Reid Wants The Geneva Convention Rewritten

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Mr_Fingerz, Apr 4, 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. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

  2. "But what if another threat develops?", Mr Reid asked. "Not al-Qaida. Not Muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment."

    Perhaps Reid could do with reminding himself of Lenin's dictum - "the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise". If even he is drumming up further fears, it seems the purpose has been achieved.... and that sort of tub-thumping serves merely to do the terrorists' job for them.

    Hey ho - it'll be another gong
  3. How are they going to decide imminence? Since there were no WMD...can the world trust that the intelligence is good enough to launch a pre-emptive strike.

    Don't see why terrorists shoud be exempt from trial; court process doesn' have to be open to general public but there should be a trial. If there is enough evidence to detain someone for four years then there should be ebough evidence ot put him on trial.

    Torture is out. How can you set an example and use torture? I know it is not a level playing field..don't care. I never would want to be in a country that was a signatory to anything that allowed torture. What is the torture when dealing with inter state war but OK if the individual is a terrorist? Bol*cks.
  4. I can see his point, although I don't agree with it. The problem we have is the Geneva Convention was written before a terrorist threat existed as we have now; it was written with general warfare in mind. Unfortunately one of the threats faced now is from extremists (states or groups) who do not have regard for human life including their own. However if we go down the route of lowering our responsibilities we merely play into the hands of those we are supposed to be fighting.
  5. It is true that some islamic terrorists are not behaving as good terrorists did in the past...the IRA did at least phone in warnings which may/may not have given enough tme to save lives. However, terrorism is not new since the Geneva conventions have been written. Who is a freedom fighter adn who is a terrorist. There are some who would have regarded Nelson mandela as a terrorist...are we saying we would now approve of the torture to which he and his followers were subjected? Perhaps John Reid just means Islamic terrorists but not the rest?

    Frankly I think any amendment is a disaster waiting to happen. It would be far better to actively encourage the NGOs that educate the poor which will help to steer them away from extremism. Unemployment in teh young Moslem male is a key to effective recruiting for Al Qae'eda. Additionally the West could force the Palestinians and Israelis to deal with the situation not just keep blaming each other. This situation is a running sore that just continues to allow extremists to target the West and blame us for all of its ills. It won't solve everything but it has got to be the start of a more stable world.
  6. Postie - I don't agree with changing the rules, I can just see Straw's viewpoint (however misguided). Just look at the problems caused by a few scrotes getting a slap in a riot and then compare what would happen if we had state sponsored torture. What happens when a government more corrupt than our current one uses it's new found powers to legally abuse legitimate opponents! Tinfoil hat moment I know!
  7. Yes, it is a tricky one. The Geneva Convention was written by responsible governments to 'regulate' limited and conventional warfare. 'Western' liberal democracies are now facing terrorism, civil unrest and guerilla-warfare in a manner previously unseen, so the issue does need to be addressed, I just don't think that there will be a satisfactory outcome of any conference to write new rules or clauses to the existing rules because there are so many variants that would make legal definitions all but impossible. Like communism, Islam is internationalist, thus the issue of 'foreign fighters' and 'illegal combatants' is disputed by certain Muslims, citing the Islamic brotherhood as their identifying and unifying characteristic rather than the normally accepted concept of nationhood.
  8. It is a bit strange. Recently highly esteemed mr.Reid said:

  9. Do you suspect that his glorious leader told him to say that on proding from his glorious leader :? tin foil hat fits perfectly thank you
  10. More discussion on The Today Programme here...

    A lot of people here seem to think he is suggesting relaxing laws on torture. I haven't seen a transcript of the speech but I doubt that's his intention.

    From the Guardian article...
    Seems like a reasonable idea to me...

  11. No doubt, that mr.Blair is a very skilled politician. Does he understand that any changes that could weaken restrictions imposed by Geneva convention are impossible? Of course he does. Moreover, he understands that even a formal request would be very unprofitable from political point of view (for the UK as well as for USA).

    But mr.Blair needs support from armed forces. He wishes to expose the Labour pary as a defender of British military. In this scenario mr.Reid is playing a role of a carefull father. He could say anything but look not at words, look at concrete actions. If you want changes in the Geneva convention then propose it to other signatories. Without it words are only words.
  12. The best definition I have heard about the various Geneva Conventions is:

    They are the rules by which civilised peoples slaughter each other.
  13. I haven't seen it too and I suspect that the speech has been exposed by Guardian in the wrong way because recently mr.Reid said,,1713992,00.html

  14. Does anyone really trust this buffoon? Why didn't he (or his predecessor) stand up for UK troops dragged before the courts even though the CO had thrown out the charges?