better late than never

[DennisAJC]

Elect a Canadian President.

[jmsspratlin]

Originally Posted by bparker

I think this entire topic is a big ass pile of $hit.....

Dont talk about it or the media and dems with run with it. Just by admission this will go to all out political war and fuk it all up.

There is no such thing as a FAIR FIGHT - let war be war - its dirty ugly sad and all the worst things you can imagine - you just cant put rules on it above and beyond the genevia convention. The gloves are off and the brass knuckles are on along with steel toed boots to stomp your a$$ with.

Dont like that? Dont pickup a gun and fight keep you a$$ on the side lines and stay the fuk out of the way.

110%

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

The point of the Convention is NOT reciprocity. Article 2 states:

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

Thus all signatories are bound by the Convention, under all conditions, regardless of whether the other "Power" has signed. To reiterate this point, the 2nd sentence closes a loophole that might allow a signatory to believe the Convention only applies where both Powers are signatories before the conflict, or where one Power is and the other isn't. (The loophole would exist when a non-signatory signs during the conflict, thus technically releasing the other party from its obligations under the Convention.)
Come on. If we can't figure out how to fight this war with honor and without torture, we aren't as smart as we ought to be. This isn't a playground, and our job isn't to "pay them back" for everything they did since 9/11. Our job is to protect our nation, and hopefully stabilize as much of the region as we can.

This reciprocity bullsh!t doesn't work. It only shows our enemies that we care just as little for human life ... that we have the same disrespect for human rights ... and that we can piss on everything God represents ... just like they do. And that's not going to do us a whole lot of good.

LOL. "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

In noticed you didn't bold the "in their mutual relations" part--the operative part. You don't understand much do you? What that says is that, if one of many powers to a conflict is not a signatory, all of the remainder of the signatories must still honor the Conventions among themselves--the signatories. Thus, if Russia, France, the U.S., and Al Quaeda are all at war, and the U.S. takes a Russian POW, it must treat the Russian prisoner as a POW under the GC. No one must treat the Al Qaeda terrorist as a POW under the GC.

The Geneva Conventions are not a theme or a poem about goodness. They are treaties, making them contractual provisions with specific obligations by which the parties to the contract, after thoughtful deliberation (in the U.S., a constitutional ratification process), agree to be bound. They are not decrees of general justness according to the fleeting desires of U.S. lefties.

The 3rd Geneva Convention clearly provides for an opt-in regime. It is the ?high contracting parties? to the agreement who are required to honor the terms with respect to the other high contracting parties. Others that have not signed the treaty may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the GC's terms for the recognition of non-party rights. Al Qaeda has not done so.

Learn to read.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

This isn't a playground, blah, blah, blah

BTW: Protocol 1 does give some of the protections to non-signatory-guerrila fighters, but the United States did not ratify Protocol 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I

We didn't do so, because we're not stupid. The operative provision of Porotcol 1 giving combatant rights to guerrillas would never have been needed to have been added if your fantastically tortured interpretation of the 3rd GC had any merit.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

LOL. "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof" (emphasis added).

In noticed you didn't bold the "in their mutual relations" part--the operative part. You don't understand much do you? What that says is that, if one of many powers to a conflict is not a signatory, all of the remainder of the signatories must still honor the Conventions among themselves--the signatories. Thus, if Russia, France, the U.S., and Al Quaeda are all at war, and the U.S. takes a Russian POW, it must treat the Russian prisoner as a POW under the GC. No one must treat the Al Qaeda terrorist as a POW under the GC.

The Geneva Conventions are not a theme or a poem about goodness. They are treaties, making them contractual provisions with specific obligations by which the parties to the contract, after thoughtful deliberation (in the U.S., a constitutional ratification process), agree to be bound. They are not decrees of general justness according to the fleeting desires of U.S. lefties.

The 3rd Geneva Convention clearly provides for an opt-in regime. It is the “high contracting parties” to the agreement who are required to honor the terms with respect to the other high contracting parties. Others that have not signed the treaty may qualify for Geneva protections, but only by compliance with the GC's terms for the recognition of non-party rights. Al Qaeda has not done so.

Learn to read.

Finally found time to get back to this.

After researching this more, I see that you're right about the binding power of the Conventions. Since both the signatory and the non-signatory parties were named in this sentence, "in their mutual relations" appeared to refer to them both. But I see that in practice and general interpretation, that's not the case. I didn't realize this at first, but better late than never.

The Conventions are obviously contractual obligations. However, their stated purpose and intent has nothing to do with anyone's fleeting desires or whimsical intentions, whether conservative or liberal. The Conventions promote "justness" as you put it, through the mandate for impartial tribunals and the general improvement in the care and treatment of prisoners, civilians, relief agencies (like the Red Cross and Red Crescent) and others.

More specifically, the Convention covers civilians in occupied territories like Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians from any country in the way, militias, anyone who picks up arms thinking (even mistakenly) to defend their homes, POWs, and "unlawful combatants". They are all covered by the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions. Yes, even "Unlawful combatants" in Al Qaeda are covered until an impartial tribunal defines them as such, and even then they have rights (though fewer than a POW under the Convention).

[Wisha Haddan H3]

I really only have one more thing to say. The Geneva Conventions aren't a license to do whatever we want to non-signatories. They are the world's best attempt at curbing and limiting wartime abuses.

Whether or not a nation signed one of the Conventions, it shouldn't stop us from treating prisoners and civilians like human beings. Question them, interrogate them, and detain them ... well yeah, they're prisoners. Deny them scented soap, DVDs, finger bowls and moist towelettes ... of course. But beat them, whip them and hang them by their arms for hours on end? Drown them, burn them, remove their fingernails and then break their fingers? I don't think so.

Torture only satisfies our own whimsical need for revenge. It doesn't gather reliable information or make our country any safer. In the end, it only creates a dilemma where we can't let our prisoners go, because the hatred we inflame in them will only infect their families and communities, until even our allies become our enemies.

[f5fstop]

Just one more note.
Has any country that has signed the convention, ever stepped forward to help prevent a country from violating the convention rules? (Other than those countries yelling and screaming at the USA.) In other words, this document is worthless since in most cases, civilized countries would treat prisoners decently; whereas the non-civilized countries such as Iran, Iraq, or terrorists, would torture, threaten, and behead prisoners.
The USA is condemend by many countries due to Gitmo; however, are these same countries saying a damn thiing about the beheading of prisoners in Iraq? NO. My opinion of the Geneva convention it is a typical worthless piece of paper.
It sure didn't help in 'Nam, it won't help in the middle east. It might work great if we had a war with England.
So, why are we even discussing this pos paper signed or not signed by countries?

[ROX]

WishIHaddaClue

You're a great armchair quarterback, aren't ya?

I know and care deeply for a Marine in charge of going to the house and getting suspected IED makers and terrorists.

DO YOU THINK HE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR?!

I really only have one more thing to say. The Geneva Conventions aren't a license to do whatever we want to non-signatories. They are the world's best attempt at curbing and limiting wartime abuses.

I only have one million more things to say...go join the bedwetter club, the rest of us want to win the war.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

I really only have one more thing to say. The Geneva Conventions aren't a license to do whatever we want to non-signatories. ...

Of course. The GCs aren't a license to affirmatively do anything. They simply make it improper for signatories to do certain, specific things, which do not include--in the U.S.'s case--aggressively interrogating terrorist thugs who have been attempting to kill, or actually killing, Americans (and Iraqis) with terrorist methods so that we can save valuable lives going forward.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

Just one more note.
Has any country that has signed the convention, ever stepped forward to help prevent a country from violating the convention rules? (Other than those countries yelling and screaming at the USA.) In other words, this document is worthless since in most cases, civilized countries would treat prisoners decently; whereas the non-civilized countries such as Iran, Iraq, or terrorists, would torture, threaten, and behead prisoners.
The USA is condemend by many countries due to Gitmo; however, are these same countries saying a damn thiing about the beheading of prisoners in Iraq? NO. My opinion of the Geneva convention it is a typical worthless piece of paper.
It sure didn't help in 'Nam, it won't help in the middle east. It might work great if we had a war with England.
So, why are we even discussing this pos paper signed or not signed by countries?

But wait, the real problem is Islamophobia: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273312,00.html

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

Just one more note.
Has any country that has signed the convention, ever stepped forward to help prevent a country from violating the convention rules? (Other than those countries yelling and screaming at the USA.) In other words, this document is worthless since in most cases, civilized countries would treat prisoners decently; whereas the non-civilized countries such as Iran, Iraq, or terrorists, would torture, threaten, and behead prisoners.
The USA is condemend by many countries due to Gitmo; however, are these same countries saying a damn thiing about the beheading of prisoners in Iraq? NO. My opinion of the Geneva convention it is a typical worthless piece of paper.
It sure didn't help in 'Nam, it won't help in the middle east. It might work great if we had a war with England.
So, why are we even discussing this pos paper signed or not signed by countries?

Good point. No piece of paper will stop a nation determined to do what it wants.

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

But wait, the real problem is Islamophobia: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273312,00.html

Nothing like paranoid religious Imams.
"This campaign of calumny against Muslims resulted in the publication of the blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper and the issuance of the inflammatory statement by Pope Benedict XVI,? the ministers said."

I'm not religious, far from it, but I have to say the Muslim sure do not get upset with blasphemous cartoons of Christ. I do believe Muslims take this prophet muhammad (piss be upon him) stuff way too seriously.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

There is one other thing I want to clear up.

I don't hate the government or the military. My parents served in the army during the Korean war. My brother was in the Air Force during the 1st Gulf War. My nephew is joining the Navy. I'm proud of them all. And for years, I studied my brains out so I could fly fighter jets in the Air Force. It about killed me when my eyes went bad.

I just don't believe that torture generates solid intel, helps our cause in the middle east, or makes us better people or a better nation.

So no, H2rocks, I don't want your Marine friend to knock and say please before asking politely if there are any IEDs in the house. He better kick down the door, kill the ones he has to and secure the rest. But I hope to God the intel was based on something more reliable than an address somebody made up so we would stop drilling his fingernails.

That is all.

[DennisAJC]

If they ever torture me, I'm gonna give em DRTY's address.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

If they ever torture me, I'm gonna give em DRTY's address.

They arleady have it. They're just afraid to move in on his compound until he stops slaughtering varmints out there with his anti-tank weapons for more than 15 minutes.