Last I checked, al-Qaeda isn't a party to the Geneva Convention.
Tim Send a noteboard - 18/03/2010 09:16:15 AM
Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Not "one of the High Contracting Parties and anyone else". Two or more of the High Contracting Parties. This is a reciprocal convention – al-Qaeda doesn't get to claim Geneva Convention protection for its fighters unless it either signs up to the Convention itself, or starts acting as though it had.
In Article 4, the word "Party" is capitalised, suggesting that it means "High Contracting Party" (i.e. a signatory to the convention). Even if this isn't the case, and it just means any side in a conflict, the Convention doesn't apply in the first place because the Article 2 conditions aren't met.
Therefore, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to al-Qaeda.
Now, remind me why you think Osama bin Laden is different in the eyes of the law from any other murderer?
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
AG Eric Holder evades questioning
- 17/03/2010 05:34:40 PM
625 Views
Why should he be read miranda rights?
- 17/03/2010 05:50:29 PM
402 Views
Why should location matter when dealing with a borderless threat like al-Qaeda? *NM*
- 17/03/2010 10:20:08 PM
160 Views
You'd rather he walk free on a technicality?
- 17/03/2010 11:28:30 PM
368 Views
Line 1
- 18/03/2010 07:14:56 AM
501 Views
Last I checked, al-Qaeda isn't a party to the Geneva Convention.
- 18/03/2010 09:16:15 AM
431 Views
That only means they are not entitled to its protections - in other words, they are fair game.
- 19/03/2010 10:25:50 PM
367 Views
Well, I guess it depends whether you want to try him, doesn't it?
- 19/03/2010 11:34:34 PM
347 Views
*shrugs*
- 17/03/2010 11:10:47 PM
373 Views
That doesn't seem very logical
- 18/03/2010 12:03:21 AM
453 Views
That is honest and it wouldn't be "dumb" (I assume you actually mean stupid, rather than mute)
- 18/03/2010 12:19:58 AM
418 Views
It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:12:21 AM
317 Views
Re: It is very possible
- 18/03/2010 02:31:59 AM
425 Views
You do remember "I do not recall" Gonzalez right? *NM*
- 18/03/2010 02:38:48 AM
152 Views
Actually not really, I was out of the country for almost his entire tenure
- 18/03/2010 02:41:13 AM
335 Views
Pretty much there was some political firings of Us Attorneys
- 18/03/2010 02:56:01 AM
372 Views
I remember a little of that
- 18/03/2010 03:16:27 AM
355 Views
Gonzales flat out lied to congress
- 18/03/2010 03:29:14 AM
340 Views
Seems he could answer the question without evasion or producing a soundbite
- 18/03/2010 04:12:04 AM
390 Views
I don't think I agree with that.
- 18/03/2010 02:04:48 PM
361 Views
Fair enough
- 18/03/2010 02:40:42 PM
354 Views
You guys are forgetting the intel aspect.
- 18/03/2010 09:40:53 PM
374 Views
do we know how much he actually knows?
- 18/03/2010 09:49:50 PM
349 Views
Kinda hard to find out if he knows anything if he's dead *NM*
- 18/03/2010 09:56:18 PM
164 Views
that was totally not my question 
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
347 Views
- 19/03/2010 12:10:06 AM
347 Views
Most people include congressmen/women don't understand Miranda rights,most people don't know the Law
- 18/03/2010 02:08:10 AM
451 Views
I can understand why he'd want to evade answering.
- 18/03/2010 03:23:04 AM
422 Views
I can understand why statesman would want to avoid painting himself into a corner.
- 29/03/2010 02:26:34 PM
303 Views