Oh, that's certainly true. I wasn't asking about the legal aspect of it, I understand that the Geneva convention was drawn up to deal with conflict between nation states. In that respect it is somewhat dated as a lot of todays conflict is not between nation states. At least not directly (sometimes through proxies like US backing of Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan against the USSR).
What I meant was what is the logic/morality behind your stance. You indicated that you felt there was a big difference between people that wear a uniform and people that don't and presumably between those backed by a recognized country and those that are not. What are the big differences and why do you think they matter so? Would it make a difference if, say, all Al Queda fighters wore the same headscarf so they could be identified from a civilian population? Or would you still say they don't count because they aren't sponsored by a country? What about groups like Hamas that are fighting for a sort of nation-state that is somewhat recognized? Do they deserve protection under the Geneva Convention? And what about situations like CIA fixers that were sent into places like Afghanistan before ground troops, undercover? They aren't wearing uniforms but they are from a recognized country. I haven't decided how I feel on all the issues. I think that the Geneva Convention is a good place to start for everyone. At the same time, I can see how things are different when you are fighting a conventional war with concentrations of troops versus an insurrection where it is difficult to tell the difference between combatants and civilians. My gut instinct tells me though that the phrases "illegal combatant" and "enemy combatant" make no sense. If someone is trying to kill you, they are probably your enemy. And if they are trying to kill you, legal versus illegal is not a useful distinction. I'm not sure that I see a good reason to distinguish between types of people that are trying to kill us in terms of how we treat them. I'm happy to listen though. Judah On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Rastafari <[email protected]> wrote: > > LRSScout, please respond to this... please. > > however, i will as well. > > i *believe* part of the geneva convention states that the lack of one, > constitutes > the lack of belonging to an organized military unit, therefore, you > are not subject > to protection under its auspices > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Out of curiosity, why? Why does a uniform matter? Why is organized >> violence more worthy of protection and understanding than less >> organized violence? >> >> Judah >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Rastafari <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> i think that that line goes away when >>> they are not part of an army. when they are just >>> rogue problems, terrorists-evil do'ers if you will, >>> then all that goes out the window, they dont play >>> fair, they dont wear uniforms, they dont get that >>> treatment, at least from what i think :) >>> >>> tw >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:287489 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
