Geneva convention rules of warfare

We follow them, everyone else ignores them.

Published on September 18, 2006 By Moderateman In Politics

Series of four international agreements (1864, 1906, 1929, 1949) signed in Geneva, Switz., that established the humanitarian principles by which the signatory countries are to treat an enemy's military and civilian nationals in wartime.

While I see many from both the right and the left whining about getting a clear definition of the Geneva convention concerning interrogation of prisoners, I must ask the following question, exactly what enemy has America fought that has followed the part of the convention concerning torture?

The Japanese freely tortured, killed, maimed, experiments medically on American prisoners of war, also used Americans as slave labor.

The German did the same, torture, maim, experiment, use American forces as slave labor, all these are against the Geneva convention.

During the Korean conflict, the North Koreans did much the same, torture, maim, brain wash, sleep deprived troops, under fed, denied medical help.

The Vietnam conflict, the north Vietnamese totally ignored the Geneva convention, again freely torturing, American troops, parading them in public, allowing pictures to be taken of prisoners, again all against the rules of the Geneva convention.

In the first gulf war, Saddam's troops denied any rights of Geneva to American prisoners.

Our new enemy, the terrorist ignore any and all statues of the Geneva conventions.

Now I see the Bush bashers worried that if we do not follow the Geneva conventions we have to worry about how our troops are treated, I say it makes no difference how we treat enemy combatants captured, because the enemy will do exactly as they please, including beheading, dismemberment and televising these heinous events.

When will weak kneed Americans wake up and see we are in the fight of our life? Playing red hot chili peppers and keeping the room at 40 degrees is nothing compared to what the enemy does to us,and if we get valuable information that saves American lives so what if the enemy is mildly uncomfortable?

THEY EAT BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, THE HAVE MUCH BETTER MEDICAL TREATMENT THAN AT LEAST 45 MILLION UNINSURED AMERICANS.

This being held to a higher standard is going to be the downfall of America.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Sep 18, 2006

Several points.

1. Although the terrorists are not signatories of the Geneva Convention, the US has not violated it to date yet.

2. Bush has stated, unequivocally, that no enemy combants have been tortured. While it may be true that some psych or chemical means were used to extract information, there are a lot of ways of doing that, that do not amount to torture. The only ones claiming the US is using torture, are not the ones that have any way of knowing, so they are just spouting the propaganda of the terrorists, and their handlers.

Moderateman

on Sep 18, 2006

(Citizen)Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1September 18, 2006 13:27:07

BESIDES TRYING TO DRUM UP READERS WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

Moderateman

on Sep 18, 2006

(Citizen)Dr. GuySeptember 18, 2006 13:20:32

. Bush has stated, unequivocally, that no enemy combants have been tortured. While it may be true that some psych or chemical means were used to extract information, there are a lot of ways of doing that, that do not amount to torture. The only ones claiming the US is using torture, are not the ones that have any way of knowing, so they are just spouting the propaganda of the terrorists, and their handlers.

AFTER THE DISMEMBERMENT AND BEHEADINGS OF aMERICANS WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT what the world thinks of us? no matter what we do, how we obey laws, most of the world thinks we are lieing about it anyways.

Zoomba

on Sep 18, 2006

While our enemies have never in the past followed the conventions, we have always strived, regardless of our enemy, to be the better nation, to be clearly and unquestionably in the moral right when it comes to how we wage war. There is a lot to be said for not lowering ourselves to the level of our enemy. We're better than those we fight, and we lose a bit of that if we resort to some of their own methods.

However, the biggest issue is that if we redefine the Geneva Convetntions to suit our means, as a way to defend our acts as legal and just, then it sets a precedent whereby other nations can redefine to suit their needs at will. If we had done this a decade or two ago, even Saddam himself could have issued his own law regarding the treatment of captured enemies in the first gulf war such that it would have been completely legal. When it comes to international agreements such as the conventions, you either have to go with them as written, or completely ignore them (but then don't expect to be able to claim those rights for your own troops or people). If you start to interpret them, to modify them to suit your own goals, you've essentially destroyed them since it opens them up to modification by any nation or ruler who sees fit.

kingbee

on Sep 18, 2006

The German did the same, torture, maim, experiment, use American forces as slave labor, all these are against the Geneva convention.

it's my understanding american, british & canadian pows held by nazi germany were treated fairly well (as is evidenced by the low death rate among these allied prisoners). british officers were not required to perform any labor for their captors.

for a time, following discovery of a canadian order to shackle nazi pows, the nazis shackled canadian prisoners. on the other hand, both soviet pows held by nazis and nazi pows held by the ussr were both very badly treated.

because german pows were treated well by allied forces (other than the soviets), german troops were more easily persuaded to surrender.

our treatment of wwii pows in compliance with the geneva accords was once a source of pride, providing us with a feeling of moral superiority to our enemies that worked to our benefit.

the north Vietnamese totally ignored the Geneva convention, again freely torturing, American troops, parading them in public, allowing pictures to be taken of prisoners, again all against the rules of the Geneva convention.

north vietnam took exactly the same position regarding american fighters this administration is attempting to justify for itself: it determined--based on its own interpretation of the accords--our troops were illegal fighters for whom the geneva accords provided no protection.

what price will we pay to lower our standards until there's no difference between ourselves and our enemies?

Moderateman

on Sep 18, 2006

ZoombaSeptember 18, 2006 13:32:20

However, the biggest issue is that if we redefine the Geneva Conventions to suit our means

that is NOT what Bush is trying to do with rule three, of the Geneva conventions he is trying to take what is a very nebulous definition and give it a meaning that is easily understandable for all.

Moderateman

on Sep 18, 2006

(Citizen)kingbeeSeptember 18, 2006 13:59:43

The German did the same, torture, maim, experiment, use American forces as slave labor, all these are against the Geneva convention.

it's my understanding american, british & canadian pows held by nazi germany were treated fairly well (as is evidenced by the low death rate among these allied prisoners). british officers were not required to perform any labor for their captors.

leave it to you to pick and choose what supports your liberal life king, to say "officers were not made to work, does not negate the enlisted that was forced to slave labor. Medical supplies were in dire straights and sick pows were not afforded treatment, the supplies being saved for German troops.

our treatment of wwii pows in compliance with the geneva accords was once a source of pride, providing us with a feeling of moral superiority to our enemies that worked to our benefit.

they had a choice of surendering to American troops or Rusians, what would you do?

Zoomba

on Sep 18, 2006

Also, if there are to be clarifications/corrections/updated, the only way it can be binding and legal in International law is if it's ratified by the signatory countries and made an official addition to the conventions.

Moderateman

on Sep 18, 2006

ZoombaSeptember 18, 2006 14:38:15

Rule Three has been in place for a pretty long time now. It has done just fine without clarification thus far. It then follows that if it survived so many wars to date, that it's adequate to deal with our current conflict.
Also, if there are to be clarifications/corrections/updated, the only way it can be binding and legal in International law is if it's ratified by the signatory countries and made an official addition to the conventions.

here we disagree, we follow the rules they do not. need it be any clearer?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!