Below is an essay that another student has written. Please read it and respond to it (250 words), giving insight and information on the discussion presented. You are NOT just answering questions, you are reading and responding to what this person has written. This includes agree/disagree as well as extra information. 250 words or more. Thank you.Should terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda or ISIS be given prisoner of war status and thus be entitled rights of the Geneva Convention?Over the last couple decades this conversation has centered itself center stage on the domestic and international stage. I think as time has past the world has become numb to this terror jurisdiction and rights of a terrorist scenario. When the United States was first significantly impacted by a terror event (September 11th, 2001) the world was in anger and disbelief. During this mindset, America operated in a righteous and improper way to achieve American justice. To the question at hand, I believe that the Geneva Convention should protect captive members of ISIS and Al Qaeda. I understand where people may think that these individuals should not be afforded the same right as a member of an organized military. However, the “group of international laws for the humane treatment of wounded or captured military personnel, medical personnel and non-military civilians during war or armed conflicts” (History.com Editors, 2017). As a current member of the military, I can suggest that we are in a period of war. I receive junior Marines from our Military Occupational Specialty schools wearing the National Defense Medal. This is providing justification in that the Congress has identified our nation as a participant of war. Furthermore, the United States has identified an enemy for my battalion to kill. This brings assignment to these individuals to exchange war like efforts to eliminate from the face of the earth.Which system of justice would you advise the President to handle regarding captured US born terrorist? Domestic courts, military tribunals or something else?I would suggest to the President of the United States to utilize the domestic courts and military tribunals to try and convict enemies of the state. My reasoning for this is supported by many factors involved in deciding whether one should be tried by a certain proceeding or not. The use of the domestic courts is justified in the event that the terrorist is an US born citizen committing harm against civilian targets. The military tribunal would be justified if the US born citizen targeted military targets. The military tribunals in this case would be able to articulate the intricacies of military targeting to ensure all aspects of the findings are identified. This is where deciding on which route, should be a best judgment call for the sake of argument. Just assigning a jurisdiction and not compiling all the facts to make a call on proceedings, is precisely where we find inconsistencies. Providing justification to try an individual is critical to the integrity of the system; would suggesting a counsel to identify a course of action be required or expected? Over the last few decades we have walked a fine line of proceedings. Some of which have been reversed and adjudicated differently than originally observed. Unfortunately we will be faced with this issue indefinitely and having this discussion at a higher level is obvious.ResourcesHistory.com Editors. (2017, November 17). Geneva Convention.
