Should the US make changes in the Geneva Conventions?

Question

If so what do you think about the US senate trying to keep article 3 intact?

Answer 1

It means that our soldiers are protected by those internation laws during any later conflict.

And while our current battle may only be against terrorists who don't follow those rules, are you willing to bet the lives and health and safety of every US soldier and sailor that we will never again engage any other country in hostilities?

Answer 2

I agree with Colin Powell John MCcain, Lindsey Graham & John Warner (all republicans & i am an independent) on this 1. If we change our view of Common article 3 then what happens when we're flying a covert mission over some country, something happens one of our servicemen or woemn gets captured? What happens when we are anywhere covertly and get captured. By changing our view of that section we are bascially saying"you know what, we dont feel this right so we changing how we view this." So now are the other signatories to the treaty do the same thing, so when 1 of our people gets captured they are goin to get treated worse than we can imagine.
Some of these Arab countries, the Chinese and a several others have torturing methods that will always go further than we will. I dont mean to stereotype but they can be ruthless. Why should we sink to their level just to get questionable information from some1 who will say anything to make the pain stop? The logic surrounding that arguement is faulty.

Aside from two of the top interrogators at Gitmo who were just on Foxnews sayin how its an unreliabe method and most times the good cop/bad cop method or variations of, are far more effective.
I'm not sayin to treat them like 5 year olds thats tole some candy but I am sayin we shouldnt open ourselves to greater problems.
I think if torture has to be done (& i know has to be done is subjective) then take them to a secret prison in russia or some ****, let them do it. they're better at it anyway.

Answer 3

I am against torture against prisoners of war, but there is something that no one is talking about and that is the fact that when the Geneva Convention was drafted we were fighting a different and conventional war. Now, is much different. We are fighting a bunch of disorganized hooligans that do not recognize any rules of engagement. Just to prove my point I want to mention that even Ho-Chi Minh's Vietnam observed the rules of engagement and although they were brutal, terrorists are 1000% worst.

Hope that people see my point and realize that yes, there should be changes made to the Geneva convention.

Answer 4

Listen to Colin Powell. He knows what friggin' time it is! We need to take the high road & follow existing Geneva Convention Articles. Bush is just trying to protect himself from prosecution in the event the Democrats take power after the mid-terms by getting rules he's already broken changed to suit him.

Answer 5

Article 3 is the only thing keeping the United State honest. Bush likes to repeat the refrain, "We do not torture in America" but he should have thought about that before he gave torture a place in the interrogation process.
George also really wants to preserve his right to treat the heathens as he sees fit, unfortunately it is against the law. Oh well, he can't have his way all the time.

Answer 6

I think extending Geneva Convention rules to nonparticipant combatants is stupid. The Geneva Convention does not protect combatants that do not wear uniforms. This protects civilians and removes ambiguity from civilians, and combatants. The Taliban, Alqeda, and Hezbollah, all hide behind civilians and attack civilians. Why should we worry about playing nice with these barbarians? There are wacky liberals worried about sleep deprivation, water boarding, and loud music. These same liberals say we should not lower ourselves to their level but these things do not even come close to what they have done and continue to do. When we fight a country that abides by the GC we should follow it. If our adversaries do not abide by the GC's we should not be bound either.

Answer 7

We should follow the Geneva Conventions, not change them.

That means treating Al Qaeda and the terrorists in Iraq as armed combatants, not soldiers. They don't fit the definition of soldiers. Therefore, they are not covered by the GC.

Answer 8

The US can't make changes unilaterally in any multilateral convention. And with 200 countries involved, it can't reasonably expect to change them multilaterally either.

So it can do what it is doing now: ignore the Conventions or deny that they apply in cases where they are contrary to its perceived interests.

Or it can denounce them, something it dare not do, out of fear that American soldiers will be tortured by other countries.

The problem is that wars may be fought with militias that are not national armies, whose sponsors are not signatories. Asymmetric warfare is likely to become more common, but there is nothing the US can do that it is not already doing: just saying, unilaterally, that the Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants" without uniforms. And hoping somebody will believe them.

Answer 9

I really don't think we should. Having an international standard on how prisoners are treated and dealt with is necessary. For each country to be interpreting them independently and passing laws circumventing it would basically defeat the entire purpose of having a Geneva Convention.

Answer 10

The problems is Bush has been waiting for his invite to the convention this year and hasn't got it yet. He's mad because he wanted to wear his party hat and play some golf with Arnie or Tiger Woods.