Why do we need the Geneva Convention?

Since we started the Bush Wars (my own words) I have been frustrated about the discussion whether the Geneva Convention applies to the enemy combatants or not. It makes me furious to hear the argument that these enemy combatants don’t adhere to it and therefore we don’t have to either. The same arguments are used for justification of torture.

This discussion makes me so furious because the people that argue about it don’t understand why we need to adhere to the Geneva Convention. It is not to protect the one in our custody, quite the contrary we need to do this for ourselves. If we argue the way many of us do that, if they don’t follow it, then we don’t have to either, nothing will ever change. Every side will claim to be right and justify whatever they do based on the opponents actions. No matter how criminal one or the other side might be, each side must have a sufficient believe that whatever they do has some justification. Good or bad – everybody believes in the justification of their actions.

We, the good guys (at least we think we are), need to adhere to the Geneva Convention, enforce human rights and respect the dignity of human life for our own sake. Human rights are a fundamental pillar of our world and our existence. There is no reason or excuse that can make us forget this or deny this. If we find reasons or excuses to violate human rights (disregard the Geneva Convention) we compromised our own believes and lowered ourselves to the level of our opponents. We are not worth the words we speak.

Yes, adhering to these believes and the human rights, treating our enemies with dignity and not violating our own standards may lead to suffering on our side. The opponent / enemy might gain an unfair advantage. He/she might exploit what looks like a weakness. But, nobody who ever fought in conflict ever thought that victory comes easy. In history, the good side often has the larger amount of casualties.

Morality is generally believed to start with the individual. Every individual learns and grows and along the path develops its own morality. The morality of many individuals leads to an understanding of morality in larger social groups and societies. These might be small groups, religious groups, political groups, tribes etc.. It is hard to get a larger group to decide on the absolute definition of good. It becomes even harder among different groups and fractions. The definitions of morality and consequently the definition of good has long been the goal of the field of Ethics. From Socrates and Plato to St. Augustine and Kant much thought and writings have been produced but there is no absolute agreement or ultimate result.

Emmanuel Kant has probably brought us the best reason why we need to adhere to our principles and believes, or in this case to our commitment to human rights. His principle of the Categorical Imperative is summarized in his first formulations as:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

With regard to my initial statements; Geneva Convention should be considered an absolute, unconditional requirement for everybody who believes in human rights and the good of mankind (religious or atheist). The Geneva Convention asserts its authority in all circumstances, and nothing can justify the disregard of it.

If we do not adhere to the basic human right as described in the Geneva Convention, we are not better than our enemies; we lowered ourselves to the same low standards as what they believe in. We lose all rights of claiming the good of our actions.

One that wants to claim his/her actions to be moral has to act accordingly independent from any possible consequences it might bring.