Isn't the Geneva Conventions only applicable to those countries who signed it?

Question

I don't know about Iraq, but I rather doubt any of the insurgents ever signed it. They keep saying that we need to treat detainees according to the rules of eh Geneva Conventions, which is right, as we signed it, but to think that because we are that others will who haven't agreed to it seems presumptuous.

This question came to mind after watching an interview about the treatment of detainees and whether we should treat them well under the Convention, otherwise how can we expect them to treat ours well?

It might be noted that on the History Channel, they've shown films of our people executing Japanese solders and sailors, by orders, rather than putting them into POW camps. In fact, I haven't been able to find a camp where Japanese solders were kept.

Answer 1

All individuals are bound by the humanitarian terms in the Geneva Conventions. Individually you can charged regardless of country of origin. So there is essentially a de facto enforcement and accountability to the conventions. By signing the conventions it just makes it easier to prosecute the leadership of the offending nation. We prosecuted the Nazi's and Japanese for the same crimes before the conventions even existed. The fact is that the Allies (the US) during the Nuremberg Tribunal set international behavioral standards that make up about 90% of the content of the UN Charter; the problem is that the US government doesn't like being held accountable under the very standards that it designed 50+ years ago. As to the insurgents and their crimes, there is a very interesting legal question. According both US and International laws, the actions of Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq and the President's subsequent invasion are illegal and unconstitutional. Look it up, within 90 days of military action Congress is required constitutionally to either issue a declaration of war or not; when was the last time that happened? We've had over 200 military engagements since WWII and not one constitutionally mandated declaration of war. Congress is in breach of it's constitutional duties and I won't even comment on how many violations of the UN Charter the US has with this invasion. International law clearly states that that if you attack another nation unprovoked as with Iraq the war is illegal. What this means is the US leadership could be charged with war crimes. The law also states that anything you break or anything that gets broken in the invasion and occupation is the invaders fault. This includes liability for the mutilation, injury and death of your own soldiers, the oppositions soldiers, damage to the infrastructure and here's the mother of all liabilities, you are liable for deaths, injuries and damages caused by an insurrection that resulted from your invasion. We prosecuted the Nazi's for deaths to civilians resulting from the French resistance's actions; the point being there would have been no French resistance without a Nazi invasion. The insurgents in Iraq would have appeared without the US invasion. The bottom line here is that the scale of te crimes committed by insurgents pales in contrast to the staggering violations of the US government in Iraq.

Answer 2

The signatories of the Charter agreed to conduct themselves in a certain fashion during warfare. The purpose of this act was to civilize war and was meant to be a step to step process. If you have signed on to this act and only act in a manner that coincides with that act with those who have signed the act you negate the act.( I am particularly proud of that sentence.) The treaty is to guide your action toward others as a signatory not the actions of those who did not sign toward you. By the logic of treating those who don't sign differently than those who do then civilian criminals can be treated in any fashion the society wishes as the have broken the laws. Murderers can be murdered, rapists tortured and all the abuses a society can inflict. We have seen what happens when this failure of the legal system happens in western countries of not that distant memory and south american countries today. We have all been disgusted and nauseated by the actions that ensue when we relax the rules on the troops.
Having said that we have seen what horrors are the enemies common way of making war. Planes crashed into buildings, suicide bombers, IED's, and so many more that we became enraged. They have done this to break done and destroy our society and change our civilization. If we abandon the principles and morals we have fought for and accepted from the day when a captured castle garrison being the only ones put to the sword while the peasant population was simply driven out into the wild was viewed as humane to the day that a man who just shot your buddy was allowed to surrender and then was sent back to a hot meal and a ciggeret then in the words of the shrub the terrorists will have won. We cannot depend on what others do only what we do. We must live up to our treaty obligations even if others don't. It's called honour and it is one of a soldiers trinity. Loyalty, Obiedience and Honour

Answer 3

I think you have a good point in that, where both sides are signatories they are obliged under International Law to conform to particular rules of engagement. However where one side are not signed up and do not announce at the start of a conflict that they will abide by those conventions it should absolve the other of any recriminations if they do what has to be done.
While the Geneva Conventions were meant to bring a sense of humanity into war those that do not recognise them do not deserve that sense of humanity.

Answer 4

Do they treat other people humanely? I think not.

Article 4: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Answer 5

YES!!! I cannot figure out why these "people" are going
around saying that these scumbag terrorists have rights under the Geneva Convention, because it does not apply to these scumbags. They are not members of any organized military force or country.

Answer 6

The insurgants follow their own rules...I'm pretty sure no one would sign a bill/law saying it is okay to chop off heads, burn bodies,drag/hang bodies from bridges. Even if Iraq had signed, the insurgents wouldn't follow.

Answer 7

Japan didn't sign it we still gave them all the benefits of the Convention and they were killing our troops by the thousands. The US military holds itself to a better standard than the terroist. Besides were still winning.

Answer 8

Every one know the insurgents don't follow the Geneva convention. You can tell that by the shape we find our troops in when they are captured. Not a pretty sight. I say screw it. they don't show no mercy why should our troops.

Answer 9

The convention specifically says that non uniformed combatants are not to be treated to the codes of the convention, but libs in Washington forgot to read that part.

Answer 10

The terrorist scumbags arent even human, they aint even on the level of bacteria...the people that keep screaming that they have rights when they do not afford their captives the same the same only proves my theory that the world is full of morons.