Thoughts on the Geneva Convention

People cling to the Geneva convention as if it were holy writ. However, I wonder how many would hold their beliefs if they actually read the convention itself. They are largely designed for uniformed soldiers under governmental control.

When people insist we treat prisoners in our conflicts according to the tenants of the conventions, they do not realise that these prisoners would often be executed as war criminals.

Here's a quote from the convention:

Protocol 2, Article 13, Section 2
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

If we were to absolve them of the war crimes committed, the Geneva convention would allow prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict, at which time they would be released unconditionally. Both of these are questionable inmodern conflicts.

These days, wars are rarely fought across borders by soldiers. We cannot negotitate with the Taliban, or even hold their leaders to account for individual war crimes, since they operate in independent cells. We need to expand the Geneva conventions to account for modern wars, or it is going to be useless.

Thoughts and debate are welcome.