Originally posted by redmenace
Now this is why I say it is ambiguous:
quote:2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience.
I am of the opinion that this should be explicit.
It is explicitly defined by UN convention such as the Universal Convention of Human Rights, the UN Convention against Torture, etc. Essentially the same conventions which are intended to stop your government torturing you, or detaining you without trial.
I'd point out that
no-one in Gitmo is a terrorist. Because the fundamental principle of US law (although if charged as civillians they are, IIRC, really under the jurisdiction of the Afghani government) is 'innocent until proven guilty'. You've made a broad, sweeping generalisation which has no supporting evidence about the support of Gitmo prisoners supporting the Taliban. For example, the US paid the Northern Alliance bounties upon delivery of Al-Queda terrorists; there was no requirement for the NA to actually bring genuine terrorists, and indeed IIRC there is evidence they simply abducted innocent civillians.
A second point is that being an enemy combatant, is not in itself a crime; regardless of how reprehensible the army giving them orders. That is a fundamental principle of the Geneva Convention; it's akin to why Nurmeburg charged Nazis responsible for war crimes, and not every German who ever served in the military.
A third point is that, when anyone says 'it's us or them', then the automatic reaction is to go with 'them'; because - and I'm sorry if this is an insult - it's only an imbecile who views the world in such terms of black and white. With that attitude, you fuel the 'us and them' arguement of the other side, just as they fuel yours.
