Under the Geneva Convention, should Donald Rumsfield and the bush administration be tried for war crimes.?

Answer 1

Sadly they cant.

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law.

***It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.***

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty ***unless the document has also been ratified by that nation*** (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. ***The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977***.

Answer 2

Correct. Under the Geneva convention pow's are entitled certain rights. However, within the context of the war on terror pow's are not considered pow's because the bush administration thinks they are 'enemy combatants,' for some reason this is different to pow. Cant understand that. Also, after a war is over a pow must be released, but as you can see the war on terror might just last a very long time so again the bush administration feels the need to never release them (Guantanamo.) Also they torture people, and kill a lot of innocent civilians.

Answer 3

The Geneva Convention is a directive for the disposition of Prisioners of War, i.e thier rights, where they can be safely placed visitation of the red cross etc. there are several articles of the Geniva Convention they are listed as follows:
First Geneva Convention of 1864 on the treatment of battlefield casualties
Second Geneva Convention of 1906 extending the first convention to war at sea
Third Geneva Convention of 1929 on the treatment of prisoners of war
Protocol I, 1977 Geneva Convention amendment about the protection of victims in international conflicts
Protocol II, 1977 Geneva Convention amendment about the protection of victims in non-international armed conflicts
Protocol III, 2005 Geneva Convention amendment about the adoption of the Red Crystal emblem

There is no provision for trial of Persons under the Geniva convention as it relates to your question. I also don't see how you can hold DR responsible. I was part of the body recovery at ground zero and what everyone seems to forget is the fact that we as a Nation wanted to go to war with some one, we all bought off on the presidents "in-tell" and the desire to beat anyone up for our pain was pretty much national.

Answer 4

They certainly meet the qualifications, under the terms of the Geneva Convention. For those who would answer out of a sense of party loyalty, you need to google Geneva convention and read the specifics. Bush and his camp have broken a lot of rules. Just because the other guys broke some, doesn't make it right for us to do it. Besides, we signed it and agreed to abide by it.

Answer 5

Forget the political Geneva Convention which is manipulated by lies and weasel words .
basic morality requires that they should be held responsible for all the Innocent civilians women and children the numbers that they hide,Morality is missing this in type of offencive to find weapons of mass destruction (Ha Ha =Oil)
Nuckle draggers and brain deads for troops have further heated the situation.Gandhi beat the British empire with Peace and humility it works

Answer 6

If so Clinton should be tried too for striking another country. And in our country since Bush and Rumsfield had the support of the Senate and House including many Democrats, they would all be tried. Silly, we do not have a dictatorship.

Answer 7

Yes to Donald Rumsfield.

Answer 8

No. maximum of Congress gave the president the approval to apply tension in Iraq. another international places have pronounced quotes however the U. S. did no longer connect the international international courtroom so there is not any longer something legally binding approximately those quotes that the U. S. could turn Bush or his administration over to them for trial. the final public of the contributors of congress who voted for the Iraq determination could ought to coach themselves over for trial besides. i do no longer see that happening. question woman: no person is alive as we talk that owned slaves. How can we punish the lifeless people. people who're alive stopped slavery and surpassed the civil rights regulations.

Answer 9

Before you can try somebody for 'war crimes' you have to be able to cite a specific violation of the GC.

Since there have been no violations, you cannot try them.

BTW - if you think that there have been violations - you need to be able to 1) prove that the act actually occurred and 2) quote the section of the GC that forbids it.

Answer 10

No and If you say yes instead of listening to the media read up on the Geneva convention what it does,if anything. Stop listening to the left leaning media. Check it out yourself,