Geneva Conventions Revisited

Published on November 25, 2004 By drmiler In Politics

Why is it that America *must* adhere 100% to the Geneva Conventions, yet the people we're fighting against are not required to do so? They have broken just about every major rule of engagement that there is. They're fighting from a place of worship (not allowed). They're booby-trapping the dead (not allowed). They're playing dead to lure Marines into killing range (also not allowed).
They are not wearing uniforms which by the conventions means they're civilians. It also means that if they take up arms against us that they aren't covered by the accords in a conventional way. Yet let one of ours stand up and do what's needed at the moment and he's villified and America gets a black eye over it. I hate to say this but if I was in that Marines boots, I would have pulled the trigger too.

Comments (Page 1)

kingbee

on Nov 25, 2004

why are we obligated to act in accordance with the geneva convention? id think as a former member of the armed forces and a person who's been around long enough to know how things work, this would be obvious. a treaty or agreement is a contract and works the same way as any contract whether the parties to it are indiduals or nation states. by signing to indicate our agreement, we pledge to obey the terms.

why sign it in the first place? because it makes practical sense, providing our troops and citizens protection when engaged in combat involving other signatories--even tho that isnt always the way it works out. should another signatory violate the terms, it loses protection of the conventions and risks prosecution by other signatories thru established procedures.
guerilla fighters who comply with the conventions are due the same protection as signatories and are accorded the same status as signatories. those who dont, arent.

like any other contract, violation by one party does not release any other signatories from their legal obligation.

it hardly seems reasonable or likely the marine youre referring to will be charged by the us military with a criminal act. just as when a cop discharges his weapon or injures a suspect in the course of doing his duty, the department initiates an investigation--not necessarily in hope of finding a violation, but to determine the facts. an officer involved in a legitimate or in-policy duty-related shooting should welcome the investigation so as to be offically cleared and to resolve any questions or rumors regarding his fitness to perform his job. same thing with this soldier.

jumping to conclusions, expressing or accepting emotional opinions without benefit of knowing the facts and/or making inflammatory remarks only confuses the issue. the best way of supporting the marine in question is to avoid getting all wound up based on the limited information provided to the public. at best, youll be upsetting yourself needlessly; at worst, youre making it more difficult to determine the truth. contributing to a rumor campaign can negatively affect his record even tho thats the opposite of your intention.

Daiwa

on Nov 25, 2004

I'd have no problem being rigorous about the Convention if there was indeed a second party to the contract, kingbee.

I frankly don't know if Iraq is a signatory or not, but even if they are, the "insurgents" are not uniformed military of a signatory country - the Iraqi Interim Government. Further, those who oppose us are using the Convention in their effort to discredit us and our military while doing nothing to constrain the terrorists who openly flaunt the Convention.

We should conduct ourselves honorably regardless, without question, but this obsessing over the Convention only serves to benefit the terrorist enemy. Personally, I don't believe they are deserving of the protections of the Convention, but that's just me.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2004

Reply #1 By: kingbee - 11/25/2004 5:04:05 PM
why are we obligated to act in accordance with the geneva convention? id think as a former member of the armed forces and a person who's been around long enough to know how things work, this would be obvious. a treaty or agreement is a contract and works the same way as any contract whether the parties to it are indiduals or nation states. by signing to indicate our agreement, we pledge to obey the terms.
why sign it in the first place? because it makes practical sense, providing our troops and citizens protection when engaged in combat involving other signatories--even tho that isnt always the way it works out. should another signatory violate the terms, it loses protection of the conventions and risks prosecution by other signatories thru established procedures.
guerilla fighters who comply with the conventions are due the same protection as signatories and are accorded the same status as signatories. those who dont, arent.

By your own words we should not give them the protection of the accords.

drmiler

on Nov 25, 2004

Reply #1 By: kingbee - 11/25/2004 5:04:05 PM
it hardly seems reasonable or likely the marine youre referring to will be charged by the us military with a criminal act. just as when a cop discharges his weapon or injures a suspect in the course of doing his duty, the department initiates an investigation--not necessarily in hope of finding a violation, but to determine the facts. an officer involved in a legitimate or in-policy duty-related shooting should welcome the investigation so as to be offically cleared and to resolve any questions or rumors regarding his fitness to perform his job. same thing with this soldier.
jumping to conclusions, expressing or accepting emotional opinions without benefit of knowing the facts and/or making inflammatory remarks only confuses the issue. the best way of supporting the marine in question is to avoid getting all wound up based on the limited information provided to the public. at best, youll be upsetting yourself needlessly; at worst, youre making it more difficult to determine the truth. contributing to a rumor campaign can negatively affect his record even tho thats the opposite of your intention.

Don't bet on that. They have already pulled him from the field. And they are holding an investigation. Iraqi's are screaming for his head.

Self-defense could be accepted
The Marine who shot the man was removed from the field and returned to headquarters. The investigation will address why the wounded men were left behind for 24 hours, why four of them were shot Saturday and whether the killing observed by Sites was illegal.

At the same time the incident was taking place in the mosque, a U.S. Marine was killed and five others were wounded when the booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent exploded. The judge advocate general heading the investigation of the mosque incident, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude that the Marine was acting in self-defense.

“The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent,” he said. “So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes.”

But Miller added: “Enemy combatants — in this case, insurgents — who don’t pose a threat would not be considered a hostile.”

Genghis Hank

on Nov 26, 2004

I think what we need is to go back to those treaties and define some rules about how we are allowed to act when not facing a nation-state signatory to the treaties. I'm not saying to "sink' to their level. I'm calling for an honest discussion about what is the proper way to fight an enemy that engages in using wounded, dead, civilians, and protected places in their tactics. Let's get some world wide agreement that people shooting at people from inside churches, schools, and hospitals should be stopped, as should people using wounded or civilians as shields or traps. Let's take this propraganda weapon away from the terrorists and move on.

kingbee

on Nov 26, 2004

Don't bet on that. They have already pulled him from the field. And they are holding an investigation. Iraqi's are screaming for his head.

what part of this did you not understand (or perhaps did not read)...considering you quoted the whole damn paragraph?

it hardly seems reasonable or likely the marine youre referring to will be charged by the us military with a criminal act. just as when a cop discharges his weapon or injures a suspect in the course of doing his duty, the department initiates an investigation--not necessarily in hope of finding a violation, but to determine the facts. an officer involved in a legitimate or in-policy duty-related shooting should welcome the investigation so as to be offically cleared and to resolve any questions or rumors regarding his fitness to perform his job. same thing with this soldier

of course theyve taken him outta the field...just like theyd take a cop off the street. it's hardly likely hell be charged but there is still an obligation to investigate. what the iraqis scream about or dont scream about isnt going to affect their investigation (unless you believe the us military is so flawed it is incapable of conducting a fair inquiry). if they didnt consider the facts and just flipped a coin or something, youd have a reason to be outraged. until the investigation is concluded, youre rabblerousing needlessly.

kingbee

on Nov 26, 2004

We should conduct ourselves honorably regardless, without question, but this obsessing over the Convention only serves to benefit the terrorist enemy. Personally, I don't believe they are deserving of the protections of the Convention, but that's just me

of course we should. i dont think that holding an inquiry is obsessing over the convention. im sure the marine will be cleared because he reacted appropriately considering there were boobytrapped wounded and corpses. the problem with occupying a sovereign nation in which some of its citizens oppose the occupation is there will be resistance.

if all the other nations of the world decided the contested election in san diego required them to intervene and invade san diego, some citizens of san diego would very likely continue to resist should the city officially surrender would they not? in my opinion, theyd be justified to do so. the occupiers would no doubt feel justified in trying to put down the san diego insurgency. since the invading nations are claiming to act for the ultimate good of the majority of san diegans, they would be obligated to operate according to any rules of war theyd previously agreed to recognize. the san diego insurgency--not having agreed to any such accord--would be free to fight however they felt necessary with the caveat that they were putting themselves in grave jeopardy and, should they lose, likely to be prosecuted as are street gang members.

if, during the conflict with san diego's insurgents, the occupiers violated their own commitment, they would jeopardize their own claim to be acting on behalf of the city of san diego and, should they lose the conflict, the commanders might well be put on trial for war crimes.

clearly it's in our interest to adhere to the convention no matter how irresponsible the san diego resistance militia comports itself.

drmiler

on Nov 26, 2004

Reply #7 By: kingbee - 11/26/2004 1:22:52 AM
We should conduct ourselves honorably regardless, without question, but this obsessing over the Convention only serves to benefit the terrorist enemy. Personally, I don't believe they are deserving of the protections of the Convention, but that's just me

of course we should. i dont think that holding an inquiry is obsessing over the convention. im sure the marine will be cleared because he reacted appropriately considering there were boobytrapped wounded and corpses. the problem with occupying a sovereign nation in which some of its citizens oppose the occupation is there will be resistance.

if all the other nations of the world decided the contested election in san diego required them to intervene and invade san diego, some citizens of san diego would very likely continue to resist should the city officially surrender would they not? in my opinion, theyd be justified to do so. the occupiers would no doubt feel justified in trying to put down the san diego insurgency. since the invading nations are claiming to act for the ultimate good of the majority of san diegans, they would be obligated to operate according to any rules of war theyd previously agreed to recognize. the san diego insurgency--not having agreed to any such accord--would be free to fight however they felt necessary with the caveat that they were putting themselves in grave jeopardy and, should they lose, likely to be prosecuted as are street gang members.

if, during the conflict with san diego's insurgents, the occupiers violated their own commitment, they would jeopardize their own claim to be acting on behalf of the city of san diego and, should they lose the conflict, the commanders might well be put on trial for war crimes.

clearly it's in our interest to adhere to the convention no matter how irresponsible the san diego resistance militia comports itself.

You know kingbee I think you might have missed part of my original post.

They are not wearing uniforms which by the conventions means they're civilians. It also means that if they take up arms against us that they aren't covered by the accords in a conventional way.

Daiwa

on Nov 26, 2004

Wow, kingbee -

That's a gold medal olympic performance in contortion if ever there was. And so far off base it's almost funny. Too damn late to get specific, maybe tomorrow.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Nov 26, 2004

That's a gold medal olympic performance in contortion if ever there was. And so far off base it's almost funny. Too damn late to get specific, maybe tomorrow

hmmm that sounds like backhand to me

lookn forward to it

sleep well

cactoblasta

on Nov 26, 2004

They are not wearing uniforms which by the conventions means they're civilians. It also means that if they take up arms against us that they aren't covered by the accords in a conventional way.

Actually it doesn't mean that they're simply civilians. Armed people without uniforms are entitled to be shot on sight as spies. However an argument could be made that in the case of the rebels they are in fact wearing uniforms. After all most of them have beards, turbans and wear either robes (for officers/priest commanders) or loose-fitting shirts and pants (for grunts and NCOs). It's practically a uniform. Colouration might be used to distinguish individual soldiers in the same way that the US military uses nametags or dog tags.

Ludicrous yes, but the possession or lack thereof of uniforms is too difficult to justify as the sole reason for refusing to apply the Geneva Convention on those who don't recognise the interim authority. Far more useful would be to claim that as it is an internal security matter for the interim authority then only the laws regarding unlawful murder apply; it would be a matter of little importance to simply rewrite the laws to claim that anyone possessing a firearm or military ordinance, or suspected of doing so, is to be shot on sight (or even tortured and then shot, if that floats your boat).

Solitair

on Nov 26, 2004

The Geneva conventions state how civilised nations will react to HUMAN BEINGS. Not to countries. But to HUMANS. They define the rights of HUMANS. Allowing the US military to treat any HUMANS as animals because some terrorists act as such is a very very dangerous road to take.

Kingbee's analogy is in fact very good. It takes the muslim factor out of the issue. Is it acceptable for any army to break the conventions because some terrorists don't adhere to them? No it's not.

Paul.

drmiler

on Nov 26, 2004

Reply #12 By: Solitair - 11/26/2004 9:07:30 AM
The Geneva conventions state how civilised nations will react to HUMAN BEINGS. Not to countries. But to HUMANS. They define the rights of HUMANS. Allowing the US military to treat any HUMANS as animals because some terrorists act as such is a very very dangerous road to take.

Kingbee's analogy is in fact very good. It takes the muslim factor out of the issue. Is it acceptable for any army to break the conventions because some terrorists don't adhere to them? No it's not.

Then you would be wrong. The Geneva accords are for soldiers and civilians. And since they did not sign the Geneva accords, by the documents themselves the are *not* to be given the accords protection.
Just an FYI, Iraq never signed the accords.

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.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Link

As far as I'm concerned they put themselves into the catagory of *animal* and not human with the stunts they are pulling. See original post.

Being Muslim has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Have you at any time before on this thread heard me refer to the combatants as *muslims*? No you have not.

ChristianDog

on Nov 26, 2004

obsessing over the Convention only serves to benefit the terrorist enemy.

The Geneva Convention is humanity's best effort to international morality, and it should be followed mostly because it is of benefit to ourselves.

Like it or not, we are going to be called upon to fight wars over the years, and the higher the standards of behavior we follow
# the more likely we are to maintain American popular support for what must be done,
# the more likely we are to win over locals,
# the more likely we are to be treated with decency and honor when our soldiers are civilians are captured,
# the more moral weight we carry in the world, and
# the less likely we are to lose God's grace.

One cannot think in the present alone. The way that we conduct this war is going to affect us for time to come. Our behavior in the face of this evil, will matter long after the last of these terrorists is eliminated.

Daiwa

on Nov 26, 2004

ChristianDog -

The part of the sentence you omitted read, "We should conduct ourselves honorably regardless,...."

It is possible to both conduct oneself honorably and hold the belief that the Geneva Convention protections do not apply to these terrorists. And I somewhat agree with your list, with the exception of items 3, 4 & maybe 5.

This particular enemy is completely devoid of any concern or respect for how decent & honorable we are. People who behead innocent civilians live on camera have no concept of decency or honor and deserve no consideration in return for such barbarism. We've been Satan, we are Satan, and we shall ever be Satan in their twisted minds. They continue to believe that death is dandy as long as they can take one or more of us with them. And moral weight has yet to win a war, ever. As for item 5, there are more than a couple of passages in the Bible that suggest God wouldn't be too upset with crushing his enemies & head-tapping them just for insurance.

And as for item 1, there's not likely to be too much American support for getting our asses kicked & our Soldiers, Sailors, Aviators & Marines needlessly killed, either, out of misguided kindness to murderous terrorists that falls on deaf ears anyway. Al-Jazeera doesn't run endless clips of our Soldiers rebuilding schools, repairing power plants and installing sanitary sewers.

Suppose you were in a war and you knew that your enemy was going to use any subterfuge possible to kill you and that as soon as he killed you he was going to kill your children. You have a choice - you can fight by a set of self-imposed rules ignored by your enemy and risk losing both your own life and the lives of your children, or you can show your enemy the same degree of mercy he would show you and have a chance to save at least your children & maybe yourself. The only way for your children to survive is for you to win, whether you die in the process or not. There is no such thing as a pyrrhic victory here, there is only victory or defeat. The RPG doesn't have a "nice-guy detector" that deactivates the fuse. It doesn't care whether it's victims believe in God or not. It and the enemy which fires it just kill people.

I'm sorry, but it is all too easy for us to sit back here in comfort & pontificate. Our troops need our full support to get the job done as safely & humanely as possible (understanding mistakes & bad things will inevitably happen) & then to get the hell out of there.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!