Is chopping off heads against the Geneva Convention?

Question

Alqeda has chopped off heads of Americans and civilians and bombed civilians (intentionally). The Geneva Convention was intended for rules of engagement for "uniformed soldiers" and did not even protect spies. Why would we extend these rules to those who do not qualify by deffinition nor would they follow these rules even if we did? I know a big deal is being made of McCain breaking ranks with Republicans, but where do the democrats stand on this? I just think this is very silly. We are getting to the point that we will catch bin Laden and have to release him because they forgot to "Marandise" him.

Answer 1

It is against the Geneva Conventions.

The US military does not extend the "rules" to the enemy. We adhere to the Geneva Conventions as a matter of principle and law. Regardless of whether or not our enemy follows the conventions.

if we did not follow the conventions then the military would be under even more attacks by the liberals who continuously scream about so called atrocities. The Conventions give a clear cut guideline for who is and who is not a combatant and what you can and can not engage.

Miranda rights have nothing to do with war fare, and I can assure you that when Bin Laden is captured, he will not be released.

To clear up the crap above....

We did not invent the Geneva Conventions, nor the rules of warfare.

The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

There is no one "Geneva Convention." Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.

Nobody is a "member" of the Geneva Conventions.....

We have never intentionally used cluster bombs in residential areas... they aren't effective in that role anyway. We don't carpet bomb civilian targets. I have know idea what phosporus gas is, but if you are trying to refer to phosgene gas, we've never used that or any other nerve, blister or blood agent since WWI.

Please less hype... more facts.

Answer 2

i don't think of that's ok in any respect. From what i have seen, some do not trust that international guidelines, which include the Geneva convention(s) and the UN structure note to the U. S.. US structure (Article VI): "This structure, and the guidelines of america which will be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which will be made, less than the authority of america, stands out as the great regulation of the land" curiously it really is no longer sparkling adequate to some, even if those categorised as 'anti-American' do see it obviously. it is also curiously alright to droop humanitarian guidelines and morality if faith is in touch. typically it seems, the overall public that do merchandise to torture on moral grounds are the Atheists and the Agnostics. Does that advise Atheists and Agnostics are too idealistic?

Answer 3

The Liberal Democrats think these same savages should be protected under the GC. It's bogus. The GC only protects UNIFORMED soldiers. These cowards are neither uniformed nor are they soldiers. Last time I checked, a rag on the head does not constitute as a "uniform", and soldiers don't hide behind innocent families in Mosks, or churches. That's the Libs for you though. They care more about the terrorists rights than they do those that fall victim to their cowardly acts. The answer is that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to cowardly terrorists, but if the Libs get into office they'll try their damnedest to change THAT.

Answer 4

Uhhhhhh is that a serious question? YEAH IT IS!

Just a fyi....Everything Al Queda has done so far is against the Geneva Convention.

The USA follows the rules, in cases like these, so that in the end, people can't come back and say that we were in the wrong when dealing with POW's.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter anyway, because people that hate the government don't care how Al Queda has treated American citizens, they only see what the USA is doing overseas.....Don't pay attention to terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 of our citizens or the burnt dead American bodies hanging from bridges in Iraq...In their opinion, no matter what....Our government is in the "wrong".

I don't think we would have problems like this if we used the "eye for an eye" tactic.

Answer 5

The Geneva Convention only applies to persons killed during times of war by countries involved in that war; any other killing would be classified as a murder, and not part of a military action. Al Quaida is actually a terrorist group, not a country. Which means no actions taken by them would fall under tha Geneva Conventions, but would rather fall under the International Human Rights Acts and their actions would be the responsibility of the country which considers them citizens. The current administration is not in trouble for breaking the Geneva Convention in regards to Gitmo and the other detention camps we've been running; they are in trouble for violating the International and National laws we have regarding the treatment of human beings by governments.

Answer 6

Yes it is. We are supposed to follow the Geneva Conventions regardless of what the enemy is doing to our own. If we don't then we become as bad as those who don't uphold the Geneva Conventions. The US military is upheld to a higher standard than your average terrorist organization. We have due process just as the civilian sector, we just handle it with different names and different punishments. You have to check a lot of your rights at the door when you raise your right hand...

They are not "rules of engagement". ROE's are something totally different.

Answer 7

the democrates stand on the opposite side of common sense in every aspect of life. Turn the camera's off for one month in Iraq and this thing would end, and not with the mass murder of any civilians but with our troops and the Iraqi forces being allowed to finally fight these terrorists agents of Iran,Syria and al Queda like we were at war and not playing politics for both sides with the blood of our men and women and the blood of Iraqi's who long for peace. When we do pull our troops out the violence will end because the Iraqi's have known for centuries how to deal with each other better then we ever will, we are to civilized,except maybe our marines God Bless Them!!!!

Answer 8

I believe head-chopping qualifies as a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Political correctness has no place in a war. You are either in it to win it, or you should not be in it at all. Anything less adds up to a self-defeating situation.

Answer 9

I'm sure decapitation is against Geneva ROE's, but then, Bin Laden's followers aren't members of the Geneva Convention, are they? Someone has to be the better person and not sink to their level, I guess that's supposed to be us. Though I know retribution is hard to deal out according to guidelines.

Answer 10

The Geneva Conventions are only valid "if youve signed them!"And even then, their not binding, to many loopholes.. example, the use of 'white phosphorus' in projectiles and grenades is "forbidden" under illegal weapons act!..Yet the US military uses these weapons on a regulat basis, and has done since Vietnam!..Reason given?..The other side is not a signatory to conventions of war, so anything goes!..As for beheadings and other atrocities performed in the name of Allah and his 'one true prophet"..Well this is the will of Allah, isnt it?..Insh Allah!..Geneva Convention!!..Your joking arent you?....