Richard Norton-Taylor and Clare Dyer report for The Guardian on Defence Secretary John Reid’s comments about how The Geneva Conventions are hindering the ability of British troops in the War on Terror.
John Reid demanded sweeping changes to international law yesterday to free British soldiers from the restraints of the Geneva conventions and make it easier for the west to mount military actions against other states.
In his speech, the defence secretary addressed three key issues: the treatment of prisoners, when to mount a pre-emptive strikes, and when to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis. In all these areas, he indicated that the UK and west was being hamstrung by existing inadequate law.
I have to say that I’m very troubled by this, true laws need to change with the times if they are now out of step with the needs of society. But I really cannot see the case for any changes needing to be made to the Geneva Conventions. In fact John Reid has made no case at all and has not outlined in any way what changes he envisions are necessary.
What John Reid has done is to yet again raise the boogeyman of the 21st century that of ‘barbaric terrorism’ as he phrased it. Plus also straying into the game of I can imagine a worse imaginary threat than you.
“But what if another threat develops?”, Mr Reid asked. “Not al-Qaida. Not Muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment.” Terrorist groups were trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, he said.
We can all play the ‘what if’ game but surely it is only realistic to legislate for known threats or else there’s no end to it. Should we legislate for any movie threat that the defence secretary has seen such as zombificating viral infections, invasion by hostile extra-terrestrial beings or marauding gigantic creatures. Of course terrorist organisations are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but how realistic is it that they could actually acquire them. We live in a world where even nation states with all their resources are facing huge technical hurdles let alone political ones in their struggle to acquire them.
I have a struggle to understand what John Reid is actually advocating here in terms of changes to the Geneva conventions. Is he advocating the torture and mistreatment of prisoners? Does he seek the right for the UK to launch pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations based on the mere belief that they pose a threat to Britain?
Tags: terrorism
