Applying the Geneva Conventions to Terrorists

The Geneva Conventions are essentially treaties stating that prisoners of war are to be treated humanely. If opposing military personnel are ill or hurt, the soldier is to receive treatment.  Countries agree to these treaties and are seen as binding in times of war and peace.

In 2003, during the war in Iraq, the US military found it increasingly difficult to identify the “bad guy”. He did not wear a military uniform. He did bomb at will, ambush American soldiers, and carry out sniper raids. How was the US to handle such warfare tactics when one is not sure who is carrying out the consistent and deadly acts?

John Yoo, assistant to the attorney general, wrote a set of torture procedures that were to be considered adaptable and useful for interrogation. Depriving the prisoner of sleep, using dogs to scare the prisoner, putting him in stressful positions; all were considered acceptable means to obtain information. He saw the 9/11 attack as an act of war.

The Bush Administration approved the use of torture and insisted on its continued use to secure information and curtail the insurgency. Ultimately, the Geneva Conventions were seen as a legitimate treaty compilation but one that did not apply to the war in Iraq of 2003.