The Geneva Conventions: what it actually says

[tim_duncan2000]

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?

Under the Third Geneva Convention, POWs must be housed in "dormitories," and provided a "canteen," where they can buy "foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use." The canteen's profits must be available for the prisoners' use, and POW representatives must participate in the canteen's operation. "The practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners" must be encouraged.

Link

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 ).

THE GENEVA Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Link

 

[Comrade]

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.

Under the Third Geneva Convention, POWs must be housed in "dormitories," and provided a "canteen," where they can buy "foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use." The canteen's profits must be available for the prisoners' use, and POW representatives must participate in the canteen's operation. "The practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners" must be encouraged.

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.

 

[dmp]

what it *reads*



hehe

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by -=d=-
what it *reads*



hehe

I don't think that was really necessary.

 

[st8_o_mind]

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

 

[5stringJeff]

Somehow I think they had more to worry about than how to comply with the Obsolete Nations Policy on How to Imprison Kids.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

 

[scubamike]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
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 ).

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".

 

[musicman]

Old "blood and guts" Dershowitz. LMFAO!

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Somehow I think they had more to worry about than how to comply with the Obsolete Nations Policy on How to Imprison Kids.

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.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I don't think.

Exactly.



:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by scubamike
Surely, a strong and supported IWC court is a valuable weapon in a "War on terror".

Not if it's just a an illegitimate sham of a legal body to give cover and legitimacy to terrorists and their western cohorts, terrorist-appeasing libs like yourself.