Actually, any new set of conventions would certainly offer more protection to such folks then they have currently.
You have to realize that the US is being much more lenient then is mandated by the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions mandate that anyone engaging in armed resistance and, essentially, not wearing a uniform, can be stood against the nearest wall and shot. Without recourse.
That's obviously not being done on any large scale. But it is considered perfectly acceptable under international law.
Show me where it says that, because I've read the GCs something like 10 or 12 times now as a result of these threads, and there's nothing like that in it/them I have seen. (also going by the ICRC websites stuff on the issue)
Even non-military terrorists (and, note, you don't need a uniform to be covered by the GC, due to things like resistance groups ala those in occupied europe during WW2) are expressly covered by civil law (for example, terrorists captured in Afghanistan should be charged & held under Afghani law IIRC) and humanitarian law; the latter of which would expressly forbid both torture and summary execution. Even more crucially, both the Geneva conventions
and (in this specific case) the US military officers handbook require that any prisoner even claiming POW status requires a fair and competent tribunal to determine their status in that respect.
(for example;
[q]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. [/q]
Would apply to Iraqi or Afghani insurgents targeting coalition forces and the Iraqi army, albeit not of course those who are bombing civillians or mosques)
The US cannot just line up
anyone against the wall and shoot them under international law, because there is a massive potential for abuse - inherent abuse in a heated combat zone - in giving any such permission.
The 4th Geneva convention (Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) also says;
[q]
Article 3, relating to the legal actions allowed for military forces engaged in fighting, i.e. the US Army
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
[/q]
Ttaking no active part would apply to
any captured individual, even a terrorist; it's an obvious distinction because those taking part tend to be shooting at you, and sadly banning war is outside the Conventions' remit. Also, this reiterates that the GC covers the treatment of all individuals, not just 'legal' regular military combatants. There is not, in actuality a 3rd 'illegal combatant state';
[q] International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: 1958), p. 51 (emphasis in original). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charged with prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the recent conflicts in the Balkans, has explicitly affirmed this principle in a 1998 judgment, stating that
"there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied." Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998).[/q]
Finally, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that forbids torture, etc, also prevents arbitrary removal of those rights. The Us breaks a vast amount of these in Gitmo and in other 'anti terror' actions, such as; (4 would apply if the US brings in execution in the camp, as appears likely with the moves to re-allow execution for military trials/court martials, 8-11 apply to detnetion & extraordinary rendition, as do related movement rights)
[q]
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
[/q]
So there is no such thing as an 'unlawful combatant' under the Geneva convention, and all those detainees are covered as POWs until a fair and competent tribunal is able to assess each individual case; even post that, they are entitled to the civillian protections under the 4th convention (note; 3rd relates to POW treatment, 4th to civvies), and always protected by the various convnetions upon human rights. For the Geneva convention not to apply, the detentions need to be not during a war; in which case not only can the Bush government not claim any special wartime powers, but it also loses any justification for detention it had, as it moves from detention of POWs to outright kidnapping and hostage taking. There would, I imagine, already be an existing major issue with this regarding the rendition of people from territories the US is not at war with (such as from Egypt, Italy, UK), which is probably why they're moved to either 'black' bases such as the rumoured (IIRC) floating cargo-ship prison that once was at Diego Garcia, or to ally countries with less than a... firm view on human rights like Saudi Arabia or even (until the sword rattling towards them began and the US Gov realised it probably would be bad PR to keep doing it) Syria.
