Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions  (Read 11074 times)

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2004, 11:34:27 AM »
The convention applies even when war is not formally applied.
I agree that it should be amended to include terrorists.


How would you define terrorists?

There is not technical "war" in Iraq or anywhere with the US for that matter. Congress is the only one that can declare war and they have not done so.

The Geneva Convention should be amended to include terrorists.  Even constitutions have amendments, so are we to say that the Geneva Convention is all powerful and immune to change?

Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2004, 11:43:06 AM »
I would define a terrorist as one who employs terroristic activities for personal or political gain.  Now we have to define terroristic activities.  This is a term that would be very broad and inclusive indeed.  One might find it difficult to do so without being very specific and general at the same time. 
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2004, 11:48:01 AM »
I would define a terrorist as one who employs terroristic activities for personal or political gain.  Now we have to define terroristic activities.  This is a term that would be very broad and inclusive indeed.  One might find it difficult to do so without being very specific and general at the same time. 

Then it would be difficult if not impossible to create a legal agreement or law dealing with terrorists.  If you can't define the crime, you can't enforce law.  Instead of saying terrorist, you could just as well say enemy of the state.

Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2004, 12:05:51 PM »
I wouldn't say that is was impossible...just difficult.  It can be done, but I doubt that it ever will be. 
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2004, 12:08:26 PM »
I wouldn't say that is was impossible...just difficult.  It can be done, but I doubt that it ever will be. 

If you can't define terrorist how can you do it?  Has anyone offered a definition for terrorist?

Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2004, 12:18:05 PM »
I just did....read a few posts back.  It's their actions that would be difficult to define because terrorism has, inherently, a wide array of possibilities.
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #16 on: June 03, 2004, 12:52:07 PM »
I just did....read a few posts back.  It's their actions that would be difficult to define because terrorism has, inherently, a wide array of possibilities.

The definition of terrorism is that it can be many things?

Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2004, 01:03:01 PM »
You asked to define "terrorist"...not "terrorism".  I was referring to my definition of a terrorist. 
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2004, 01:06:30 PM »
You asked to define "terrorist"...not "terrorism".  I was referring to my definition of a terrorist. 

That only begs the question.  It is too vague for any practical use.  Thus far terrorist seems to mean anyone who uses violence in an unapproved way.

Jeremy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • I see you...
    • View Profile
    • Jeremyandlaw
    • Email
Re: The Common Plan to Violate the Geneva Conventions
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2004, 01:12:44 PM »
I think, given todays stand on terrorism, "terrorism" being difficult to define, could easily be blown out of proportion and the Patriot Act could very easily violate the constitutional rights that we're all granted.
The ability to reason is a magnificant thing.  The ability to ignore this ability is even more amazing.