Geneva Convention and the United States

[AndrewR]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the United States has not fought another nation or group since World War II that actually followed the Geneva Convention or the "rules of war"? North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Serbia, various terrorist groups. It seems that we are the only ones who actually pay attention to the "rules" but then are the only ones resoundingly critisized for inadvertant violations or alleged violations (think about the bombing of the Serbian train on the bridge).

Thoughts?

 

[konichiwa]

You're just not paying attention; every time any country violates a human-rights standards or the Geneva Convention, human-rights and liberty groups are always deploring them (amnesty, etc).

Besides, playing the "nobody else follows the rules, so why should we" card only serves to damage our (already ailing) moral righteousness in the public eye.

 

[Martin]

Do you see something wrong with that? I certainly don't. If the US wants to be viewed as a moral and civilized country, it should obey those agreements even if their enemies don't. Simple as that.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
You're just not paying attention; every time any country violates a human-rights standards or the Geneva Convention, human-rights and liberty groups are always deploring them (amnesty, etc).

Besides, playing the "nobody else follows the rules, so why should we" card only serves to damage our (already ailing) moral righteousness in the public eye.

Could you point to the exact quote from my post regarding the "why should we" card?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Do you see something wrong with that? I certainly don't. If the US wants to be viewed as a moral and civilized country, it should obey those agreements even if their enemies don't. Simple as that.

So you see nothing wrong with our enemies failing to follow the Geneva Convention? Glad you're on "our" side.

 

[fwtong]

Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

 

[Tab]

The Geneva convention is just out their to appease the public. Since when is war fair? War isnt far period.

 

[Spyro]

The closest thing to a fair war is a game of chess.....

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the United States has not fought another nation or group since World War II that actually followed the Geneva Convention or the "rules of war"? North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Serbia, various terrorist groups. It seems that we are the only ones who actually pay attention to the "rules" but then are the only ones resoundingly critisized for inadvertant violations or alleged violations (think about the bombing of the Serbian train on the bridge).

Thoughts?

have any proof that yugoslavia wasn't following geneva convention? several americans were captured and AFAIK none of them were harmed.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: konichiwa
You're just not paying attention; every time any country violates a human-rights standards or the Geneva Convention, human-rights and liberty groups are always deploring them (amnesty, etc).

Besides, playing the "nobody else follows the rules, so why should we" card only serves to damage our (already ailing) moral righteousness in the public eye.

Could you point to the exact quote from my post regarding the "why should we" card?

I didn't suggest that you did. Your posts asked for "Thoughts?" so I posted mine.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

Well the prolonged imprisonment and incommunicado status of I.N.S. detainees who are held without trial or charge for months are a pretty clear violation of geneva conventions.

 

[fwtong]

As you requested

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030417/wl_nm/iraq_britain_aid_dc_1

Some more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030415/cm_usatoday/5069246

Even more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/oneworld/20030415/wl_oneworld/13343_1050389583

Read on!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030323/ts_afp/iraq_war_prisoners_icrc_1

And this is just from the recent military action too!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030324/ts_alt_afp/iraq_war_us_rights_1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030326/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_crimes_amnesty_1

And there's plenty more. So, like I said, we use the Geneva Conventions when it's convenient for our purposes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

Well the prolonged imprisonment and incommunicado status of I.N.S. detainees who are held without trial or charge for months are a pretty clear violation of geneva conventions.

How many are still detained? And how long where they detained without legal council? And which are US citizens?

 

[fwtong]

I forgot to add this one too:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/pows-j23.shtml

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Do you see something wrong with that? I certainly don't. If the US wants to be viewed as a moral and civilized country, it should obey those agreements even if their enemies don't. Simple as that.

So you see nothing wrong with our enemies failing to follow the Geneva Convention? Glad you're on "our" side.

You misunderstood me. To paraphrase my question: "I see nothing wrong with the US being held to higher standards than their enemies, do you?"

As for your enemies failing to follow the Geneva Convention, it is unfortunate but unsurprising.

 

[konichiwa]

regarding incommunicado prisoners

<< Padilla's lawyers, who have been demanding access to their client for the past 10 months, will have to wait for the outcome of the appeals process.
...
He was held in New York City pending a federal grand jury investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, but was secretly transferred in June to a Naval brig in South Carolina. He has been held incommunicado since then, with his lawyers charging his rights have been violated. >>

There are plenty of examples like this.


Oh and as to whether they are US citizens or not, that is of little importance; the Geneva convention is meant to be international rights for all humans, regardless of citizenship.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

You don't think much for yourself, do you?
We'll just stick with current events, for now. Link.
Oh wait, they're just dirty terrorists! Besides the US didn't officially wage war on Afghanistan, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply... right?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: fwtong
Our violations of the Geneva convention are not inadvertent nor alleged. We follow the Geneva Conventions only when it suits our purposes. So basically, America is quite hypocritical with regards to following the Geneva Conventions. But in the end, who really cares? No one is going to tell the US what to do anymore.

Care to post some facts, or do you just want to level unfounded accusations?

You don't think much for yourself, do you?
We'll just stick with current events, for now. Link.
Oh wait, they're just dirty terrorists! Besides the US didn't officially wage war on Afghanistan, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply... right?

A 15 month old article from the World Socialists Web Site and you have the balls to accuse someone else of not thinking for themselves. That's funny as hell.

The only thing that the US can be assused of wrt the prisoners at Gitmo is whether they deserve a hearing by an independent tribunal to determine their exact status. Legal opinions on this vary.

 

[Zebo]

American and french armies caused about a millon German POW's to die starting in april of 1945.
Do a search for "other losses" and Eisenhower singning the order for DEF status which violated the convention.

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the United States has not fought another nation or group since World War II that actually followed the Geneva Convention or the "rules of war"? North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Serbia, various terrorist groups. It seems that we are the only ones who actually pay attention to the "rules" but then are the only ones resoundingly critisized for inadvertant violations or alleged violations (think about the bombing of the Serbian train on the bridge).

Thoughts?

You do what you got to do, always. We are in a better position to abide by the convention and the "just war theory" because of our enormous economy, relativly insidious press core, and over-whelming miliary superiority.


Think of a chess match (us) compared to a street fight (all thrid worlders).

 

[konichiwa]

How about holding prisoners as "enemy combatants" and prohibiting them access to family members, friends and lawyers, all while never pressing charges?

 

[Phuz]

A 15 month old article from the World Socialists Web Site and you have the balls to accuse someone else of not thinking for themselves. That's funny as hell.

The only thing that the US can be assused of wrt the prisoners at Gitmo is whether they deserve a hearing by an independent tribunal to determine their exact status. Legal opinions on this vary.

Good arguement. You don't like the name of the news source! Maybe its 15 months old because... thats when the Afghan conflict happened?
(1 + 1 is.... )
Why don't you actually read it? (note: reading is good for you)
Theres not subjectiveness to this issues.
The geneva convention was heavily violated with how the POW's were dealt with during Afghanistan. Everyone was very upset with how Al Jezzera aired footage of the American POWs.... the irony...

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Phuz

A 15 month old article from the World Socialists Web Site and you have the balls to accuse someone else of not thinking for themselves. That's funny as hell.

The only thing that the US can be assused of wrt the prisoners at Gitmo is whether they deserve a hearing by an independent tribunal to determine their exact status. Legal opinions on this vary.

Good arguement. You don't like the name of the news source! Maybe its 15 months old because... thats when the Afghan conflict happened?
(1 + 1 is.... )
Why don't you actually read it? (note: reading is good for you)
Theres not subjectiveness to this issues.
The geneva convention was heavily violated with how the POW's were dealt with during Afghanistan. Everyone was very upset with how Al Jezzera aired footage of the American POWs.... the irony...

Here's some clue training. Read more than one source for news. Read something current. The convention was not "heavily" violated. The Red Cross went in and inspected at Gitmo and changes were made but the changes were minor. Don't pick and choose the news that suits your preconceived ignorant opinion. I know it's probably overload for the two living brain cells you actually have but try real hard. You can do it (maybe). Training over. You're dimissed.

 

[Phuz]

Here's some clue training. Read more than one source for news. Read something current. The convention was not "heavily" violated. The Red Cross went in and inspected at Gitmo and changes were made but the changes were minor. Don't pick and choose the news that suits your preconceived ignorant opinion. I know it's probably overload for the two living brain cells you actually have but try real hard. You can do it (maybe). Training over. You're dimissed.

This is getting humorous. A tenth of you're refute is part of the debate, the rest is pointless personal attacks.

First, how 'current' a news source is = irrelevant.
History books that were written 20 years ago are no more valid than ones that came out yesterday.
Since when is a documents creation the definitive factor in its validity? :Q

Aired footage of the POW's in Cuba = Violation. Period.
their treatment (not that I care, I'm not out to give them a cushy bed... ) etc, many other things were VIOLATIONS of the convention, whether you like it or not.

The issues itself is not my concern... I couldn't care.
I'm not picking and choosing news. We were asked to provide proof of the U.S. infringing the Geneva convention, and that was done.
Just because you can't deal with it doesn't render the information invalid.


Edit: I don't want to debate it anymore. I've had better arguements with a brick wall. (almost a personal attack, not quote. )

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Here's some clue training. Read more than one source for news. Read something current. The convention was not "heavily" violated. The Red Cross went in and inspected at Gitmo and changes were made but the changes were minor. Don't pick and choose the news that suits your preconceived ignorant opinion. I know it's probably overload for the two living brain cells you actually have but try real hard. You can do it (maybe). Training over. You're dimissed.

This is getting humorous. A tenth of you're refute is part of the debate, the rest is pointless personal attacks.

First, how 'current' a news source is = irrelevant.
History books that were written 20 years ago are no more valid than ones that came out yesterday.
Since when is a documents creation the definitive factor in its validity? :Q

Aired footage of the POW's in Cuba = Violation. Period.
their treatment (not that I care, I'm not out to give them a cushy bed... ) etc, many other things were VIOLATIONS of the convention, whether you like it or not.

The issues itself is not my concern... I couldn't care.
I'm not picking and choosing news. We were asked to provide proof of the U.S. infringing the Geneva convention, and that was done.
Just because you can't deal with it doesn't render the information invalid.


Edit: I don't want to debate it anymore. I've had better arguements with a brick wall. (almost a personal attack, not quote. )

You don't want to debate it anymore because you have no argument. You can't even read with any comprehension your own link. You have provided no proof of anything and just to prove your depth of knowledge on the subject you refer to the enemy combatants as POW's, a status they were never given because they do not pass the litmus test that is spelled out in the very convention that you are trying to prove was being violated. My suggestion to you is that you actually go and read the convention (I've heard reading is good) and try to do your own thinking and quite possibly form an intelligent, informed opinion instead of the ignorant drivel that you are spewing forth right now.