Gitmo detainees entitled to Geneva Convention protections

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Taz_786, Jul 11, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Well well well whats led to this U-turn then?

    So they're not "unlawful combatants" anymore?
  2. Now that's what I call an interesting development! I wonder what the US gobment's drills will be from here on in.

  3. Then I hope from now on the policy is to hold the enemy to the terms of the same Geneva Convention when on the battlefield. No uniform? Lights out. Targeting civilians? Lights out. It would certainly make things a whole lot easier...

    (Not condoning summary justice... blah blah blah... etc etc etc)
  4. Do the conventions give a recommendation of a death sentence for those crimes, stoats????

    Surely a long stay at the Iraqi Presidents convenience (a la NI terrorists) would be a much bigger deterrent to those thinking of kicking off. No 72 virgins, just some grizzled old muhajadeen to light up their nights for 20 odd years.
  5. Not sure. Will have a look. But people who themselves break the conventions are certainly not entitled to its protection.
  6. Looks like the only requirement really is a fair trial, after which any legal sanction available to the prosecuting state can be applied. people have certainly been executed legally for being illegal combatants in the past.

    I now defer to people with a formal education in this topic...
  7. Generally though, bumping the buggers off (even legally) enthuses some young scroat to jump up and down and join the insurgents. Giving them half a lietime away from mother and the next twit will think twice before going a jihading