It is a sensible call that allows for the realities and dangers of the day.
Britain’s Defense Secretary called Monday for a review of the Geneva Conventions, saying international rules of war needed to be revamped to reflect the threats of global terrorism.
John Reid said the potential for groups or countries to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction should lead to a new debate about whether pre-emptive strikes should be allowed under the rules of war.
“The laws of the 20th century placed constraints on us all which enhanced peace and protected liberty,” Reid told an audience at the Royal United Services Institute, a security and defense think-tank in London. “We must ask ourselves whether, as the new century begins, they will do the same.”
He suggested the Geneva Conventions — which date to 1949 — may need to be revised.
The Geneva Conventions set standards for conduct during times of war including the treatment of prisoners and protection of civilians and journalists. They ban torture, rape, mutilation, slavery, genocide and a host of other war crimes in all conflicts. Violations are a punishable criminal offense under the national laws of countries that have signed the conventions.
Reid did not specify what changes he thought should be made to the Geneva Conventions or other international rules of war.
Indeed, in the half-century-plus since the beginnings of the Geneva accords, the U.S. has repeatedly faced enemies that have either ignored or not qualified for the negotiated provisions.
As I said, Mr. Reid has issued a sensible call — hence, it must be shredded by opponents, though not on grounds of content or validity. Feel free to read the rest of the linked Associated Press piece as the shredding commences and several tiresome talking points of those against our efforts in the Iraqi theater are introduced unchallenged. This begins immediately with labelling U.S. efforts as a “so-called war on terrorism” and just snowballs from there. While the second half of the “news” piece reads as a leftist editorial, I have yet to discern any statement contrary to Mr. Reid’s general assessment on the failure of the Geneva Conventions to adequately cover either the nature of our likely enemies or the destructive power of their potential weaponry.