Toss Out the Geneva Conventions ?

Perhaps I should seek counseling- I just can't dredge up any outrage or even indignation at the treatment of the detainees in Cuba. If they are American citizens they deserve the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. If they are uniformed combatants of an enemy power which is a signatory of the Geneva convention, they deserve the protections afforded by that treaty.None of the above? Sorry! As detainees, they deserve basic human necessities ( food, shelter, medical attention, etc.). Until, that is, a military tribunal hears their case. Should the finding of the tribunal be that the detainee has engaged in war against the U.S. while not in the uniform of an enemy power, they deserve to be SHOT! This isn't a new concept, in a former, less touchy-feely time, it was S.O.P.
 
Handy said:
We didn't sign the Geneva Convention. Where does that put your sympathies vis US troops?
Click to expand...
The United States Ratified the original Geneva Convention treaty in 1882. We also ratified the 1907, 1929 and 1949 conventions. We ratified the 1949 Conventions on August 2, 1955, and we were a signatory of, but never ratified the 1977 Protocols which dealt with protection of the victims of international and non international conflicts.

.pdf file from icrc.org

http://users.skynet.be/bs775533/Armand/wri/geneva.htm
 
And because we didn't ratify Protocol One from 1977, we flew air strikes in Yugoslavia that no one else would or could.


My point was that the Conventions are a protection for our troops, and they will only have the chance to be afforded that protection if we abide by the same rules. That doesn't always work in every case, but if we are "the good guys", then we take the high ground.

Us gasing German civilians would not have been okay just because the Germans were gasing other civilians. You don't ratify an international convention so you can pull the card out only when convenient.
 
I guess I should have stated more clearly:

My initial post is in error, but let me clarify what I was getting at.

Yup, I should have looked it up first, because I was thinking of the lack of ratification that Bluesman posted, but wrote "sign", to everyone's horror.
 
I agree with Handy's position.

Incidentally, Guantanamo is a lot more legally tricky than "not uniformed, not US citizen." Non-uniformed citizens of other states have legal rights wherever they are, also. That's one of the reasons the detention center is in guantanamo; the location has something to do with the claimed legal status of the prisoners.
 
Handy-
More than a fair retraction on your part. Thanks for standing up. I'm not immune to error either.

Shootin-
Which of Handy's positions do you agree with:
1) That we never signed the Geneva Convention?
2) That our failure to ratify Protocol One in 1977 is somehow the reason our troops (and civilians?) are shown no mercy by Islamic Terrorists in Iraq?
3) His honest admission of error as to #1?

Rich
 
My point was that the Conventions are a protection for our troops, and they will only have the chance to be afforded that protection if we abide by the same rules. That doesn't always work in every case, but if we are "the good guys", then we take the high ground.
Click to expand...

That's what I agree with. War crimes don't cease to be war crimes because someone's legislature hasn't ratified some such agreement. The trials in Japan over murders in China proved that.

I think it's important that the US stick to its tradition of honoring civillized practices. The fact that terrorists go about torturing and beheading whomever they wish does not, IMO, entitle the US to do the same. That's where I was agreeing with handy.
 
Shootin-
If you wish to argue that the Guantanamo facility was a barely disguised ploy to avoid having to offer alleged terrorists access to the US Courts, I'm on your side. (Of course, SCOTUS has already resolved that in our favor.) If you want to argue that the US Government is, in cases, abusive of foreigners and US Citizens' rights...you've come to the right place.

But when you hyperbolize to the extent of suggesting that the US Govt is engaged in or prepared to "go about torturing and beheading whomever they wish" you quickly loose your audience and your argument.

It's not so much the arguments around here lately that I take issue with. It's the unfounded hyperbole

Rich
 
And Furthermore

My point was that the Conventions are a protection for our troops, and they will only have the chance to be afforded that protection if we abide by the same rules.
Click to expand...
Am I to understand from this that our troops would somehow have been treated differently?; that the roadside bombings would be less frequent?; that the incineration and decapitation of US Citizens would have been less seen?......if only we could assure the Terrorists that we had ratified Proposition One? Simply an amazing leap of fantasy, IMHO.



That doesn't always work in every case, but if we are "the good guys", then we take the high ground.
Click to expand...
I think we most certainly DO "take the high ground". I, for one, don't see Al Qaeda performing humanitarian missions in Iraq; I DID see them attempting to sabotage a National Election, though. I don't see us intentionally targeting civilians, let alone parading them (begging for their lives) on camera; and I've yet to see our guys do anything even resembling what was done to Nick Berg.

To compare our actions to the actions a Al Qaeda (especially now that the Iraqi people have voted their overwhelming support for our intervention there) is purely bogus and unacceptable.
Rich
 
I'll answer the gist of your would-be rhetorical questions, Rich, with a question and even give the answer. Did the incidents of terrorism such as kidnapping and beheading increase when our war crimes and torture of detained prisoners were exposed?
Yes.
 
No I don't. Nor do I remember "us" being "outed".

Since it was in all the daily papers you should have little trouble supporting your claim of fact. Once again, sources please.
Rich
 
the frequency of a news source running a story is NOT directly proportional to the frequency of that event actually occurring. media reported incidents of torture at gitmo and media reports of terrorist beheading/kidnapping both increasing at the same time says absolutely nothing about the real world occurance of such events. source or no source, the argument proves nothing.
 
To help your memory out, the story about our prisoner abuses was aired April 29 on 60 Minutes. May 11, was the first kidnap and beheading of an American and it was ascribed to our abuse of the prisoners. You can go to such sites as georgewbush.org or commondreams.org or search on google with a modicum of effort. If you don't read newspapers I'm not going to read them to you or give them to you as sources, what would be the point?
 
Unique-

georgewbush.org???? Well, that certainly explains where you get your "facts".
Mustn't selectively pick and choose to support your hypothesis, though. Someone might call you on it.

Let's look at the overall history, leading up to Nick Berg:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908792.html

April 2, 2003: Special operations forces rescue Pfc. Jessica Lynch from a hospital in Nasiriya. She was one of 12 soldiers captured by Iraqi troops on March 23. [Most were executed]

Aug. 19, 2003: Suicide bombing destroys UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 24, including top envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Aug. 29, 2003: A bomb kills one of Iraq's most important Shiite leaders, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, among about 80 others.

Oct. 27, 2003: Four coordinated suicide attacks in Baghdad kill 43 and wound more than 200. Targets include the headquarters of the Red Crescent and three police stations. Insurgents increasingly victimize civilians, Iraqi security forces, and aid agencies, not simply U.S. troops.

Feb. 10, 2004: About 54 Iraqis are killed in a car bombing while applying for jobs at a police station. The next day an attack kills about 47 outside an army recruiting center. Iraqi security forces become a regular target of insurgents.

March 2, 2004: Suicide attacks in Karbala on Shiite Islam's most holy feast day kill more than 85 and wound 233 others. It is believed that the perpetrators are attempting to foment unrest between Shiites and Sunnis.

March 31, 2004: Iraqi mob kills and mutilates four American civilian contract workers and drags them through the streets of Falluja.

April 9, 2004: U.S. contract worker Thomas Hamill is taken hostage. In all, more than 20 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq, and hostage-taking becomes a regular tactic of the insurgents.

April 30, 2004: The appalling physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad comes to light when photographs are released by the U.S. media. The images spark outrage around the world.
_______________________________

So, you're point is....exactly what is your point? Had we signed Protocol One, the enemy would have continued his very "civilized" manner of incinerating 80 or a hundred at a time, rather than decapitating Americans one by one? Or could it be that, in the wake of so many acts of terrorism, they were no longer getting as much play from the Media so they needed to do things a bit more, ummm, "dramatically"?

Regardless of conclusion, it's really quite a leap from your premise that we brought this all on ouselves with our "War Crimes".
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top