It isn't clear from this story exactly what the Bush administration policy now is regarding terrorists and rights under the Geneva Accords. It looks like Bush is asking Congress to clarify the statutes on this issue (read the whole speech here). Theadministration appears to be granting Geneva protections to al Qaeda in response to the Hamdan decision. While it may be prudent to extend these rights to al Qaeda, here are some reasons they don't deserve them.
1. Al Qaeda is not a signatory to Geneva Accords. Ordinarily contractual rights do not extend to parties who are not part of the contract.
2. Al Qaeda is not a nation state, so it therefore cannot be a party to the Accords. It should be noted that having no sovereign authority, al Qaeda does not have the rightful authority to wage war under standard just war theory. For more, see George Weigel on the difference between bellum versus duellum.
3. The purpose of the Accords are to guarantee humane treatment of soldiers. Signatories essentially say, "We promise not to mistreat your people, and thus we expect you not to mistreat ours." A kind of "do unto others" bargain. Granting protections to al Qaeda makes the Accords worthless. If one can get Geneva protections without being a signatory to the Accords, what is the point of anyone signing? Al Qaeda, of course, violates the Accords right and left. Al Qaeda mocks the whole logic of the Accords. They get the all the rights without any of the duties. What's the point in that?
Granting Geneva protection to al Qaeda grants them a legitimacy they do not deserve. I would suggest that Congress pass legislation making it explicit that those who fight for sub-national and supra-national groups do not have a right to Geneva protections. That does not mean we don't grant it to members of such groups as a matter of prudence, but the US would be under no legal requirement to grant such status.
Recent Comments