Foreign terrorists should not be given Geneva Treaty protection until they conform to it

The Third Geneva Conventions are written to bind signatories to common obligations in the treatment of prisoners. http://en.wikipedia.org... The full text is given at http://www.icrc.org... Prisoners of war are defined as captured members of armies of the signers of the Treaty, and also http://www.icrc.org...: "(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Terrorist organizations have not signed the Treaty, and if they had signed, do not in any case conform to any of the cited requirements of the Treaty. Terrorists routinely ignore all requirement for the treatment of prisoners. There is, however, a separate provision, Article III, for non-international conflicts, "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: ...Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: ... (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;..." http://www.icrc.org... The US Supreme Court ruled that Article III applies to terrorists. "The ruling's most substantial point is that all non-citizen prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions." http://civilliberty.about.com... and "Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda." http://www.scotusblog.com... There is thus no advantage to any foreign power with respect to the United States in signing the Geneva Conventions. Quite the opposite. If they sign the Conventions, they can lose the Treaty protections if they mistreat American prisoners. However, if they refuse to sign, they are free to cut off the heads of Americans on television while their own POWs are afforded full protection of the Treaty, including humane treatment and inspection of prisoner treatment by international organizations. There are various ways the Geneva Convention application to non-signatory terrorists can be rescinded. The best way would be for the Treaty to be amended by international agreement to make it clear that it does not apply to members of terrorist organizations. Another way is for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision, another way is for the Constitution to be amended to place interpretation of treaties in the hands of Congress instead of the Court. Another way is for the US to renounce the article the court cited. The resolution leaves open how the "should" is accomplished. The resolution leaves as a separate question how captured terrorists should be treated. Perhaps they ought to be give more rights than common domestic criminals, perhaps not. The resolution would take that policy decision away from the Supreme Court and place it in the hands of the elected representatives of the people. Other issues were addressed by the Supreme court decision that ruled that Article 3 applied. Those other issues, such as how military tribunals must conform with laws set by Congress, are not subjects of this resolution. This debate is about whether armed combatants not party to the Geneva Conventions and not conforming to its requirements should be afforded by the United States the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The resolution should be supported because: 1. The Court erred in applying it to non-signatory terrorists, and that error ought to be corrected. 2. It restores the incentive for foreign powers to sign the Treaty and thereby provide mutual humane treatment of POWs. 3. It will restore democracy by placing foreign policy and international military affairs in the hands of elected officials.