The Geneva Conventions and the War on Terror

The first mistake that the United States made in their approach to Abu Ghraib was, as I mentioned earlier, violating the Geneva Conventions in order to pass extraction and torture methods. The Geneva Conventions were signed into International Law in 1949, prohibiting the use of torture or humiliation against detainees of war. This also includes the protection of American troops if they were ever to be captured by the enemy.

John Yoo, an attorney representing The Justice Department, believed that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qaeda since the group was comprised of unlawful combatants who had never signed the Geneva Conventions. Since they were not in agreement of international law, they should not be treated with the respect of International Law.

However, this goes against the mindset America has previously employed in wars prior to the War on Terror. The United States is historically famous for having standards high above the set expectations of international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions, and the treatment of their detainees and enemies. This attitude dated all the way back to the American Revolution.

The decision of whether or not America should abide by the Geneva Conventions ultimately lied with the President of the United States, George W. Bush. In 2002, President Bush declared that the Geneva Conventions would not apply in this war, since the combatants were not protected by the international laws.

The possible effects of this decision could become disastrous. By declaring a state of war without the protection of crucial international law, Bush essentially condoned unlimited warfare and a state of international anarchy in Iraq. Without the protection of Geneva Conventions, American troops were in even greater danger of suffering at the hands of al-Qaeda and dangerous civilians. But the reality of the situation must be faced; If al-Qaeda entered the war disregarding international law, they weren't going to start now.