Should we re-write or rescind the Geneva Convention?

Question

Because "The War on Terror" is not a traditional war, antiquated methods of fighting are obviously not very effective. The Geneva Convention is good in alot of ways but very limiting for the current "war" we are fighting. I purpose that since the Geneva Convention is not being upheld by Muslim militants when engaging our military, it is usless to maintain. Why fight with your hands tied behind your back? Knowing that we are unable to engage hospitals, mosques, ambulances and civilians they are hiding behind each of these. They are not fighting "by the rules" why should we continue to give them an upper hand? By simply withdrawing from the Geneva convention, and any other global network that causes us to be held back we wouldn't have to worry about breaking their rules. Each and every soldier would have the freedom to use their own sense of when and where it is necessary to eliminate our enemies. Morality is indeed very important we should form our own rules. What do you think?

Answer 1

I find it amusing that you refer to basic due process, respect for captured soldiers, and anti-torture provisions to be "antiquated". Especially when the relevant portions were enacted less than 60 years ago.

You point out that terrorists don't have their hands tied behind their back, and can engage in such horrific behaviors -- and your solution is to allow our troops to join them, and fight with no rules and not respect for civilized behavior.

Have you actually read the Geneva Conventions? The most relevant provision is Common Article 3, found in all four conventions, and Article 4 of the third convention, the violation of which are recognized as war crimes under federal law (18 USC 2441). It basically says that non-combatants and those who surrender (lay down their arms) must be given basic medial attention and cannot be tortured. So, which aspect do you suggest we abandon -- providing medical treatment to non-combatants? Or torturing those who have surrendered and laid down their weapons?

The other main requirement of Common Article 3 is that if any combatant (such as an 'enemy combatant') is captured, their trial must follow whatever standard rules the capturing country normally imposes in other criminal trials. Also, the captured combatant cannot be punished for something that they personally did not do. In other words, no punishment just for being on the same side as someone who did commit a criminal action. Our own constitution already requires the same level of 5th Amendment due process, and provides the same 6th Amendment protections (to "any accused", not just to citizens), so ignoring those requirements don't get you anything unless you also want to ignore the constitution.

Let's ignore for the moment the fact that repealing the treaty would mean that any US solider captured overseas, by any country or any force, would be completely unprotected and could be tortured or killed at will. You seem to think that happens anyway.

If we abandon the basic requirements of civilized behavior -- no torture, no brutalization of civilians, following our own constitution -- if we ignore those, how are we any better than the terrorists we are fighting?

Answer 2

actual, the U. S. is only interior of its criminal rights to drop out of the Geneva Conventions (or every person of them), or to redefine conflict crimes (18 USC 2441) so as that the time period enables some issues the Conventions limit. which could a minimum of dodge such movements from being extra violations of federal regulation. yet there's a diverse situation to think about. And McCain made the great argument concerning it. through dropping by the wayside of the Geneva convention, formally or purely through continuously ignoring it, US troops would now not be danger-free through it. that means that US troops would haven't any declare to UN intervention or honest clinical care, in any destiny conflict, with Venezuela or Iran or Pakistan or China or the Sudan, or any present day conflict in Lebanon, or Afghanistan, or Iraq. dropping by the wayside means the U. S. has no criminal foundation to call for get admission to for clinical workers, or the pink flow, and no criminal foundation to call for that US forces imprisoned as prisoners of conflict be granted trials, or prisoner exchanges. BushCo argue that terrorists do not keep on with those regulations, so why could we? properly, if all the U. S. is ever going to wrestle, now and contained in the destiny, are terrorists, then which could be a valid argument. yet when we are ever going to wrestle hostile to a distinct united states of america back, we may not favor to be so careless as to leave our troops with out criminal danger-free practices.

Answer 3

I agree with you. We cannot be limited to traditional warfare when the opposing forces are fighting dirty. Perhaps the Geneva Convention should be rescinded. I don't think that re written would be good enough. There are too many countries out there that want to see the United States neutered and unable to defend itself. (Yes, France, I am talking to you) and there is no way that I think that these countries should have their opinions concidered on how we should run our war. Very few of them wanted to help us fight the war on Terror because they had vested interests with the enemy anyways.

Answer 4

Obviously you assume that each and every soldier has impeccable morals and ethics...not to mention your government, who have taken it upon themselves to label this a so-called 'war on terror' yet do nothing to address it.

What you are proposing would result in the deaths of many, many innocent citizens. If you don't see anything wrong with that, there is nothing else to say.

Answer 5

your question ignores the fact that bush and his lap dogs have repeatedly ignored the geneva convention and international law, to the point amnesty international cited america as one of the worst civil rights violaters. becoming barbaric just proves that the enemy is right, we are terrorists ourselves. we invaded a country on false pretenses and have lost thousands of lives, plus killed 10's of thousands in the name of peace. this breeds hatred of the u.s. which makes us a target.its time to abide by the geneva convention and just basic humanity. you lead by example not fear, and right now we all bear the blood of innocent people. and dont even mention 911, all the terrorists were saudi arabian but we're in bed with them so that fact was conveniently ignored.

Answer 6

So if we fight like them how does that make us any better than them. There should be rules to war thats what makes us better than them is that we wont cross the line become like them.

Answer 7

One might also say such about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

After all..they are quite antiquated..and deserve a re-write every hundered years or so..just to keep em current as times change around us all..

I think its a fine idea.......JUST fine................

Answer 8

Next you'll be wanting to throw out or rewrite the Constitution.....