illegal combatant.
That brings an automatic firing squad after a VERY short tribunal.

When and if al-Quaeda signs and follows the Geneva convention, and their forces start wearing uniforms, protecting non-combatants, and all the other parts of the GC, then we can start treating their "soldiers" as soldiers.
Posted by: Rambler   2006-04-03 09:46  

#3  "Lessee...who's heading the GC rules re-writing committee this month? Is it Algeria or Chad? The US? No sorry, the US will have to sit this one out, I'm afraid, can't have the fox guarding the henhouse, you understand."
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-04-03 09:37  

#2  One possible move, to which Mr Reid makes an implicit reference, would be to agree a new protocol to the Geneva Conventions to apply the same rules to battles with al-Qaeda-style insurgents, so both sides have a clear duty to obey the standard provisions.

*sigh*

There's already a Protocol that would treat al'Qaeda, et. al. the same as regular army -- but the US (and apparently Britain) refused to sign onto the damned thing because it essentialy turns the entire GC into a circle jerk instead of something meaningful.

You can't unilaterally declare that both sides will follow rules. Both sides have to follow them, on their own initiative, and there has to be a penalty for violating them. You can make all the declarations you want, sign all the papers you want, and the terrorists of the world will still be aiming at children, the elderly, non-combatants in general.

There's only one way to put an end to that -- make terrorism and supporting terrorism to freaking dangerous that anyone even putting the idea forward is lynched by his neighbors.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-04-03 09:24  

#1  I couldn't agree more, we need new rules. Now, what was the penalty for those who don't follow the rules of war ? Cartoons would be made ? Name calling ? Scarlet letters issued ?
We need a phukan reality check.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-04-03 08:54  

00:00