Argument: Terrorists are engaged in war, which much remain subject to the Geneva Conventions lest it become unrestrained

Terrorists are engaged in a war like any other: they unite as a political actor to undertake military action in favour of a specific cause. The fact that they do not represent one individual nation and that they are not at war with a specific list of states does not undermine this: Al Qaeda, for example, has clear goals including eliminating American influence within Muslim nations, destroying Israel and re-establishing the Caliphate (Blanchard, 2007). The fact that we may not view these causes as worthy or legitimate is irrelevant: we do not assess the merits or legitimacy of a conflict between states before deciding whether to apply the Geneva Convention. It should therefore apply equally to soldiers and terrorists. The Geneva Conventions were formed to ensure that future wars would not result in the barbarity and wanton violence that mired World War II; to deny it to terrorists would risk the undermining of norms that have developed to restrain warfare. If we don’t treat terrorists as prisoners of war therefore, we risk a return to the barbarity of warfare in the first half of the 20th century.

Candidate 1: "Poor treatment is not a significant recruitment tool: whilst some people may be encouraged to join terrorist groups as a result of such behaviour, those who are outraged by human rights abuses in this context should be equally concerned about the violation of human rights which occurs when a terrorist detonates a bomb, or flies into a building, killing large numbers of innocent civilians. The ideology invoked exists independently of the way in which suspects are treated and indoctrination with such beliefs is the real tool in the recruitment process."
Candidate 2: "There is no moral duty to respect the humanity of terrorists. Terrorists themselves do not respect human rights. By attacking civilians, they breach the terms of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. They do not deserve to be protected by the laws of war because they do not behave like a military organisation. If they do not comply with the laws of war there is no reason why they should enjoy the benefits of the Geneva Conventions when they are detained."
Candidate 3: "The United Nation has the potential to punish parties that do not abide by its protocols, including the Geneva Conventions. However, its ability to do so is limited even when it comes to states since that power is itself granted by its member states. For example, the International Criminal Court is only able to bring cases which the Security Council approves. Therefore, the contemporary targets of terrorists, most notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are inevitably going to veto any proposition to persecute themselves for violating the Geneva Conventions. The circular process of asking a state whether it will approve the prosecution of itself betrays the absurdity of the United Nations as an institution enforcing the protocols of war. As for the behaviour of terrorist groups, their members are subject to prosecution for actions equivalent to war crimes whether or not they are subject to the Geneva Conventions."
Candidate 4: "With no hope of reciprocity, adherence to the Geneva Conventions would undermine the fight against terrorism

There is no moral duty to respect the dignity of terrorists. States should do whatever possible to protect their own citizens. The Geneva Convention is about reciprocity: it is in the interest of our own citizens to treat enemy combatants in a humane manner so that if our soldiers are caught they will receive similar treatment. There can be no guarantee of reciprocity from ‘terrorists’ as a whole, or even specific terrorist groups given the cellular nature of the organisations and the disparate nature of the command structures. Furthermore, terrorists specifically use poor treatment of hostages as a tool in their campaign. Given this, it is in the interests of our own citizens to use whatever means possible to fight terrorism; compliance with the Geneva Convention undermines this."
Candidate 5: "Terrorists are not lawful combatants, therefore they not do not acquire prisoner of war status

Prisoner of war status is only granted to those who legally and morally deserve its protections. Therefore, those who wish to seek the protection of the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, have a duty to distinguish themselves from the civilian population (Detter, 2007, p.1063). Terrorists who absolve themselves of this responsibility in the pursuit of wanton violence, who flagrantly ignore the laws of war, cannot thereafter appeal to its protection once captured. Such a norm is required in order to preserve the sanctity of the Geneva Conventions, including the immunity of civilians, and prevent the encouragement of using civilians as means to ends. Terrorists who operate outside of the law and attempt to thereafter use it to their advantage should be denied that opportunity. Attempts to permit the use of non-uniformed soldiers in Protocol 1 lack authority as several key states are not party to it (including the USA and Israel)."
Candidate 6: "Terrorists are not engaged in a war. Their actions are aimed at destruction of civil society and of nations across the globe. The Geneva Conventions exist to control wars between nations in a way which respects human dignity and minimises long-term harm. Wars between nations have a foreseeable end, and the Convention is an important means of aiding reconciliation and cooperation in the future: it is harder to build a relationship with a state which has brutally tortured your soldiers upon capture. However, a war against terrorists will often have no end: it is inconceivable, for example, either that Al Qaeda will successfully achieve the reestablishment of the Caliphate or that the West will quash all terrorist activity. Reconciliation and future cooperation are meaningless here."
Candidate 7: "Harsh interrogation is indeed necessary, due in part to the unique efficacy of harsh interrogation in dealing with the new threat. The interrogation of a terrorist is qualitatively different to that of a soldier, due to the nature of terrorist attacks and the importance of information in their prevention. Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, argues that there is no other way for the CIA to have acquired information from them, ‘given their character and given their commitment to what it is they do’ (Martinez, 2009). The effectiveness of harsh interrogation may vary, but an absolute prohibition based on the few exceptions would be too high a price to pay. Protecting civilian lives must come before maintaining any moral high ground."
Candidate 8: "Special interrogation methods are necessary in order to combat the terrorist threat

The war on terror is unlike any other war and so different tactics are necessary in order to win. There is no point maintaining a moral high ground where this leads to more civilian deaths. The Geneva Conventions put barriers in the way of winning the war on terror because tactics such as indefinite detention are necessary. For example, Israel’s practice of targeted killing of terrorists was restricted by the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that it did not comply with the Geneva Conventions (The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. The Government of Israel, 2006). Often there is no other way to combat terrorists and the Geneva Conventions restrict tactics that save hundreds of lives. Governments would also not be able to gain as much intelligence if they had to adhere to the Geneva Conventions when interrogating terrorists. It is dangerous to put the west at an operational disadvantage in the war on terror just to maintain a moral high ground."
Candidate 9: "There are other means by which to protect the rights of terrorists without needing to apply the Geneva Conventions

Under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war can be detained for the duration of hostilities, and are only entitled to return home at the end of the war (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1949). Given the open-ended nature of the war on terror, it is very likely that treating terrorist detainees as POWs will mean they are never released. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Geneva Conventions protect human rights any better than existing domestic law or policy. In democracies, the accountability of elected politicians and judicial review by independent judges can instead be trusted to ensure that detainees are not abused or mistreated."

Terrorists are not engaged in a war. Their actions are aimed at destruction of civil society and of nations across the globe. The Geneva Conventions exist to control wars between nations in a way which respects human dignity and minimises long-term harm. Wars between nations have a foreseeable end, and the Convention is an important means of aiding reconciliation and cooperation in the future: it is harder to build a relationship with a state which has brutally tortured your soldiers upon capture. However, a war against terrorists will often have no end: it is inconceivable, for example, either that Al Qaeda will successfully achieve the reestablishment of the Caliphate or that the West will quash all terrorist activity. Reconciliation and future cooperation are meaningless here.
