Waterboarding, the use of white phosphorus, the detention of prisoners beyond the rule of law or in facilities worse than that of any billeted soldier are all examples of breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
These are well documented facts that beggar any countr argument.
The question is, once those rules are disregarded, is there any compulsion on enemy combatants to then follow them.
2007-12-22 02:34:21 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
White phosphur and other chemical weapons ARE currently in use.
I'm pretty full bottle on the Geneva Conventions as I'm currently writing a module on the GC and standard practices and also on the UN and its place in the enforcement of GC and its attitude to world conflict generally.
You may have noticed I'm asking a lot of UN questions lately - that's why.
2007-12-22 03:02:30 · update #1
Yes, lets just called people "enemy combatants" and then we can do whatever we want to them! Oh wait... then can't other people do that to US citizens?
2007-12-22 02:47:25 · answer #1 · answered by czekoskwigel 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
How well do you know the Geneva Conventions? Many countries in the world do not adhere to them in the slightest. They say that you will not hide under a banner of surrender then open fire on enemy combatants but it happens all the time. IT says that you will not intentionally kill non combantants or use non combatants to kill the enemy but it happens. It says that religous areas such as churches, synagogues, mosques, hospitals and such will not be used as military operation centers but it happens. It says that prisoners will be reated humanely--is beheading humane? I think not. It also says that an un uniformed enemy is not considered to be actual combatants but are considered spys , saboteurs, and are not recognized as being covered by the conventions therefore they are not entitled to the same protections as a uniformed regulated military. THe enemy is not following the conventions now, so how are they entitled to the conventions protections. As far as treatment in facilities worse than that of billeted soldiers, they are treated far better than those of our soldiers that are there now and they are demanding the same rights as US citizens? I think not. White Phosphorus? They haven't used that since vietnam. What about IEDs? we dont use them nor does the Conventions approve of them so wheres your argument. Water boarding is non lethal way to extract information where as beheading is not.
2007-12-22 10:58:24 · answer #2 · answered by fasteddie79103 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Geneva Convention has never prevented American combatants from being tortured. Ever.
The enemies fear of American retaliation is the only protection American prisoners of war have ever had.
The North Vietnamese tortured American prisoners like crazy all during the Vietnam war. The North Koreans tortured the crew of the Pueblo. The Lebanese tortured the CIA chief of station, and later, the Marine Colonel who was the military Attache.
What protection are you talking about?
By the way, the correct saying is that it is a "Moot" point, not a mute point.
2007-12-22 10:41:39 · answer #3 · answered by Jack Flanders 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have written about this I don't know how many times...
The Geneva conventions apply to combatant nations not to insurgents unless you are prepared to tell me that these insurgents have succeded at least in achieving de facto liberation and full control of part of their territory in which an installed prov. government has proclaimed war against the USA;otherwise isurgents are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and many others regulating International armed conflict.
It follows that the Iraki or the Afgan insurgents are subject to military law as applied to occupied territories(since their goverment cannot protect Iraq and Afganistan's borders respectively and the occupuing power carries out these duties,they cannot claim that they are trully independent countries,therefore the American presence is in reality an army of ocupation and the insurgents deserve to be shot on sight carrying weapons,or to be judged with military summary
proceedures...
2007-12-22 11:35:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Who obeyed the Geneva Convention when 2 planes slammed into the world trade center, another into the Pentagon? We are talking about innocent people here, not war combatants.
2007-12-22 10:48:19 · answer #5 · answered by Barbara A 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You'd best read the Geneva Convention yourself. It's talks of the enemy being in uniform and the insurgents and terrorists don't have uniforms so it doesn't apply to this (cough cough) war.
2007-12-22 11:47:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. By your reasoning, almost everything in use today for warfare is a chemical weapon. OH NO! stop using flares, they create very high temperatures via a chemical reaction for military purposes!
2007-12-22 12:43:35 · answer #7 · answered by solarianus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Enemy combatants weren't following them anyway. So basically a moot point.
2007-12-22 10:38:10 · answer #8 · answered by ziggy_brat 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunatly it will be the american soldier who will suffer because of their asshole government, but it wont be for long as they will be beheaded most probably
2007-12-23 16:49:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋