You said:
"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it."
and
"The Taliban were not the recognized Government of Afghanistan"
You are confusing the meaning of the words "State" and "government".
Afghanistan is a State, and that State had signed the Geneva Conventions. Nationals of that State, therefore, are protected by it (or at least that's what the treaty says). This is true, no matter what government that State has, or who does or doesn't recognize it. This is true, until they withdraw from the Treaty, which Afghanistan never did.
Let's turn this around, to make it obvious. Let's say some U.S. soldiers accidentally cross the border, and are captured by Iran. To make it realistic, let's say this happens after Iran gets some nukes. They wouldn't dare do this, till then. So, then, the Iranians say: "We don't have to follow the Geneva Conventions with American prisoners. The Bush Government is illegal, we don't recognize them as the legitimate government of the United States. The fact the the State (United States) signed the Geneva Conventions long ago, doesn't matter. The Bush Government didn't sign it, and they are illegal anyway, so we are going to murder prisoners just like America does at Bagram Air Base, and hold them forever, just like America does at Guantanamo."
This, or something similar, is what we are setting ourselves up for, by our extremely creative interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. |
