Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:50:56 PM
I think one of the best things any nation could do today is renounce the Geneva Conventions and all the other "rules of warfare" agreements.
I know some are shocked, and others nodding in agreement, so let me explain.
First, only a few nations actually abide by these rules. The NVA did not treat prisoners in accordance with the conventions, neither did North Korea. I doubt many of the middle eastern states we are likely to fight in the near future will abide by the rules, nor will Hugo Chavez if his regime is threatened. So, by signing these accords, we set ourselves up to be prosecuted in international courts, while gaining no advantage. Perhaps the rules made sense when the thought was "if we abide by them so will our enemies", but now the reality is "we will be prosecuted by the international courts for the slightest infringement while our enemies will blatantly ignore them."
Second, as with all law, the "human rights" agitators have begun to reinterpret the laws to be ever more broad. For example, the terrorists captured in Afghanistan would have been subject to summary execution under the interpretation we gave the conventions in the 1940's, today, not only are they supposed to be accorded full POW status, but some argue they should have the full rights of US citizens accused of a crime. If we continue to remain signatories to the conventions, and the interpretations become ever more broad, it is inevitable we will find ourselves frequently in technical violation of the present interpretation. This only serves to give our enemies propaganda victories, provides media fodder for antiwar protesters, and demoralizes our troops, who are now painted as war criminals.
Third, the rules are just thoroughly inadequate for dealing with the terrorists we now face. Maybe if we kept the 1940's interpretation, which called combatants out of uniform "spies" and exempted them from protections accorded either combatants or civilians, we would be fine. Now, however, many are no longer comfortable with those rules and want to treat terrorists as combatants, or even as civilians. How are we to fight a war if a man can fire a rifle, kill our troops, then drop the rifle and be declared "off limits"? The conventions, as many want to interpret them, tie our hands in fighting non-traditional warfare.
So, if they offer us no protection as our enemies will not provide reciprocal guarantees, and they serve only to provide propaganda to our enemies and hamstring our soldiers, why do we remain a signatory to these antiquated rules?