Do terrorists deserve the same Geneva protection as soldiers dressed uniforms?

senior chef

senior chef

Senior Member
In a "normal" war, soldiers of the opposing forces, can be easily identified by their uniforms. Thus, if captured, they are given protection by the Geneva Convention, which spells out precisely how they must be treated.
In WW2, during the Battle of the Bulge, small groups of Germans parachuted behind American lines and were dressed in American uniforms. Those Germans who were captured were executed by firing squad. That was allowed by the Geneva Convention.

Spies, especially those who were caught dressed in civilian clothing, are almost always executed.

Now, what about terrorists ? They do NOT wear any uniform. They are indistinguishable from ordinary innocent civilians. We have seen, time and time again, how people dressed as civilians, become suicide bombers.

If captured, do terrorists deserve the same Geneva protection as soldiers dressed uniform ?
 

hawkdon said:
No...
Click to expand...
Hawkdon, could you please expand on your thoughts ?
What rights, if any, do you believe they deserve ?
For example do you believe they deserve the full protection of our American system of laws ? The right to a full civilian trial and an attorney ?
 

senior chef said:
If captured, do terrorists deserve the same Geneva protection as soldiers dressed uniform ?
Click to expand...
Then, I would ask the question, "Should international terrorists be treated any harsher than domestic terrorists?" If a group of international terrorists attacked the Capitol of the United States and police officers died as a result, should they have the protection of the Geneva Conference? Or, should they be executed?
 
Absolutely Nay! The bleeding hearts out there are always soft on crime. One thing to hold up a store but it's another thing to take a bomb and blow up innocent people. Letting terrorists run around or if caught, getting a slap on the wrist just encourages more and more terrorists having more and more "fun."
 
Patch said:
Then, I would ask the question, "Should international terrorists be treated any harsher than domestic terrorists?" If a group of international terrorists attacked the Capitol of the United States and police officers died as a result, should they have the protection of the Geneva Conference? Or, should they be executed?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure, the Geneva Convention DOES ALLOW for execution of captured terrorists if their crime resulted it innocent deaths. But I could be wrong on this.
 
senior chef said:
I'm pretty sure, the Geneva Convention DOES ALLOW for execution of captured terrorists if their crime resulted it innocent deaths. But I could be wrong on this.
Click to expand...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice permits it yes, but only as proscribed under it.
 
senior chef said:
Now, what about terrorists ? They do NOT wear any uniform. They are indistinguishable from ordinary innocent civilians. We have seen, time and time again, how people dressed as civilians, become suicide bombers.

If captured, do terrorists deserve the same Geneva protection as soldiers dressed uniform ?
Click to expand...


Very interesting subject. It would take many pages of discussion to fully analyze the matter and to come up with lawful conclusions. Terrorists are not legally combatants since they are civilians. On that basis they would normally get the same treatment criminals get when they engage in mass murder or arson. However, a few years ago a Federal law was created which defines terrorism and imposes retributive measures for anyone convicted of these crimes.

But here's a problem: the USA never declared war on Afghanistan. The Taliban was that country's lawful government though the USA and UN refused to admit to it. The Taliban never declared war on the West. On that basis, is the Taliban required to recognize any American or Western soldier captured by them as a combatant? Or can they treat them as criminals? The Taliban (so far as I know) did not sign the Geneva Convention. Thus, any soldier captured by them is cooked. It will be very interesting to see how they treat collaborators who betrayed their country in favor of the invading USA and West.
 
I was referring to terrorists in general. Not only the Taliban.

Hypothetical situation: The NSA uncovers a plot to blow up another U.S Embassy in say Egypt. The FBI and others swing into action and capture the terrorists in , say, Uganda. The house they lived in was a bomb making factory with numerous completed bombs.

Now, what to do with them ?
 
One thing that really bothers me is that terrorists have no laws to obey. No country to oversee their behavior. They can do anything they feel like doing. BUT, America is bound by laws. We are expected to treat terrorists just like we do American citizens. That puts America at an extreme disadvantage.
 
So where do we stand? Sounds like a lot of dancing around the subject and/or avoiding the uncomfortable question.

Someone or some group, domestic or foreign, carries out an attack or action, within our territory, death resulting. Are they deserving of the exact same punishment, or do we make exceptions depending on whether they are "foreigners" or "native sons" ?
 
Patch said:
Then, I would ask the question, "Should international terrorists be treated any harsher than domestic terrorists?" If a group of international terrorists attacked the Capitol of the United States and police officers died as a result, should they have the protection of the Geneva Conference? Or, should they be executed?
Click to expand...
...like what actually happened on January 6th. Execution for the participants and the instigator(s).
 
DaveA said:
So where do we stand? Sounds like a lot of dancing around the subject and/or avoiding the uncomfortable question.

Someone or some group, domestic or foreign, carries out an attack or action, within our territory, death resulting. Are they deserving of the exact same punishment, or do we make exceptions depending on whether they are "foreigners" or "native sons" ?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Interesting thought. Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 Trade Center bomber was later captured in Pakistan . He was brought back to the U.S., tried and convicted. He is now serving a life sentence, without any possibility of parole, in our most severe prison... Florence Colorado Federal Maximum.
Exactly the same as Ted Kazinski the UNABOMBER who is a U.S. citizen.
 
I dunno, terrorist blows himself up am I gonna say he should have been executed? or the local dude that shoots up a mcdonalds?
 
senior chef said:
I was referring to terrorists in general. Not only the Taliban.

Hypothetical situation: The NSA uncovers a plot to blow up another U.S Embassy in say Egypt. The FBI and others swing into action and capture the terrorists in , say, Uganda. The house they lived in was a bomb making factory with numerous completed bombs.

Now, what to do with them ?
Click to expand...
Strip em and make them smell each others underwear. :)
 
senior chef said:
One thing that really bothers me is that terrorists have no laws to obey. No country to oversee their behavior. They can do anything they feel like doing. BUT, America is bound by laws. We are expected to treat terrorists just like we do American citizens. That puts America at an extreme disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Devi said:
There is always Guantanamo Bay ...
Click to expand...



The USA did not feel compelled to obey international law in Abu Ghraib or in the Nisour Square Massacre. These were atrocities that should have been redressed with the firing squad. Instead, one got only slaps on the wrist and the other got a pardon by Trump. This is sheer political terrorism. There is just no other way to look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top