This is a real shame. I have faith in the new Iranian generation and the Iranian people though.
This is the latest strike of many and I hope soon the balance of power will be shifting to the less religious elements in Iran.
[quote]
Since the enemy is both and unlawful combatant and a non-signatory we do not have to abide by the terms in the treaty.
I believe the GC actually stipulates that these non uniformed combatants are subject to immediate execution upon capture. Perhaps someone can confirm this.[/quote]
You are mistaken in this case, just drawing a line in the sand for factuality’s sake- I have no opinion to state in this discussion.
Once an non uniformed combatant is captured, and a tribunal deems them to be unlawful, they still retain all civilian rights, despite being denied POW priviledges…
The Geneva convention states nothing about execution, however once a prisoner is denied POW status, they are still granted humane treatment and fair trial.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is exactly how it works. It is a treaty. Both parties must abide by it or else it is useless.
Whether or not a country is engaging in “war crimes” has nothing to do with whether or not another country is abiding by the conventions or is even a signatory. Sorry.
It is not a “contract” between parties.
Of course it is! That is all it is.
I would see it as a voluntary adherence to a set of principles,not as a quid pro quo contract.
Is there then a different set of standards that would apply when a nation that is a Geneva signatory is in conflict with one that isn’t?
If that is the case then I have misunderstood the GC,so I would like to be informed.
The GC only applies to signatories. Non-signatories are not covered.
Also not covered are unlawful combatants.
Since the enemy is both and unlawful combatant and a non-signatory we do not have to abide by the terms in the treaty.
We must abide by the US laws only. We get to decide, not a treaty.
Basically the president decides what to do. He can be over ruled by congress if they have a powerful enough majority and the courts will have their say but we are not obligated to apply to the conditions of the GC in the current conflict.
I believe the GC actually stipulates that these non uniformed combatants are subject to immediate execution upon capture. Perhaps someone can confirm this.[/quote]
The last paragraph is wrong, they are to be detained until their status is determined by a military tribunal.
Then you can shoot them.
Until then they are to be treated humanely, Guantanamo violates rights that are specifically mentioned.
Is the GC applicable in this conflict?
That is actually interesting.
Both the USA and Iraq have signed it so yes, it is.
Now you could argue that the war is over, unfortunately it was never properly declared so how do we know it formally is?
Is Iraq occupied by the US?
Then the GC is on because Iraq signed the convention.
Is the US giving military aid to Iraq?
See above.
What is it?
The same applies to Afghanistan.
Even more important, when were this prisoners made?
Early in the war, without anything that could be seen as a capitulation?
Then they are probably, especialy if they are Taliban, POW in the sense of the GC.
Plus my ceterum censeo, the GC does of course not apply to people that took never part in fights and were simply kidnapped in Afghanistan or Bosnia or Sweden…
These kidnappings and further proceedings are still an outrage.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The GC only applies to signatories. Non-signatories are not covered.
Also not covered are unlawful combatants.
Since the enemy is both and unlawful combatant and a non-signatory we do not have to abide by the terms in the treaty.
We must abide by the US laws only. We get to decide, not a treaty.
Basically the president decides what to do. He can be over ruled by congress if they have a powerful enough majority and the courts will have their say but we are not obligated to apply to the conditions of the GC in the current conflict.
I believe the GC actually stipulates that these non uniformed combatants are subject to immediate execution upon capture. Perhaps someone can confirm this.[/quote]
Zap, go read it.
This is how the administration has presented it, but look at Alberto Gonzales and decide how much you trust him to represent the truth of the matter. Seriously.
What is or is not a war crime, or a crime against humanity, does not depend upon who signed the Geneva Conventions.
The fact that your own Supreme Court advised the President to adhere to its terms should be clue. It will take time, but eventually the truth of this will become visible.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The GC only applies to signatories. Non-signatories are not covered.
Also not covered are unlawful combatants.
Since the enemy is both and unlawful combatant and a non-signatory we do not have to abide by the terms in the treaty.
We must abide by the US laws only. We get to decide, not a treaty.
Basically the president decides what to do. He can be over ruled by congress if they have a powerful enough majority and the courts will have their say but we are not obligated to apply to the conditions of the GC in the current conflict.
I believe the GC actually stipulates that these non uniformed combatants are subject to immediate execution upon capture. Perhaps someone can confirm this.
Zap, go read it.
This is how the administration has presented it, but look at Alberto Gonzales and decide how much you trust him to represent the truth of the matter. Seriously.
What is or is not a war crime, or a crime against humanity, does not depend upon who signed the Geneva Conventions.
The fact that your own Supreme Court advised the President to adhere to its terms should be clue. It will take time, but eventually the truth of this will become visible.[/quote]
This is of course the ethical question that is raised.While technically,the US may not be in conflict with a fellow GC signatory,since it is not at war with Iraq,there may not be an onus on them to observe the GC (And this is a VERY debatable view).
But if a nation (or individual) wants to willingly adopt the mantle of the worlds moral leading light,bastion of justice,freedom and all that is good in our Western society,then surely they have also willingly stepped up to be judged by the strictest and most onerous of standards.
Is it then possible to lower those standards if those you come into conflict with those that don’t share your set of values?
Or is it incumbent on the,for lack of a better phrase right now,more ‘moral’ party to uphold those higher ideals,even when that moral high ground may make the conflict more costly in human and financial terms?
Is that not the only way that the ethical high ground can be retained?
Lets say that hypothetically,the US wins the war and now all those pesky terrorists are under control.If the methods used were not of the standards that are professed to be held dear by the victor,how do you then have any credibility whatsoever in trying to instill those same values in the vanquished?
It then becomes the ‘do as I say,not as I do’ debacle.
Which is of course,worthless.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
As far as my particular question goes,that is a moot point.In any war there has to be an aggressor,that is logically a given.Otherwise there would not be any war.
If you agree that the US is the aggressor here, and that it can’t be bothered to abide by the international laws that forbid wars of aggression, then why would it care about the Geneva Convention? Put another way, if you violate the main clauses of a contract, subclauses matter not.
And as far as the analogy you draw goes,I’m not seeing the relevance or connection.
Ok, here’s another one. When one commits rapes, one rarely worries about foreplay or putting on condoms.[/quote]
EVERY war is a war of aggression,from one point of view.
Does this then render the GC null and void in every single conflict?
That is obviously not the case.
Is the GC an enforceable instrument?In reality,no.That is why I view it as voluntary,more than binding.While the letter of the treaty is that of an international contract,in that respect it isn’t worth its weight as toilet paper.
It’s the spirit of the agreement that I still belive is key.
Lixy,while I understand exactly what you are saying,I’m not here to get drawn into the US/bad,ME/victimised argument.So for the record,I believe that invading Iraq was a colossal mistake,and that there was a non public agenda,this does not negate the US as a stabilising and many times extremely positive force in the world in the last 70 years,and for the foreseeable future.
The object here is to discuss all these issues as a complete package and to be able to achieve an atmosphere,even on something as inane as a politics forum on our favorite training website,where both sides think about what is written.
There are ways of saying what is on your mind that will lead others to think about what you say,even if they don’t ever acknowledge it.
But being the one that is right all the time isn’t the point.
Is it?
There is an old Italian saying that roughly translates to:“The devil knows more,not because he is the devil,but because he is old.”
There is a bigger picture to be discussed here that will affect many more conflicts…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But if a nation (or individual) wants to willingly adopt the mantle of the worlds moral leading light,bastion of justice,freedom and all that is good in our Western society,then surely they have also willingly stepped up to be judged by the strictest and most onerous of standards.
Is it then possible to lower those standards if those you come into conflict with those that don’t share your set of values?
Or is it incumbent on the,for lack of a better phrase right now,more ‘moral’ party to uphold those higher ideals,even when that moral high ground may make the conflict more costly in human and financial terms?
Is that not the only way that the ethical high ground can be retained?
Lets say that hypothetically,the US wins the war and now all those pesky terrorists are under control.If the methods used were not of the standards that are professed to be held dear by the victor,how do you then have any credibility whatsoever in trying to instill those same values in the vanquished?[/quote]
Very well said.