Has the US withdrawn from the Geneva Convention?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

That is way besides the point. Jews were relegated to subhumans. That meant whatever was done to them wasn't immoral. When we decide to look for excuses for inhumane treatment of others then we truely have fallen.

Sometimes a thing is wrong. If that isn't enough, then all the legalities, treaties, erudite speeches, flag waving and podium thumping aren't either.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Feh, we failed at being the shining beacon of liberty, time to cut off the tail that wags the dog, cut the military by 3/4 and they will not be able to harm anyone/overthrow democracys/meddle in others affairs much less kill any more brown skinned people to appease our own funda-headcases no less brutal and bloodthirsty then the taliban or any radical islamic, just defend our country, as they should be doing only.

military=bureaucratic waste and nothing less then a tool for lobbyists and multinational profits.

*is still waiting for the "peace dividend"*

Such an attitude works great when there is no one knocking at your door.

Should such an attitude existed in WWI, WWII, Korea or Post WWII Europe; consider where the world might be.

Playing ostrich only works when there are no predators.

And who are the predators who started the war and meddling in others affairs from across the world?

BTW, WW1 we were johnny come-latelys, WW2 also, korea was a failure and the north and south still have not worked out their problems, and post ww2 europe = profit for us, nothing less. Yeah, we care soooooo much about the french, we are so generous, never had our own interests in sight, even though we only came in when we knew the commies were gonna roll over so many profitable markets. :roll:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060605/ts...a7gF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Pentagon to omit Geneva ban from new army manual: report

New policies on prisoners being drawn up by the Pentagon will reportedly omit a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment."
Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, the Los Angeles Times said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could end a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes the new guidelines public, the report said.




It appears the Bushies have withdrawn from the Geneva Convention without telling them...or the American public.
Ask any service person, they are for remaining in the Geneva Convention. I am guessing its only chicken hawks who never served that think withdrawing is a good idea.

You cannot fight an enemy and win if the enemy is not playing by the same rules that you are...

 

[Starbuck1975]

The Geneva convention is largely a noble notion that emerged after word spread of many atrocities committed against POWs during WW2.

However, the Geneva Convention is very much in need of revisiting, as its doctrine did not take into account the nuances of unconventional warfare.

The Geneva Convention only applies when you have two sovereign nations involved in a war, with an expectation that both sides will treat POWs humanely...while most developed nations can appreciate the rationale behind such a concept, the wars of the last 30 years have typically involved one side that simply chooses to ignore the rules of war.

Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq the Balkans...all of these wars have one thing in common in that the enemies of our nation DO NOT play by the rules, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Of course, the common argument is that America should always take the higher moral ground, but war is nasty business...the notion of appealing to a higher standard of conduct in times of war doesn't really fly in scenarios where the enemy doesn't seem to care.

However, I dont agree with this solution, if the new Army manual does indeed indicate America pulling away from the Geneva Convention...in a perfect world, America would address this issue before the world community through the UN...however, the UN is such a dysfunctional and ineffective forum such that I cannot envision a perfect solution.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

You cannot fight an enemy and win if the enemy is not playing by the same rules that you are...

Well well, seems someone has finally woken up.

Yes, imperialism never works in the long run, it may seem profitable when you have a big military and think you can bully anyone but the reality is people dont take nice to being occupied and will fight dirty if need be.

Who wouldn't?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ.

But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal?

You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need.

Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now.

Times change.

New rules apply.

You sound just like rummy, Bush, Hannity and the rest of the Republicans.

I bet Murdock and all of the Republican based Media is chomping at the bit for the kind of ratings they would get putting that on TV.

Well let's hear your proposal for how we get the job done, Dave. Bearing in mind that times right now are how they are and we can't just wave a magic wand and undo what has already been done, how would you propose we go forward? Realistically, not idealistically, how should we move ahead?

I wouldn't have 150,000 of our troops there for starters.

I'd be taking out targets with our advanced airpower.

What happened to "Shock & Awe"???

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ.

But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal?

You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need.

Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now.

Times change.

New rules apply.

You sound just like rummy, Bush, Hannity and the rest of the Republicans.

I bet Murdock and all of the Republican based Media is chomping at the bit for the kind of ratings they would get putting that on TV.

Well let's hear your proposal for how we get the job done, Dave. Bearing in mind that times right now are how they are and we can't just wave a magic wand and undo what has already been done, how would you propose we go forward? Realistically, not idealistically, how should we move ahead?

Nobody wants to hear it, but we need a gradual withdrawl of our presence. We will have to continuously give more security responsibility over to the Iraqi forces. They must be willing to take ownership of the government that is being given to them. I don't think the US role in Iraqi is feasible over the long term. As we draw back our presence as the dominate police force, they will have to step up and take control of the country. That is the completely realistic view. Idealistically, we should stay forever and enjoy the flowers and hugs...but those times have *long* past.

We need to develop a time table, with milestones for the Iraqi forces to adhear to. A big of reality needs to be given out to those who say, terrorists will use time tables against us. They are already killing people, and no amount of time table will change that fact.

If we must maintain a military presence, start building a base in iraq and move the troops out of civilian areas.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The Geneva convention is largely a noble notion that emerged after word spread of many atrocities committed against POWs during WW2.

However, the Geneva Convention is very much in need of revisiting, as its doctrine did not take into account the nuances of unconventional warfare.

The Geneva Convention only applies when you have two sovereign nations involved in a war, with an expectation that both sides will treat POWs humanely...while most developed nations can appreciate the rationale behind such a concept, the wars of the last 30 years have typically involved one side that simply chooses to ignore the rules of war.

Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq the Balkans...all of these wars have one thing in common in that the enemies of our nation DO NOT play by the rules, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Of course, the common argument is that America should always take the higher moral ground, but war is nasty business...the notion of appealing to a higher standard of conduct in times of war doesn't really fly in scenarios where the enemy doesn't seem to care.

However, I dont agree with this solution, if the new Army manual does indeed indicate America pulling away from the Geneva Convention...in a perfect world, America would address this issue before the world community through the UN...however, the UN is such a dysfunctional and ineffective forum such that I cannot envision a perfect solution.

Uh, NO.

Therewere actually 4 major treaties making up the Geneva Conventions.

First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)

Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
In addition, there are three additional protocols to the Geneva Convention:


Clara Barton was instrumental in campaigning for the ratification of the First Geneva Convention by the United States; the U.S. signed in 1882. By the Fourth Geneva Convention some 47 nations had ratified the agreements.

and btw when was the last time torturing religious zealots ever stopped them from believing or stopped them from fighting for their faith?
Answer: Never.
Yet every time it was tried it only strengthened their religious convictions.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Um yeah...I thought we were discussing the Geneva Convention article specific to POWs.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Similarly, the Geneva Convention in its entirety really didnt garner much discussion or attention until the atrocities of WW2 came to light...particularly the treatment of the wounded, sick, POWs and protection of civilians during times of war...as WW2 was the first major war in recent history during which densely populated civilian areas served as the battlefields.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Didn't our, and and I am using this term loosely, UN 'ambassador' call the Geneva Convention quaint? How is it quaint? This disgusts me, one more cause to get this gang of thugs out of power, and hopefully tried and convicted.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The Geneva convention is largely a noble notion that emerged after word spread of many atrocities committed against POWs during WW2.

However, the Geneva Convention is very much in need of revisiting, as its doctrine did not take into account the nuances of unconventional warfare.

The Geneva Convention only applies when you have two sovereign nations involved in a war, with an expectation that both sides will treat POWs humanely...while most developed nations can appreciate the rationale behind such a concept, the wars of the last 30 years have typically involved one side that simply chooses to ignore the rules of war.

Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq the Balkans...all of these wars have one thing in common in that the enemies of our nation DO NOT play by the rules, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Of course, the common argument is that America should always take the higher moral ground, but war is nasty business...the notion of appealing to a higher standard of conduct in times of war doesn't really fly in scenarios where the enemy doesn't seem to care.

However, I dont agree with this solution, if the new Army manual does indeed indicate America pulling away from the Geneva Convention...in a perfect world, America would address this issue before the world community through the UN...however, the UN is such a dysfunctional and ineffective forum such that I cannot envision a perfect solution.

Uh, NO.

Therewere actually 4 major treaties making up the Geneva Conventions.

First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)

Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
In addition, there are three additional protocols to the Geneva Convention:


Clara Barton was instrumental in campaigning for the ratification of the First Geneva Convention by the United States; the U.S. signed in 1882. By the Fourth Geneva Convention some 47 nations had ratified the agreements.

and btw when was the last time torturing religious zealots ever stopped them from believing or stopped them from fighting for their faith?
Answer: Never.
Yet every time it was tried it only strengthened their religious convictions.

If we are doing war with one of the 47 nations who ratified the Geneva Convention, then we should hold to it just as we would expect them to. Why should we stick to it when fighting an enemy to whom the treaties are meaningless? Why give them that advantage over us? It only empowers them and weakens us. And as far as whether or not torture strengthens or weakens a zealot's religious convictions, I could give a rats ass as long as he gives up the information we need. His religious convictions can take a hike, who gives a crap about them?

 

[Steeplerot]

The weakening and empowering of our "enemies" was sealed when we started a preemptive illegal war of occupation.

We are the ones who are in the wrong thus the soldiers sent into this are the ones taking the worst of the peoples anger.

All this apologism for war atrocitys is nothing but trying to justify being one in the same as what we are suppossed to be against, and turning the world against us fast.

Also it is obvious that this is fueled by our own religious extremists and corrupt leaders, making us look even worse and a big case of crying wolf. You reap what you sow.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Why give them that advantage over us? It only empowers them and weakens us.

How can you consider people who engage in the worst kind of animalistic behavior to be "empowered"? I thought the US was empowered through its economic and technological superiority and high moral standards?

That kind of attitude has led us to the situation we're in.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TGS

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ.

But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal?

You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need.

Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now.

Times change.

New rules apply.

You sound just like rummy, Bush, Hannity and the rest of the Republicans.

I bet Murdock and all of the Republican based Media is chomping at the bit for the kind of ratings they would get putting that on TV.

Well let's hear your proposal for how we get the job done, Dave. Bearing in mind that times right now are how they are and we can't just wave a magic wand and undo what has already been done, how would you propose we go forward? Realistically, not idealistically, how should we move ahead?

Nobody wants to hear it, but we need a gradual withdrawl of our presence. We will have to continuously give more security responsibility over to the Iraqi forces. They must be willing to take ownership of the government that is being given to them. I don't think the US role in Iraqi is feasible over the long term. As we draw back our presence as the dominate police force, they will have to step up and take control of the country. That is the completely realistic view. Idealistically, we should stay forever and enjoy the flowers and hugs...but those times have *long* past.

We need to develop a time table, with milestones for the Iraqi forces to adhear to. A big of reality needs to be given out to those who say, terrorists will use time tables against us. They are already killing people, and no amount of time table will change that fact.

If we must maintain a military presence, start building a base in iraq and move the troops out of civilian areas.

We did build bases, one covering the Oil Fields to the North and the other at the Oil Shipping Facilities to the South.

Mission Accomplished

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The Geneva convention is largely a noble notion that emerged after word spread of many atrocities committed against POWs during WW2.

However, the Geneva Convention is very much in need of revisiting, as its doctrine did not take into account the nuances of unconventional warfare.

The Geneva Convention only applies when you have two sovereign nations involved in a war, with an expectation that both sides will treat POWs humanely...while most developed nations can appreciate the rationale behind such a concept, the wars of the last 30 years have typically involved one side that simply chooses to ignore the rules of war.

Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq the Balkans...all of these wars have one thing in common in that the enemies of our nation DO NOT play by the rules, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Of course, the common argument is that America should always take the higher moral ground, but war is nasty business...the notion of appealing to a higher standard of conduct in times of war doesn't really fly in scenarios where the enemy doesn't seem to care.

However, I dont agree with this solution, if the new Army manual does indeed indicate America pulling away from the Geneva Convention...in a perfect world, America would address this issue before the world community through the UN...however, the UN is such a dysfunctional and ineffective forum such that I cannot envision a perfect solution.

Uh, NO.

Therewere actually 4 major treaties making up the Geneva Conventions.

First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)

Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
In addition, there are three additional protocols to the Geneva Convention:


Clara Barton was instrumental in campaigning for the ratification of the First Geneva Convention by the United States; the U.S. signed in 1882. By the Fourth Geneva Convention some 47 nations had ratified the agreements.

and btw when was the last time torturing religious zealots ever stopped them from believing or stopped them from fighting for their faith?
Answer: Never.
Yet every time it was tried it only strengthened their religious convictions.

If we are doing war with one of the 47 nations who ratified the Geneva Convention, then we should hold to it just as we would expect them to. Why should we stick to it when fighting an enemy to whom the treaties are meaningless? Why give them that advantage over us? It only empowers them and weakens us. And as far as whether or not torture strengthens or weakens a zealot's religious convictions, I could give a rats ass as long as he gives up the information we need. His religious convictions can take a hike, who gives a crap about them?

Back in 1949 the 47 nations were most of the world. Many more have since signed it.
Basically it embodies the idea that a captured enemy should not be tortured. Once captured he poses no threat and the idea was that civilized nations should not exact revenge on captured enemy soldiers.
Germany on the whole, abided by the Conventions and so did the US. Japan which had never signed was brutal towards its captives. Yet, the US did follow the Conventions (mostly) in regards to Japanese prisoners.
Today Japan and Germany are allies.
Perhaps this had something to do with it?
And the whole idea of torturing a captive for info is one thing, the treatment of prisoners is another.
And torture is not a very effective way of getting truthful info.
What the US is saying is that ALL prisoners may now be treated in any barbaric way we choose, since they are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.
This is NOT about winning the war, but practicing barbarity.
It actually harkens back to the Inquisition where it was believed you could change someones religious convictions thru torture.
Didn't work then and in fact has never worked.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional war, why should you?

Then how are you to maintain the moral high ground? What makes the United States better than the OH NOES!! TEH TERRRARRRRRISTS!!!! if we can behave exactly like them? What about acting like a civilized people instead of braindead religionist thugs?

 

[Engineer]

Bush (just like the Constitution): "It's just a goddamned piece of paper".

 

[sandorski]

If you ever wondered what the Decline of Civilization looked like, this is it. It is the steady disassembling of what makes Civilization possible. In each period of History this decline was always for "good reason", but it was followed by centuries of what we call "Dark Ages".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski
If you ever wondered what the Decline of Civilization looked like, this is it. It is the steady disassembling of what makes Civilization possible. In each period of History this decline was always for "good reason", but it was followed by centuries of what we call "Dark Ages".

BFT

Question

Why is it when I point this out I am labeled "Chicken Little" or "Infamous Political Troll" but it's OK for others to say the same thing I have been saying???

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
If you ever wondered what the Decline of Civilization looked like, this is it. It is the steady disassembling of what makes Civilization possible. In each period of History this decline was always for "good reason", but it was followed by centuries of what we call "Dark Ages".

BFT

Question

Why is it when I point this out I am labeled "Chicken Little" or "Infamous Political Troll" but it's OK for others to say the same thing I have been saying???

Delivery.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
If you ever wondered what the Decline of Civilization looked like, this is it. It is the steady disassembling of what makes Civilization possible. In each period of History this decline was always for "good reason", but it was followed by centuries of what we call "Dark Ages".

BFT

Question

Why is it when I point this out I am labeled "Chicken Little" or "Infamous Political Troll" but it's OK for others to say the same thing I have been saying???

Delivery.

True, you didn't say it like a Moronic Asshole like me.

 

[Rainsford]

You know what I find interesting about these discussions? Every time the topic of behavior in wartime comes up, it becomes obvious that a surprising number of people have this belief that what you do in war doesn't really change who you are...war is "special circumstances" that don't apply to real life. Obviously very few people want the US to become a country where torture is an acceptable practice, but plenty of people seem to support the idea of doing it when you really have to, in a war with an enemy that doesn't play fair. And the reason they support it is that they figure once we win, it doesn't matter HOW we won, we'll just go back to normal and we won't have lost any of ourselves as a result.

No offense, but it's all bullshit, and anyone who's thought about it for five seconds would realize it. Our country can't be a freedom loving country with a deep respect for the rights of all men and women except in war any more than you can be a thief only one day per year. War is a terrible thing, all the more so when the enemy doesn't play by any sort of rules at all. But if you say "special circumstances" and abandon YOUR moral beliefs as well, you've just failed the most important test of what you believe, and proved that your beliefs aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

Ever heard the saying about the "sunshine patriot"? Well I think it very much applies here. If you can't stand up for your moral values when it's difficult, what good are they? Anybody can be all for freedom when it costs them nothing, it's when it becomes difficult to stick by your values that tells you how solid they really are. Yeah, it's difficult to fight "fair" when our enemies don't. But if we REALLY believe in all that noise about what America stands for, we can't decide when we will follow those beliefs, and when we won't.

What we're defending is more than buildings and people, it's ideals and values. And you can't defend ideals by abandoning them when they prove to be inconvenient. Mostly because, despite what you might like to believe, you can't just go back to the way things were. That's not how it works.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But if you say "special circumstances" and abandon YOUR moral beliefs as well, you've just failed the most important test of what you believe, and proved that your beliefs aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

What moral beliefs as a society were we adhering to when we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...or when the Allies fire bombed Dresden...or when the Allies delayed opening a western front in Europe, allowing the Soviets to essentially absorb the brunt of Nazi aggression.

What we're defending is more than buildings and people, it's ideals and values. And you can't defend ideals by abandoning them when they prove to be inconvenient. Mostly because, despite what you might like to believe, you can't just go back to the way things were. That's not how it works.

There is no nice way to kill people in war...and given the emergence of unconventional warfare, our enemies have learned that the only way to defeat America in a war is to fight dirty, and turn it into a war of attrition to the extent that we lose the will to fight due to the inevitable atrocities that will emerge. There is now a PR element to war, more so then at any time in history.

The nature of warfare has not changed...it has always been a nasty affair...our understanding and visibility of what happens during war has increased tremendously, which has an inevitable impact on how the public views war.

Public opinion can shift in a heartbeat, regardless of whether or not the perception of the conflict is just...take Iraq as an example...obviously public perception is against this war, but what about Somalia? That was seemingly a just war and a just cause, yet American public opinion turned in an instance once images of that conflict hit the media.

Now, I am not blaming the media for turning public opinion...but the media is one of many dynamics that our military has to account for.

Granted, this doesnt mean we simply take off the gloves...but warfare is changing...it always does...and adapting to those changes requires that revisit the supposed "rules" that govern our soldiers' conduct in war.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional war, why should you?

Then how are you to maintain the moral high ground? What makes the United States better than the OH NOES!! TEH TERRRARRRRRISTS!!!! if we can behave exactly like them? What about acting like a civilized people instead of braindead religionist thugs?

We are, which is why we attack with a flag aimed at military targets instead of cowardly flying planes into civilians.

 

[Martin]

Finally, we can empower the troops by freeing them of useless rules. And think the wonders it'll do for morale... have athlete's foot? Your team lose the game? Don't get mad or frustrated, blow off some steam by killing a few familes..its total wicked fun.