He is mistaken. States, not governments, sign the Geneva Convention (and all other treaties). This should be self-evident. When the U.S. changes from a Democratic to a Republican-run government, do all treaties become void? (No, not unless the Republican is GWB.)
Actually, I was... I should have said STATE, not government. And thank you for that correction. It's what I was meaning at the time I wrote, but they are not always synonymous.
But Bush DID recognize that the Taliban forces were covered under the Geneva convention:
newsmax.com
But such protection DID NOT extend to Al-Qaeda related forces, or other illegal combatants not directly affiliated with the Taliban.
And now that the Taliban ARE NOT LONGER the government of Afghanistan, they are illegal combatants unless they maintain some kind of organized military and governmental structure "in exile" and their soldier wear clearly designated uniforms and insignia displaying their status as legitimate combatants.
But one more point that should be made clear, and which is a failing of the current Geneva convention structure. When a new government assumes control over a country, it should be incumbent upon them to reassert that they will abide by the Geneva conventions, not merely expect to be treated themselves in such accordance.
The Geneva conventions are a contract between states. And for any contract to be valid, it must be sustained and enforced by both parties.
Hawk |
