[political-research] "Defence secretary calls for Geneva conventions to be redrawn (UK) "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1746322,00.html

From: "CLG News" <clg_news@...>
Subject: " Defence secretary calls for Geneva
conventions to be redrawn " (UK)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 03:43:02 -0400

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1746322,00.html

" International laws hinder UK troops - Reid

Defence secretary calls for Geneva conventions to be
redrawn "

Richard Norton-Taylor and Clare Dyer

Tuesday April 4, 2006 The Guardian

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.

Mr Reid indicated he believed existing rules,
including some of the conventions - a bedrock of
international law - were out of date and inadequate to
deal with the threat of international terrorists.

"We are finding an enemy which obeys no rules
whatsoever", he said, referring to what he called
"barbaric terrorism".

The conventions, he said, were created more than half
century ago "when the world was almost
unrecognisable". They dealt with how the sick and
injured and how prisoners of war were treated, "and
the obligations on states during their military
occupation of another state", he said.

Given the big changes undertaken by the military over
the past 50 years, he added, "serious questions" must
be asked about whether "further changes in
international law in this area are necessary".

Mr Reid declined to say whether he had come round to
the US view that detainees at Guantánamo bay should
not be allowed the protection of the conventions or
the courts. Similarly, he would not say if he thought
Britain should support the US practice of
extraordinary rendition, the transferring of prisoners
to secret camps where they risk being tortured.
However, he said, it was not "sufficient just to say
[Guantánamo] is wrong".

Mr Reid said yesterday that while domestic laws had
been introduced to deal with new threats - he referred
to the new offence of "glorifying terrorism" -
international law had not changed.

He also spoke of the "concept of imminence" - the
circumstances when a state could strike without
waiting for an attack.

It was a principal issue during the debate over the
invasion of Iraq and has clear implications for any
possible future action against Iran.

Mr Reid noted that last year Lord Goldsmith, the
attorney general, advised that force could be used
only against imminent attack, that it must only be
used as a last resort, and that it must be
proportionate.

"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.

The Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Nick Harvey,
said: "After the disaster of Iraq, the idea that the
doctrine of pre-emptive strike should be expanded will
be met with incredulity in the west and alarm in the
ministries of Tehran."

Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations
at Oxford University, said: "Some of the biggest
coalition problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq have
come from failures of the coalition to observe basic
norms on certain matters, especially with regard to
treatment of prisoners.

"Dr Reid is certainly right to raise the question of
whether we need new rules in face of imminent attack.
This problem above all requires confidence in
government and coalition decision-making processes -
confidence that has sadly been undermined by Iraq."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/