The Geneva Conventions: what it actually says

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by tim_duncan2000, Jun 3, 2004.

  1. tim_duncan2000
    Offline

    tim_duncan2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    694
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    Many people often mention the Geneva Conventions and how the US is doing this and that in violation of it, but do people really know what it says?

    Do they really expect this to happen? This isn't practical and it would make no sense in a lot of cases. That's just the beginning. You can check the rest out here.

    I know some will dismiss this because it was from Townhall.com, so here is what Alan M. Dershowitz had to say (and we all know what a mouthpiece for the Right he is ;) ).
     
  2. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    I'm glad you pointed this out.

    I've never seen a serious argument from the anti-war crowd over the Geneva convention with respect to the War on Terror.


    Now consider that tobacco is mentioned specifically... any POW denied ready access to addictive nicotine is in fact a victim of a war crime.

    Do anti-war Liberals who harp on the Geneva Conventions, honestly approve of state funding for tobacco to POW's?

    My guess is none actually read any of it.
     
  3. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    what it *reads* ;)

    :D

    hehe
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I don't think that was really necessary. :D
     
  5. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    While we're on the subject of international law, an letter to the editor in yesterday's Washington Post is relevent.

    washingtonpost.com <http://www.washingtonpost.com/>
    Understanding Abu Ghraib


    Wednesday, June 2, 2004; Page A24
    The May 24 news story "Soldiers Vented Frustration, Doctor Says" cited the findings of Col. Henry Nelson, an Air Force psychiatrist who studied the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison for the Army. The story noted: "Police also stripped, tethered together and photographed some Iraqis suspected of raping a young boy in the prison, he wrote."
    While it seems appropriate for Col. Nelson to investigate the treatment of the alleged rapists, the practice of incarcerating minors with adults does not seem to fall within the scope of his inquiry. Does the U.S. military have policies for the detention of minors? If so, what are they and were they followed?
    His statement also makes me wonder about the attitude of the chain of command toward the international instruments for the protection of human rights, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37(c) of that document states in part: "Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so."
    PETER HICKEY
    Washington
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Somehow I think they had more to worry about than how to comply with the Obsolete Nations Policy on How to Imprison Kids.
     
  7. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I'm not an expert on the Geneva Conventions by any means, but from what I know of it, if Congress had declared war on al Qaeda, then we would not be bound to treat them like POWs according to the Geneva Convention because they target civillians.
     
  8. scubamike
    Online

    scubamike Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Sure there are problems with the Geneva Convention. As there are with many old laws (like the sailor-mongering law which the Federal Govt tried to charge Greenpeace under). But surely the intent behind it is a noble and civilised thing.

    It provides soldiers with rules within which they should operate. War is often uncivilised, but things like the Geneva Convention (and numerous related US articles which US soldiers are required to adhere to) help to keep things from being to nasty (at least on one side).

    The thing I find most disturbing is that the US govt is trying to get itself (and it's forces) exempted from International War Crimes courts. Surely, a strong and supported IWC court is a valuable weapon in a "War on terror".
     
  9. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Old "blood and guts" Dershowitz. LMFAO!
     
  10. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    As John McCain has pointed out, the Conventions are in place to protect OUR forces.

    No convention works perfectly just like laws against murder don't prevent murders from happening. But I don't know many who think we should abandon the law.

    For example, Saddam violated international law in gassing the Kurds -- nobody doubts what a prick he is -- but in the first Gulf War, he abided by the international norms in his deployment of AP landmines. That was good news for U.S. forces serving under Stormin' Norman, and later, the Iraqi civies.

    International serves U.S. interests because, for the most part, we are not international criminals.
     

Share This Page