Does Perfidy have a place in the war on terror?

[Hyorinmaru]

First the definition of perfidy.

Perfidy is a form of deception in which one side promises to act in good faith with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy has exposed himself. Since 1977 it has been against the Geneva Convention to perform acts of Perfidy.

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

A lot has changed since 1977 and with the current war on terror and the things that our enemy is capable and willing to do i honestly think some of these things should be tried in order to save lives. I'm not sure exactly how we would/could get around the Geneva Convention but if there's a way I hope someone finds it

A) The terrorists have made it clear they don't want to negotiate or surrender so I'm not sure how tis one wouldwork. Maybe if our side pretended to aurrender but I don't see that happening

B) A terrorist thinks your severly injured or dead and comes up to you and then you kill him. Odds are good you just saved A LOT of lives.

C) If done right this one could work. You just need the right person, a white man infiltrating a muslim village tryingto find terrorists would be hard but an arab ally could work and if it succeeds again A LOT of lives saved.

D) I don't see this one working very well either.




As you can probably tell by now I think Perfidy could saves thousands of lives if done correctly. So my question to you is do you think Perfidy would work in the current war on terror and should we even be given the optin of using it?

 

[#hamler]

Of course Perfidy would work in the current war on terror, but by no means does this suggest we should use it.

The main reason I disagree with Perfidy has to do with Trust. The United States and other countries have all these Treaties and Documents, documenting trust with various countries through out the World. We have earned enough trust in one another to form somewhat of a truce with one another. When word gets out that the United States (or whatever country) commits such a war crime as Perfidy, how can they assume that we can be trusted anymore? Prefidy is a deceitful way of earning someone's trust then stabbing that person or country in the back. While I can obviously see the pros of Perfidy, I believe there are better ways to handle a situation without lowering ourselves that low into something so immoral and wrong. So when prefidy is performed, we lose trust. Losing a nation's trust is doing more harm than good.

 

[LSN80]

First off Milenko, I got the definition right in the Cage.

It depends on the situation, and Im addressing both Hamler and Milenko here.

We may have peace treaties and documents signed making promises of getting along, but those were broken when we were attacked on our own soil. In that case, screw the documents, treaties, and good faith promises that we've made. Screw being the biggest nation of the world extending goodwill to all. Instead, we do whatever it takes to make sure an incident like that never happens again. And if we as a country can get a nation to somehow believe that we've given up hope of defeating them, or want no beef with them, then so be it.

The best way I can think of making this work is going back on our long-standing decree that we don't negotiate with terrorists. We've been so steadfast about this even at the expense of American lives. In doing so, we'ld be surrendering "our good word", one that we we're well known for. In doing so, we'ld be appearing vulnerable, but preparing an attack if needed.

So yes, I believe that you do what's in the best interest of human life, the life of your own people. We were staunchly against having anything to do with WW2 until we were bombed. There are always exceptions that should be made and the usage of perfidy is a tremendous idea if needed. No document, treaty, or gained trust is more valuable then human life.