>The flaws are pointed out here:
>
>http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/ISILYBIHRL/2001/11.html
>
>You may find it interesting.
>
>Also from http://uspolitics.about.com/od/antiterrorism/i/geneva_conv_2.htm :
>
>The treaties were initially written with state-sponsored military conflicts in mind and emphasize that "combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians." Combatants who fall within the guidelines and who become prisoners of war must be treated "humanely."
>
>According to the International Red Cross:
>Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees.
>However, because terrorists are not clearly distinguishable from civilians, in other words, they are "unlawful combatants," it can be argued that they are not subject to all Geneva Conventions protections.

But one of the main problems here is the terrorist label. Just because the U.S. administration says somebody is a terrorist doesn't make it true. In many cases it probably is, but since when is somebody pointing a finger enough to warrant 'no proof necessary'.

>
>This clearly needs to be resolved. It has also been argued ad naseum here on the UT.
>
>
>>>>I don't see the comparison. Human beings signed and agreed to the Geneva Accords. Why should it be a physical impossibility for them to live up to their word. Is the U.S. administration's word (or any other signatory nation's) worth nothing? If they don't like the Geneva accords, then they should opt out honestly and honourably instead of pretending to the world that they think the accords are righteous while they use weasel words to subvert them.
>>>
>>>The Geneva accords is an agreement between nations to ensure that those nations respect basic rights of prisoners of those nations.
>>>
>>>Which nation that signed the Geneva accords do the terrorists belong to?
>>
>>Since the US is a signator, I dont believe that argument applies when determining applicability of GC. If that were the case, the admin would simply claim that the 'belligerents' were not signators. Instead they were labelled enemy combatants.
>>
>>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. 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.
>>
>>_______________________
>>
>>some commentary on Art 2.
>>
>>There was no discussion, at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, on the Committee's proposal (which did not include the second sentence of paragraph 3); the experience of the Second World War had [p.21] convinced all concerned that it was necessary. But the draft text said nothing about the relations between a belligerent, or belligerents, bound by the Conventions on the one hand, and a belligerent, or belligerents, not bound by it on the other hand. The ' clausula si omnes ' (4) which was included in the 1906 Geneva Convention -- but which was never invoked during the First World War, although it might appropriately have been in the case of Montenegro -- was omitted in 1929. But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument. The ideal solution would obviously have been that all the Parties to a conflict should be obliged to apply
>>the Convention in all circumstances, i.e. even if the adversary was not a party to it, and despite the fact that the Convention would be a ' res inter alios acta ' for the latter.
>>There could be no question of reverting to the ' clausula si omnes ', which had fortunately been abandoned in recent times, since it no longer corresponded to humanitarian needs. The 1929 Convention had already departed from it by stating in the second paragraph of Article 82 that "in time of war, if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto". Thus the provisions concerning prisoners of war were given the binding force of which they had been deprived by the solutions adopted at the Peace Conferences. The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.
>>
>>The two conditions laid down for the non-Contracting Power are that it should ' accept ' and ' apply ' the provisions of the Convention. In the absence of any further indication, there is no reason to assume that "acceptance" necessarily implies an explicit declaration. It can equally well be tacit. It may be implicit in de facto application. These considerations do not in any way minimize the importance of an explicit declaration by the non-Contracting Power. It is, on the contrary, most desirable that the latter should make such a declaration, and with the least possible delay. The International Committee of the Red Cross for its part, when offering its services at the beginning of a conflict, never fails to ask Parties to the conflict which are not legally bound by the Convention to declare their intention of applying it or of observing at least its principles, as the case may be.
>>In practice, any Contracting Power in conflict with a non-Contracting Power will begin by complying with the provisions of the Convention pending the adverse Party's declaration. It will take into account facts above all.