Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention

[Duncan Frissell]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Jim Dixon wrote:

> Conventionally, in order to be a prisoner of war you have to be a
> soldier.  To be considered a soldier, you have to be in uniform
> and you have to be part of an organized military force, meaning
> that you have a rank and, unless you are the commander in chief, you
> have  a superior to report to.  This is an essential requirement,
> because PoWs are supposed to be handled through their own chain of
> command.

In addition, in order to be covered by the parts of the Geneva Convention
dealing with POWs, you have to be soldiering for a signatory state.
Afghanistan signed the Covention a few decades ago but I don't know if the
Taliban would be covered.

> In the second world war, people out of uniform but carrying guns
> were often just shot out of hand.  If taken prisoner, they weren't
> treated as prisoners of war but as spies, bandits, or terrorists.
> Some of us remember the chief of police in Saigon dealing out summary
> justice during the Tet offensive on this basis: the VC wasn't in
> uniform, so he just shot him, right in front of all of those
> cameramen.
>
> Those fighting on behalf of the Taleban appear to be an unorganized
> militia - no uniforms, no ranks, no saluting, just guns and lots of
> spirit.  You can't make them PoWs because they don't recognize any
> chain of command.

The reverse of this BTW is that civilians defending their homes against
"unlawful combatants" are in the best position.  They aren't bound by the
Geneva Convention either and can use "expanding rifle ammo" (dum-dums) and
other goodies.  If civilians are defending against irregulars (say Al
Quida troops on the streets of New York) they don't have to accept
surrender offers and can be pretty much as nasty as they want.

DCF
----
War was invented to restore to men in agrigultural societies the
legitimate excuse to get away from home that hunting had provided in
hunter-gatherer societies.