Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
If we consider ourselves bound by the GC (and I think we do), but the people who have been mistreated do not, by the terms of the GC themselves, qualify for their protections, why would the GC be pertinent? Can't we simply speak in terms of decent or indecent conduct?
|
Well, if we're going down that line of argument, isn't it easier to say that while Iraq and Afghanistan were signatories to the GC, the resistance movement doesn't represent the government or people of those nations, and thus the combatants are not entitled to the protections of a treaty they (and their "government") have not ratified?
Threaded Mode