Bloody CNN. They've attempted to do a brief history of the Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. The problem is that they don't know what they are talking about. And me being the angsty me that I am and can be, I'm going to inflict law talk on you froma history student. (Fi, get a blog so you don't have to go to anymore cooperate tax seminars).

There is no one Geneva Convention. There are several, and they have long names such as the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. They were first signed in 1929, after the Hague Conventions of 1908 were shown to be out of date - they didn't look the navy or air crew. The 1929 Geneva Conventions also spelt out the rights of civilians. While they have been updated slightly in 1949 (when people realized something had gone pretty badly wrong in WWII) and 1977, the conventions for prisoners of war remain largely unchanged since 1908 and 1929.

The thing is - the Geneva Conventions relative to the treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to the detainees in Abu Ghraib prison. Why? Well, in order to be classified as a prisoner you have to bear arms, be fighting for a state or nation, and be easily identifiable due to a badge or insignia. Guerilla fighters are not considered to be prisoners of war. Neither, supposedly, can terrorists. Civilians, such as those arrested because of a perceived threat (ie if you are male and aged between 16 and 45), can not be considered to be prisoners of war either. They are protected under different conventions (such as the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians in time of war)

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not support the concept of 'Enemy Combatants'.

I think that there are two main problems. Firstly, people don't really know what they are talking about. If the prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison are not soldiers or POWs, then they are civilians and we should refer to them as such. They should be protected as such. We need to have an alert, aware media that is capable of doing its job.

Secondly, the Geneva Conventions are out of date. They have been out of date for a long time, but in the current climate of pre-emptive terror the anachronisms and paradox's within the conventions are unacceptably dangerous. We cannot have a concept of 'enemy combatants' which denies basic human rights. We cannot have a situation which allows for individuals to slip between the cracks of 'prisoner of war' and 'civilian' status.

What we really need is a code of conduct for soldiers in a time of war.

This, of course, will never happen. We would need the support of the only superpower in the world, and the chance of that happening in this situation are very, very small.

For those that might be interested, the Four different Geneva Conventions are:
Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War