05-11-2009, 11:41 AM
It looked strange because you seemed to imply that military personnel is protected from torture while civilians are not.
"Uniformed soldiers have more rigorously protected rights under *international* law than do most civilians."
It is true that these international laws provide protection for uniforms which cilivians lack. But the reasoning behind it is that soldiers need such extra protection when they are fighting on foreign grounds, while civilians are already covered by the laws of the country where they try to live their lives. Harmful actions by military against civilians is always disallowed, be it execution, deportation or torture. In this view, militia members are not civilians, and random people taking potshots should be carried over to the local police.
"As for 'unlawful combatants', I personally think the phrase is a piece of sophistry that ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history."
I certainly agree with you there.
"Uniformed soldiers have more rigorously protected rights under *international* law than do most civilians."
It is true that these international laws provide protection for uniforms which cilivians lack. But the reasoning behind it is that soldiers need such extra protection when they are fighting on foreign grounds, while civilians are already covered by the laws of the country where they try to live their lives. Harmful actions by military against civilians is always disallowed, be it execution, deportation or torture. In this view, militia members are not civilians, and random people taking potshots should be carried over to the local police.
"As for 'unlawful combatants', I personally think the phrase is a piece of sophistry that ought to be relegated to the dustbin of history."
I certainly agree with you there.