Article

2006-04-03 Britain

UK defense secretary sez laws of war need to be redrawn

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-04-03 02:57|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2006-04-03 08:54|| Front Page Top

#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">Robert Crawford 2006-04-03 09:24|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-04-03 09:24|| Front Page Top

#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">Seafarious 2006-04-03 09:37|| 2006-04-03 09:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-04-03 09:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-04-03 10:35|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-04-03 22:07|| Front Page Top

23:35 Listen to Dogs
23:10 Listen to Dogs
23:04 Listen to Dogs
22:55 Listen to Dogs
22:52 Listen to Dogs
22:31 Listen to Dogs
21:41 Listen to Dogs
19:57 Listen to Dogs
19:50 Listen to Dogs
19:35 Listen to Dogs
19:17 Listen to Dogs
18:56 Listen to Dogs
18:49 Listen to Dogs
18:46 Listen to Dogs
05:06 Listen to Dogs
04:42 Listen to Dogs
04:22 Listen to Dogs
03:07 Listen to Dogs
02:52 Listen to Dogs
02:57 Listen to Dogs
02:32 Listen to Dogs
02:27 Listen to Dogs
02:23 Listen to Dogs
01:47 Listen to Dogs