Morality and due process can exists outside of the Geneva Convention. Why should we limit ourselves...?

Question

Why should we limit how the war is fought when it is apparent our foe is using it to their advantage? We ARE fighting with our hands behind our back. We as Americans should hold ourselves to a very high standard. However we should not allow a blatantly abused ANTIQUATED Geneva Convention to continue to allow the enemy an upper hand. Non tradition means and tactics must be utilized to fight a non traditional "war" and enemy.
Nowhere have I ever proposed unethical behavior and there is much good to many parts of the Geneva convention.
Yes I have had the Geneva Convention shoved down my throat, I have seen first hand not only how the enemy uses it to their advantage but also how severed limbs and crushed chests look while I attempt to stabalize them. I have been there done that as a Medic. We are at a point where soldiers are given rules of engagment then told not to defend themselves until given permission. The real world says that we need new rules to fight a new enemy.

Roger, Stand by

Okay, here it goes. replace Rules of Engagement everywhere, forget all the rest.
I concede that we were clearly brainwashed, threatend, lied to and kept in the dark with this issue. Furthermore, I should have done my homework before spouting off.
We are in a war that we cannot win. It is frustrating when you see people die and know that they died not because of war, but because of cowards who hide behind women, and religion. There is no war, it is not a war. It is a complete mess, and good people are dying for a cause that they have bought into through lies and deception.

Answer 1

There are no real limits imposed on the US by the Geneva conventions that aren't already prohibited by our own constitution.

If you're going to make an argument for discarding a century of tradition, and an argument that removes all protections from our troops in the field, give the list of things you think that the Geneva convention prevents that would otherwise be allowed under our Constitution.

You're arguing about Rules of Engagement. Those are not specific requirements of the Geneva Convention, which deals only with protection of non-combatants, prohibitions against torture and forced scientific experimentation, and the basic requirements of due process.

Make your argument. Cite basic requirements from any the Geneva Conventions that are prohibited under those treaties, but would otherwise be allowed under our existing laws. Go ahead.

Because all we've seen so far are broad sweeping (meaningless) statements about how civilized behavior should not be a requirement for US troops, and how we should be acting more like the terrorists.

Answer 2

The Geneva Convention is a set rules of conduct that should be applied to "civilized warfare", granted there is no such thing, but to discard it would be to return to the ravening mongol hords that slaughtered and burned their way across most of the known world. It is also a set of rules of conduct that instill disipline in combat troops. Consider what would happen if an armored battalion commander didn't have to worry about rules of conduct, slash and burn tactics. It wouldn't be a far step for anyone, once in that mind-set, to "feel the power" and just stop caring about the consequences (Apocalypse Now was loosely based on a true story.) and forget that there is a point where they need to stop.
Sure, I joke with people about turning the "desert" into glass parking lots with nukes because no matter what we do that area of the world is going to continue fighting like stupid little children because of crap that happened so long ago that you'd have to carbon date the retoric to figure out when it started. There were and are plenty of times where it would have been easy to ignore rules of engagement and conduct, but I would have known. It would have made what I did meaningless and and also it would have made the sacrifices all of the other soldiers who have died (and who still live) upholding that ideal meaningless. Some will say that maybe fewer would have died if we let the rules slide a bit now and then and to a point I agree but the price of freedom or being a soldier has never been cheap.
Take it from someone who has been covered in a friend's blood, I wouldn't want any more on my mind than I already have. Right or wrong there has to be some ethical seperation between the "good guys" and the "bad" otherwise how would we tell them apart?

Answer 3

If you renounce the Geneva Conventions (of which there are many) you will allow the use of poison gas, deny access by the Red Cross, and allow torture, among other things.

As of now, no sovereign state is doing those except insofar as the USA does them in Abu Ghraib, in secret prisons and Afghan bases and at Guantanamo.

I don't think the USA should be seen to renounce the Conventions because that will give other sovereign states the color of right to torture US POWs and MIAs.

Better that the US should just ignore the Conventions when it suits them, deny everything even when the facts are documented, and claim that private citizens and terrorists don't get the benefit of the Conventions anyway -- even when the Conventions say they do.

The USA has a long reputation for Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life. Why admit that it doesn't deserve it and that human rights and constitutional law are passé? Why give the enemy a propaganda advantage when you can have your cake and eat it? Stay a signatory to the Conventions, attack others for violating them, but ignore them yourself!

Answer 4

The tenets that the Geneva Conventions cover are timeless, like most issues of relations between humans. You can find the same themes and solutions in conduct of war as taught at West Point from the time of the American Revolution, through the Civil War, up until today.

You can find the same principles in the works of Sun Tzu, the 5th century sage and expert general who wrote on all matters military.

You can find similar principles in the writings of Julius Caesar, in the 'Gallic Wars' written in 52 B. C.

There is nothing wrong with the Geneva Conventions. This points to the reality that something else may be wrong, in that the situations you've encountered are difficult to negotiate using conventional wartime courtesy.

I wish you peace.

Answer 5

I consider you completely re the Geneva convention. it fairly is ridiculous to think of civilians should not be lined under the GC--they seem to be a factor of someones govt. Why do you think of the Cuban penal complex grow to be secret? So the GOP could detain them indefinitely. the guy from Afghanistan who grow to be held at Gitmo, has filed papers to sue the U. S. govt. Scared the hell out of Bush--that's what introduced with regard to the excellent courtroom's decision to rule interior the choose of the Geneva convention's regulations. Congress is loopy in the event that they rule in choose of Bush to alter the regulation on the subject of this. Time to make Bush in charge for breaking the Geneva convention AND the form this usa grow to be in accordance with. How long do we enable Bush to maintain breaking the regulation? till he's impeached or out of place of work. that's while. And so some distance as our Republican controlled Congress-that (with a bit of luck), will bring about November 2006.

Answer 6

Hubby says: I can empathize with your veiws. However, the Geneva Convention is an agreement between countries. Al Qaeda and other current terrorist organizations are not countries and can actually get around the obligations of the Geneva Convention. In theory we could shun the Geneva Convention and hunt the dogs as they are hunting us. In reality as a civilized nation in a world of nations we must conform to the expectations of the rest of our global society.

That being said... open season, no bag limits and no special permits!