The Geneva Conventions

Re: The Geneva Conventions
Link to the International Red Cross website, with more about the history, full tetxts etc.

Walter
Thanks, Walter, for the more complete information.

BBB

The United States have not followed the Geneva Convention to the letter, dating back to 1945.
What good is an international agreement if only some members adhere to it?

Oh? I believe you are absolutely wrong on that.

The US HAS followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter and you know it. Otherwise you would be able to provide evidence.

Keep in mind that 7 soldiers acting on their own who were/will be punished for their actions do not constitute the "US".

The Geneva Conventions were shaped by Europeans, in accordance with the European norms of civilized behavior. When the enemy is outside Europe/North America, no reciprocity can be anticipated. The authorities of the Third World countries and especially irregular military organizations (like Al Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Taliban and Mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc.) tend to pay no attention to the restrictions imposed by the Conventions mentioned.
E.g., Israeli POWs of the 1967 and 1973 were severely mistreated by both Egyptians and Syrians, they were coerced to cooperation by means of physical torture. And the irregular Palestinian terror groups tend to murder captured Israelis. Afghan Mujahiddeen tortured and murdered the Soviet POWs in 1979-89, I have eywitnessed the dead bodies of the Soviet POWs in the period mentioned; they had obvious signs of severe physical abuse. (Remark for the people that do not know me: I am a former Soviet infantry officer and a participant of the Afghan Campaign).
Therefore, it seems to me, that the Conventions mentioned are obsolete and must be revised. They must be considered unapplicable to the conflicts against the Third World countries, dictatorial regimes anywhere and irregular militant groups.

McGentrix
McGentrix, if you had served in combat, you would know first hand the American has not always followed the Geneva Conventions. Ask any combat veteran, especially View Nam, and you will get the truth. For a start, why don't you ask Dyslexia about gut shot or copter dump choices, for example.

BBB

To BumbleBeeBoogie: But are there any proofs that the soldiers' atrocities were in compliance with the official policies of the USA Administartions of Presidents Johnson, Nixon etc.? Maybe these was merely illegal activities of certain soldiers, but there was a shortage in manpower to enforce the law?

Hi, steissd ... been missin' ya. Its good to see you're still around.

I sorta figure The Geneva Conventions are another of those "Polite Fictions", like "International Law", favored by the Eurocentric "Western Wprld", of which, indisputably, The US is a very considerable part. As steiss notes, the enemies of The West tend to disregard the Geneva Conventions, seeking, in fact, to find advantage by doing so. As concept, they do serve after a fashion to lend their adherents some claim of higher moral ground in the prosecution of bellicose activities, oxymoronic as that concept may seem. As a matter of ethics, they stand to reason, justification, and necessity. As practice, they serve mostly as something the badguys use against us to their own greater benefit than any concrete tactical or strategic benefit we gain by "playing nice". One might think of them as being the international equivalent of the Marquis of Queensbury's Rules governing contests of martial skill between capital-G "Gentleman", an outgrowth of the ancient Rules of Chivalry. Personally, I've seen situations in which the necessity of adhering to the Geneva Conventions has imposed inconvenience on US/Allied military personnel, but that's the way it is; civilization often is less convenient than is barbarity, and for all its inconveniences, I prefer civilization to the alternative.

I suppose they're sorta analogous to underwear; just a civilized nicety, considered, by the more civilized, an absolute necessity, often embellished with functionally useless but aesthetically attractive distractions, but something which does little but put another layer between us and the real world. I'd just as soon keep wearing the underwear; I like the way it feels, even if its a bit inconvenient from time to time.


Oh, and before anyone asks, I'm a boxers sort, but I don't like 'em too baggy.

The idea of holding the U.S. Military in general accountable for everything it's soldiers do is preposterous. Out of every 1,000 men, from every walk of life, you will find a criminally brutal monster that belongs behind bars, or worse. Pick any group, anywhere for the sampling, and the results remain the same. We all wish our soldiers would behave honorably and admirably down to the last man. If you are honest with yourself however, you know this isn't possible. The majority of our soldiers are behaving honorably and admirably and I for one am very, very grateful.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Should we hold every Muslim responsible for the acts of the worst among them? I think not and doubt that any but the most bigoted would answer in the affirmative. Yes, U.S. citizens have an insulting tendency to think they are better than everyone else. That doesn't justify holding their soldiers to a higher, unreachable, standard. Show me an active army, 6 digits strong, that commits no crimes against humanity during war and I'll show you a flying pig.

If there were only inconveniences... Sometimes it causes excessive manpower casualties. IDF in attempts to adhere to the Conventions mentioned, uses ground force in situations where carpet bombing or MLRS usage would yield much better results. And despite this, Israeli authorities face severe criticism in the world media. Even when Palestinian civilians are being killed by the home-made bombs, installed by their own militants. Not long ago Israeli tank fired a warning shot toward an abandoned building in order to prevent Palestinian demonstration to enter the crossfire area (in fact, planners of the demonstration wanted it to serve a human shield to the militants being surrounded by the IDF troops, but this is unprovable). The tank shell exploded on safe distance from the civilians, but its shockwave made the Palestinian home-made anti-tank mines on the sides of the road to detonate, that caused numerous casualties. And the media accused IDF in massacre of civilians.

At the moment the only thing barbaric are the pictures I see on my TV set. They don't look like the right way to introduce democracy to another country.
Someone steered the boat in the wrong direction.

OB
Well said, OB

BBB

To detano inipo[/color]: And are you sure that the pictures presented to you, are not being selected by certain media people having a definite political agenda (for example, to compromise President Bush in the elections year or to cause resignation of the PM Anthony Blair)? Some of these people are not too much picky in ways to hit the objective. Not long ago it was proven that the evidences depicting British soldiers torturing Iraqis were forged.

Wow, this is homecoming weekend or something.

A kuvasc sighting, and now steissd.

Welcome back (we still appear to disagree on most everything, but reasoned voices are always appreciated).

To your last post: I believe it's a bit of a stretch -- say, Grand Canyon-sized -- to suggest that the American torture pictures and video might be a media conspiracy.

steiss, my use of the word "inconvenience" was sarcastic understatement ... in general, the practice of "Playing Nice" has the result of increasing own-force casualties, a sad-but-true fact of life. Indeed there are situations in which massed artillery or airstrike would serve tactical advantage, yet the strategic consideration of political correctness outweighs the direct expense to one's own forces incurred by painstaking avoidance of collateral damage. As with most things, it boils down to cost/benefit ratio. Our sensibilities place great emphasis on moral and ethical superiority, therefore, we feel the need of such things as rules. For others, the only rule is win or die. At least we pay lip service to caring how we win, and bear our self-imposed cost willingly. That's worth something, I guess. Our enemies today are more fortunate by far than have been the enemies of any power in the past. It is fully and readily accessible within our capabilities to level and sterilize as large an area as we might wish at absolutely no combat risk to our own forces; it is to our credit we do not do so. Those who complain the US uses "Excessive Force" and conducts operations in barbaric manner and/or with disregard for civilian casualties have no concept of either. We are not Romans, and for that, our enemies should be exceedingly grateful. However, I sincerely doubt many will see the distinction, or appreciate their fortune in such regard. Rather, those who would oppose us take our concern for such niceties as a central weakness of our society. I sincerely hope the misapprehension is theirs.

And PDiddie, old buddy, I gotta say your equating the Prison Abuse incidents as "Torture" cheapens the meaning of the word "Torture". Yes, the idiocy was and is inexcuseable ... but to deem it torture is, to borrow your term, a Grand-Canyon-Sized stretch. Then again, given the likes of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and Shirley Jackson-Lee, I realize those on The Left are unlikely to recognize the difference between embarrassing a few individuals, in contravention of law and subject to prosecutorial sanction, and maiming or killing thousands as state-sponsored institution and policy ... its the thought that counts, right?

To Timberlandko: [/u]: If only the enemies learned to value the American adherence to different conventions...

Hey steissd, long time no see.

To Craven de Kere Hi. If I get used to my new job, where I have to work 6 days a week, I shall visit the forum much more often. Meanwhile, I suffer from excessive fatigue and almost gave up surfing the WWW.

Yep...



Oh, one other question I have for you, timber, about embarrassment (I will convey your answer to Senator Kennedy and Representatives Pelosi and Jackson-Lee; BTW, her first name is Sheila):



You think that's mud?