And to remind everyone what the Geneva Convention actually says...

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of WarAdopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment ofInternational Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Genevafrom 21 April to 12 August, 1949entry into force 21 October 1950
Article 1 contains the following passage:
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;(b) Taking of hostages;(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

Article 12 contains the following passage:
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Article 13 contains the following passage:
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated...Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Rep makes no further observations - you make up your own minds whether the coalition forces complied with the Geneva Convention.

Link to full text:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

(Rep, the passage you quoted and labeled as from Article 1 is actually from Article 3, section 1.)

I think Rep put it perfectly..... Then again, did anyone ever dount that the inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners went against the Geneva convention?

Its been a few years since the Geneva Convention has been talked about, but like I said then, its laughable.

I'm not suggesting that prisoners get tortured, nor am I justifying anything that happened in those prisons. Anyone who's read my responses knows that I condemed them.

With that said, putting rules in place that can only be enforced by the winners of the war is a waste of time. Either the warring parties have rules in place for their own code of conduct or they don't. The Convention cannot be enforced. Sure, people are prosecuted under its name, but its nothing but a sham.

How many North Koreans were prosecuted under it? None. Why? Because they didn't sign it? It is true they never ratified the treaty. So, do the rules only apply to those that sign a piece of paper?

Ok. How about North Vietnam. They signed the treaty. However, the Vietnamese added the condition that prisoners of war prosecuted and convicted for war crimes or for crimes against humanity, in accordance with the Nuremberg Court shall not benefit from the Convention. Citing that clause, the North Vietnamese took the position that U.S. pilots who dropped bombs on their soldiers and civilians in an undeclared war were war criminals, preventing them from the protections of the convention. While the North Vietnamese asserted publicly that their treatment of American POWs was humane, they tortured the majority of American POWs during the war. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/filmmore/ps_geneva.html

Prisoners should be treated humanely. No torture. No summary executions. The Geneva Convention is not a necessary article to that. If a country doesn't abide by their own rules, what can anyone do about it afterward - nothing.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The Geneva Convention is one of the first things you're taught after entering Basic Military training - regardless of which branch of service you're in, or status (ie, Active-Duty, Guard, or Reserve).

You're also required to complete an annual refresher course of the "Laws of Armed Conflict" (which includes the GC). This training can be accomplished anywhere, anytime. So I find it extremely unlikely that the troops participating in the abuse were 'never' trained/taught the Geneva Convention as they're claiming.

The Geneva Convention is a set of rules for one side to follow. The terrorists sure as shit are not going to follow it why should the Americans follow it?

I believe in a rule older than the Geneva Convention----Its called AN EYE FOR AN EYE!

Its been a few years since the Geneva Convention has been talked about, but like I said then, its laughable.

I'm not suggesting that prisoners get tortured, nor am I justifying anything that happened in those prisons. Anyone who's read my responses knows that I condemed them.

With that said, putting rules in place that can only be enforced by the winners of the war is a waste of time. Either the warring parties have rules in place for their own code of conduct or they don't. The Convention cannot be enforced. Sure, people are prosecuted under its name, but its nothing but a sham.


That's a rather calloused opinion, Yogs... In my opinion, there must be some guidelines of conduct in war, they at least give a standard which countries can hold eachother to, and if a country does not meet those standards, a legal basis for action against them.


Ok. How about North Vietnam. They signed the treaty. However, the Vietnamese added the condition that prisoners of war prosecuted and convicted for war crimes or for crimes against humanity, in accordance with the Nuremberg Court shall not benefit from the Convention. Citing that clause, the North Vietnamese took the position that U.S. pilots who dropped bombs on their soldiers and civilians in an undeclared war were war criminals, preventing them from the protections of the convention. While the North Vietnamese asserted publicly that their treatment of American POWs was humane, they tortured the majority of American POWs during the war. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/filmmore/ps_geneva.html


That might be because the US was interfering in another country's civil war... :rolleyes:


Prisoners should be treated humanely. No torture. No summary executions. The Geneva Convention is not a necessary article to that. If a country doesn't abide by their own rules, what can anyone do about it afterward - nothing.

You just made a strong argument for the UN, Yogs ;) That's what they're there for.

No prisoner should be treated inhumanely, but that has to be enforced. That's what the UN is there to do.

I wasn't suggesting that prisoners be treated badly and I mentioned that on several occasions. The only guidelines are the ones that the participating countries have for themselves. If they lose, they will be judged by the winner. If they are the winner, they can only be judged by themselves.

What I described in no way supports the UN. The UN has no brains or backbone.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I wasn't suggesting that prisoners be treated badly and I mentioned that on several occasions. The only guidelines are the ones that the participating countries have for themselves. If they lose, they will be judged by the winner. If they are the winner, they can only be judged by themselves.

What I described in no way supports the UN. The UN has no brains or backbone.

If the world community has the ability to hold countries accountable for their actions, then the countries will act accordingly. Now it's obvious that the UN won't impose sanctions on the US for the treatment of prisoners, but it can, will, and has imposed sanctions on other countries. Despite your personal opinion about the UN, this is one of their primary functions, upholding and protecting human rights.

I don't mean to steer this thread off topic, although it is somewhat germaine to the Geneva convention.

The Geneva Convention is a set of rules for one side to follow. The terrorists sure as shit are not going to follow it why should the Americans follow it?

Because you're supposed to be the good guys?

I believe in a rule older than the Geneva Convention----Its called AN EYE FOR AN EYE!

BOOM!

"What was that?"
"Oh just another plane crashing into New York city."

Because you're supposed to be the good guys?


I'm tired of being the good guys. I want to be the bad guys for a while. I want to dress in all black. I look good in black. :sunglasse

Sh*$ would hit the fan if America all the sudden was determined to become the bad guy

Now you know someone is going to say we already are.

yes i know; that why i said "determind to become the bad guy" the government now thinks that they are doing good.....what would happen if they were trying to be the bad guy

Ahhhhh....I see what you mean. There would be hell to pay.

Plus we would all get black suits. Very cool.
Did I mention I look good in black?

Ahhhhh....I see what you mean. There would be hell to pay.

Plus we would all get black suits. Very cool.
Did I mention I look good in black?
count me in black and a suit damn i'll look savue!

I still think that yes its a cute peice of paper but how can one play fair in war?

If everyone followed rules and got along there wouldn't be a need for war or the Geneva convetion.

i know this means nothing, but Ace$nyper, youre avatar is pretty sweet :thumbsup:

hehe thanks man!

The thing about being the self-appointed 'Sheriff' of the World that the US has decided to become is that when you elevate yourself to being a vigilante defending truth, freedom, liberty, equity and justice is that it's a bloody long way to fall off the moral pedestal when you screw up.

Tactical combat theatres put ordinary people into extraordinary circumstances and situations... and on a battlefield there are times where an occasional deviation from the terms of engagement maybe warranted. Combat is inherently a nasty business involving the legitimate use of deadly force something that is abhorrent to civilised society for the main part.

However, outside the immediate theatre of combat where there is not the same imminent endangerment to human life... the west promotes itself as having a superior set of morals and ethics compared to the proponents of terror. It needs to be shown to be demonstrating those values and ethics rather than stooping to tactics of expediency - otherwise those that would use terror could feel legitimised in their tactics of expediency.