Comments on: “They Had To Be Vigorous In Interrogation, But Vigorous Within The Law” http://washingtonindependent.com/584/they-had-to-be-vigorous-in-interrogation-but-vigorous-within-the-law National News in Context Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:40:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: gregsanders http://washingtonindependent.com/584/they-had-to-be-vigorous-in-interrogation-but-vigorous-within-the-law/comment-page-1#comment-2947 gregsanders Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:25:46 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=584#comment-2947 This isn't that unusual of a distinction. The Taliban governed a large majority of Afghanistan pre-invasion so they were treated as a national military. Al Qaeda is by any definition a non-state actor. Many Geneva protections are focused on traditional militaries and inter-state conflict. Protocol II of the Geneva Convention would extend some of these protections to intra-state conflict and non-state actors, but while the U.S. has signed it we have not ratified it.<br><br>That said, there are still protections for civilians in the Geneva conventions and my international law prof argued that civilians and combatants is an either-or distinction. In any event the U.N. Convention against Torture would certainly still apply. This isn't that unusual of a distinction. The Taliban governed a large majority of Afghanistan pre-invasion so they were treated as a national military. Al Qaeda is by any definition a non-state actor. Many Geneva protections are focused on traditional militaries and inter-state conflict. Protocol II of the Geneva Convention would extend some of these protections to intra-state conflict and non-state actors, but while the U.S. has signed it we have not ratified it.

That said, there are still protections for civilians in the Geneva conventions and my international law prof argued that civilians and combatants is an either-or distinction. In any event the U.N. Convention against Torture would certainly still apply.

]]> By: gregsanders http://washingtonindependent.com/584/they-had-to-be-vigorous-in-interrogation-but-vigorous-within-the-law/comment-page-1#comment-591 gregsanders Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.washingtonindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=584#comment-591 This isn't that unusual of a distinction. The Taliban governed a large majority of Afghanistan pre-invasion so they were treated as a national military. Al Qaeda is by any definition a non-state actor. Many Geneva protections are focused on traditional militaries and inter-state conflict. Protocol II of the Geneva Convention would extend some of these protections to intra-state conflict and non-state actors, but while the U.S. has signed it we have not ratified it. That said, there are still protections for civilians in the Geneva conventions and my international law prof argued that civilians and combatants is an either-or distinction. In any event the U.N. Convention against Torture would certainly still apply. This isn’t that unusual of a distinction. The Taliban governed a large majority of Afghanistan pre-invasion so they were treated as a national military. Al Qaeda is by any definition a non-state actor. Many Geneva protections are focused on traditional militaries and inter-state conflict. Protocol II of the Geneva Convention would extend some of these protections to intra-state conflict and non-state actors, but while the U.S. has signed it we have not ratified it.

That said, there are still protections for civilians in the Geneva conventions and my international law prof argued that civilians and combatants is an either-or distinction. In any event the U.N. Convention against Torture would certainly still apply.

]]>