laviont wrote:
The definition of a prisoner of war must be expanded in our minds to include people other than an army of a country that has had war declared upon them. Why? Because now, we don't wage war on countries, we declare war upon lifestyles and ideologies. If one captures terrorists in a war on terror, are they not prisoners of war?
The way I understand by reading, the Geneva Convention needs no changes.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War wrote:
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.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War wrote:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Feel free to correct me, but by my interpretation any armed organization in a conflict can be treated as an 'army' provided they wear uniforms, don't conceal their weapons, refrain from targeting civilians, and have an effective chain of command.
All jokes about our own 'effective chain of command' aside, I don't feel that many of the organizations currently carrying out so called acts of terrorism comply with all of these requirements.
Source: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights