Does Common Article 2 of the GC apply to al Qaida?

In summary: It has to be just the two countries involved in the treaty. In this case, the United States and Afghanistan. So once the Bush Administration notified the ICRC (the international humanitarian organization), it was legally obligated to follow through. There is no getting out of it.I don't get how you could "test the waters" with something like that if you're not currently at war.
  • #36
jreelawg said:
Aren't we officially at war with terrorism, not Afghanistan? .
We are also at;
war on drugs
war on poverty
war on crime
war on want
and possibly war on broccoli
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
mgb_phys said:
We are also at;
war on drugs
war on poverty
war on crime
war on want
and possibly war on broccoli

Is that a war on drugs, or a war, on drugs?Anyways, if we weren't officially at war, then we would not be aloud to imprison the people in the first place without a trial. If they are to be treated as civilians, then they should be aloud to have a lawer and a trial before being punished.

I have a feeling that the Bush administration is going to look pretty bad when they release a bunch of innocent people from torture camps.
 
  • #38
We also do a war, on drugs - http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/gopills.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
"One of the earliest uses of methamphetamine was during World War II when the German military dispensed it under the trade name Pervitin.[5] It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel. Chocolates dosed with methamphetamine were known as Fliegerschokolade ("flyer's chocolate") when given to pilots, or Panzerschokolade ("tanker's chocolate") when given to tank crews. From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler may have been given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell as a treatment for depression and fatigue. It is possible that it was used to treat Hitler's speculated Parkinson's disease, or that his Parkinson-like symptoms which developed from 1940 onwards were related to use of methamphetamine.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

If you ever wondered how people could do such horrible things to people?
 
  • #40
Methamphetamine doesn't turn the masses into psychopaths... you've seen too many truth (lies) commercials.
 
  • #41
tchitt said:
Methamphetamine doesn't turn the masses into psychopaths... you've seen too many truth (lies) commercials.

I read the paper too much. It seams that most disturbing murders that have happened in my area have been committed by people high on meth. One case was of two underage kids who shot an old lady working at a store because she wouldn't sell them alcahol, they were on meth.
Another case of some kids who beat up a young child and then put em on the train tracks, they were on meth. Almost every day I read about someone who was high on meth that did something either disturbing, psychotic, or just plain stupid.

The masses in Germany were just told rosey stories from the propaganda in the news, and were clueless about the disturbing things happening behind the scenes. The people who were in the military got propaganda, plus meth, and threat of not following orders.

But really, what I think is the most notable point about meth and NAZI crimes is the link between the instigaters and the use of meth. Meth is known for causing extreme paranoia.
Most meth crimes are said to be related to a perceived threat which is exagerated by paranoia. NAZIS were on meth and led to believe that the Jews were a threat.

The real serious psychopaths were the people who were orchestrating the whole scene, from the propaganda, to the administering of drugs. They had a goal, and they had lies, drugs, and force as tools.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
You could achieve the same effect by dosing people with alcohol. Drugs reduce your good judgement drastically in general. You don't read "every day" about someone who was high on meth that did something disturbing, psychotic or stupid... you're either lying or your sources are lying.

How did they prove all these people were high on meth?

Yeah, meth can cause people to be aggressive... but it can also cause people to hug each other, clean their house, bite their fingernails, talk incessantly (this one is pretty universal.)

The fact is that the overwhelming majority people will do nothing psychotic or disturbing while on meth. They might do something stupid... but that's to be expected when you're ingesting chemicals.

Edit: Meth DOES cause amphetamine psychosis. All amphetamines do. This doesn't mean that they're suddenly okay with killing people... in fact someone suffering from amphetamine psychosis isn't in any condition to do much of anything. When a meth addict is awake for seven days he suffers from the effects of sleep deprivation (if you've ever stayed up for a day or two, you can testify to the fact that you start hearing things that aren't there and get a little scatter brained) and long term use of amphetamines seems to causes a temporary psychosis... but the nature of this doesn't really lend itself to violence necessarily. If every nazi in Auschwitz was crawling around on his hands and knees talking to his imaginary friends the jews probably would've been alright.
 
  • #43
But really, what I think is the most notable point about meth and NAZI crimes is the link between the instigaters and the use of meth. Meth is known for causing extreme paranoia.
Most meth crimes are said to be related to a perceived threat which is exagerated by paranoia. NAZIS were on meth and led to believe that the Jews were a threat.

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I'll grant you that stimulants cause outright paranoia... but some strung out idiot is more likely to have a knee-jerk reaction to his friend looking at him wrong and stabbing him rather than engaging in premeditated genocide. Drugs are a form of mind control, but to say that it's the way the nazis got their ranks to agree to their methods just sounds like more anti-drug propaganda to me.
 
  • #44
tchitt said:
You could achieve the same effect by dosing people with alcohol. Drugs reduce your good judgement drastically in general. You don't read "every day" about someone who was high on meth that did something disturbing, psychotic or stupid... you're either lying or your sources are lying.

How did they prove all these people were high on meth?

Yeah, meth can cause people to be aggressive... but it can also cause people to hug each other, clean their house, bite their fingernails, talk incessantly (this one is pretty universal.)

The fact is that the overwhelming majority people will do nothing psychotic or disturbing while on meth. They might do something stupid... but that's to be expected when you're ingesting chemicals.

Edit: Meth DOES cause amphetamine psychosis. All amphetamines do. This doesn't mean that they're suddenly okay with killing people... in fact someone suffering from amphetamine psychosis isn't in any condition to do much of anything. When a meth addict is awake for seven days he suffers from the effects of sleep deprivation (if you've ever stayed up for a day or two, you can testify to the fact that you start hearing things that aren't there and get a little scatter brained) and long term use of amphetamines seems to causes a temporary psychosis... but the nature of this doesn't really lend itself to violence necessarily. If every nazi in Auschwitz was crawling around on his hands and knees talking to his imaginary friends the jews probably would've been alright.

I do read of meth related crimes, but I guess I exagerated because the local paper isn't daily, but, the local newspaper has a section devoted specifically to meth crimes. Sometimes the crimes are more innocent, like people stealing things to feed their addiction, but often they are bizzar and violent.

Everyone has at one point felt compelled to do something violent, like say wanting to puch a jerk in nose. On meth, you might just do it without thinking, or maybe take it a step further, unable to clearly think about it and control your urge.

Your probably right that using meth isn't going to make you ok with killing people, but it will make you more prone to the head games that NAZI propaganda was dealing. It was a system, down to a science how to make people think and do as they wish. Meth was one of the ingredients in the formula.

If you read some of the effects of meth, illusions of Grandure (thinking you are a superior race), paranoia(thinking the jews are out to get you) etc. On alcahol, you aren't really paranoid.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Have you ever done meth? I'm going to guess no.

Have you ever drank alcohol? I'm going to assume yes, because you said "it doesn't really make you paranoid."

If anything alcohol reduces paranoia, but that's beside the point. Now you're making arguments for your case using your past use of alcohol as evidence while making arguments against mine without having ever used meth yourself.
 
  • #46
Alcohol causes delusions of grandeur... maybe even more-so than meth. How many times have you seen someone start fights they couldn't win because they thought they were bullet proof? That's not the same thing as deciding that jews are racially inferior and engaging in genocide against them.

I'll grant you that Hitler's apparently rampant meth use did have a lot do with his own craziness. As we talk more I'm beginning to see your side a little more clearly... but at the same time Hitler had bigger problems than meth. Like growing up with an abusive father. His meth use was probably a result of his psychosis, not the other way around.
 
  • #47
tchitt said:
Alcohol causes delusions of grandeur... maybe even more-so than meth. How many times have you seen someone start fights they couldn't win because they thought they were bullet proof? That's not the same thing as deciding that jews are racially inferior and engaging in genocide against them.

I'll grant you that Hitler's apparently rampant meth use did have a lot do with his own craziness. As we talk more I'm beginning to see your side a little more clearly... but at the same time Hitler had bigger problems than meth. Like growing up with an abusive father. His meth use was probably a result of his psychosis, not the other way around.

I see your point as well, and I agree basically about what you say, I know a person who has been using meth for many years, and he is crazy, but also, one of the most peaceful people I know.
 
  • #48
Art said:
There is no doubt there are ample grounds for an investigation into some of the many allegations of war crimes committed by alliance members but in a world where the maxim of 'might is right' is paramount, it is is extremely unlikely any members of Bush's administration, and I'm thinking of Rumsfeld in particular here, will ever face justice which is unfortunate not only as it means criminal behaviour will go unpunished but also because these new lower standards will no doubt be seized upon by others to justify future breaches of the Conventions. Next time it could be US or British forces being tortured or massacred.

One suggestion (by Joe Klein) of a cagey way of dealing with the issue is for Obama to pardon Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Tenet, et al for torturing detainees in the interest of sparing the nation the ordeal of having its national leaders tried for war crimes (very similar to Ford's pardon of Nixon).

It allows the US to acknowledge abuses with a somewhat ambiguous implied apology, permanently taints the administration that conducted the policy, and avoids war crimes trials in the US. (It might not give the pardonees free reign to travel the world, however).
 
  • #49
tchitt said:
Methamphetamine doesn't turn the masses into psychopaths... you've seen too many truth (lies) commercials.
I'm not sure the problem is meth turning people into pysho kilers, it's just that arbitrarily doubling the dose during wartime and then giving the 'patient' a heavily armed supersonic fighter to play with might not be considered good judgement.

Of course if meth is optimal for raising performance levels in stressful circumstance perhaps it should be made compulsory for surgeons, civil airline pilots, police and anyone driving on the freeway.
 
<h2>1. What is Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions?</h2><p>Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions is a provision that outlines the scope of the conventions and the protections they afford during armed conflicts. It states that the conventions apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict between two or more signatory states.</p><h2>2. Does Common Article 2 apply to non-state actors like al Qaida?</h2><p>There is some debate among legal experts about whether Common Article 2 applies to non-state actors like al Qaida. Some argue that it only applies to conflicts between states, while others argue that it also applies to conflicts between a state and a non-state actor. Ultimately, the interpretation of this provision is up to the discretion of the courts or international tribunals.</p><h2>3. What is the significance of Common Article 2 for al Qaida?</h2><p>If Common Article 2 is deemed to apply to al Qaida, it would mean that the members of the group are entitled to the protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions, such as humane treatment, fair trials, and protection from torture. This could have significant implications for the treatment of al Qaida members who are captured by state actors.</p><h2>4. Has Common Article 2 been applied to al Qaida in any previous cases?</h2><p>There have been several cases where Common Article 2 has been invoked in relation to al Qaida. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 2 applies to the conflict between the US and al Qaida. However, this decision was later overturned by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.</p><h2>5. What is the current status of Common Article 2 and al Qaida?</h2><p>The current status of Common Article 2 and al Qaida is still a topic of debate and interpretation. Some argue that the conflict between the US and al Qaida is an international armed conflict, while others argue that it is a non-international armed conflict. This distinction has implications for the application of Common Article 2 and the protections it affords to al Qaida members.</p>

1. What is Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions?

Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions is a provision that outlines the scope of the conventions and the protections they afford during armed conflicts. It states that the conventions apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict between two or more signatory states.

2. Does Common Article 2 apply to non-state actors like al Qaida?

There is some debate among legal experts about whether Common Article 2 applies to non-state actors like al Qaida. Some argue that it only applies to conflicts between states, while others argue that it also applies to conflicts between a state and a non-state actor. Ultimately, the interpretation of this provision is up to the discretion of the courts or international tribunals.

3. What is the significance of Common Article 2 for al Qaida?

If Common Article 2 is deemed to apply to al Qaida, it would mean that the members of the group are entitled to the protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions, such as humane treatment, fair trials, and protection from torture. This could have significant implications for the treatment of al Qaida members who are captured by state actors.

4. Has Common Article 2 been applied to al Qaida in any previous cases?

There have been several cases where Common Article 2 has been invoked in relation to al Qaida. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Common Article 2 applies to the conflict between the US and al Qaida. However, this decision was later overturned by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

5. What is the current status of Common Article 2 and al Qaida?

The current status of Common Article 2 and al Qaida is still a topic of debate and interpretation. Some argue that the conflict between the US and al Qaida is an international armed conflict, while others argue that it is a non-international armed conflict. This distinction has implications for the application of Common Article 2 and the protections it affords to al Qaida members.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top