NationStates Jolt Archive

The Iraqi torture scandal has made me question the Geneva Conventions more and more. Sure, I feel that what our troops did to the prisoners was deplorable. However, I question if their actions weren't technically illegal by the Geneva Conventions.
After all, the prisoners aren't POWs. All of them were arrested after last August, meaning that technically, Geneva has no classification for them, and therefore, doesn't entitle them to anything. While I do admit the fallacy that 90% of the prisoners may, in fact, be innocent, I don't see what's wrong with cohersing the known insurgents to talk (the unknowns should be released for the time being, I feel).
The insurgents and the terrorists captured aren't about to crack if an interrogator just asks them questions for hours on end. They need to be cracked open, and their are plenty of safer ways to do that. For example, sleep and sensory deprivation, I feel, are ok as they do not inflict physical harm. Threatening prisoners may also work (as long as they aren't threatened with something real bad, like being sent to another country for torture). The terrorist soldiers we shamefully have in the US military have crossed the line by physically abusing the prisoners, but we do have to ask if humiliation and verbal abuse are really that bad.
The Geneva Conventions, really, are just another pascifist ploy to prevent all wars, and are way too utopian. They even say POWs must recieve a wage! No one follows that one. I've concluded that they are vague and inflexible for the situations. These people won't talk unless they are made to. If any treaty says anything about this, it should be that POWs are not physically abused, but certainly can be emotionally and verbally abused.
The Israelis seem to have the right idea. They employ sleep deprivation by flashing bright lights and loud music. They are generous compared to the PO, that don't hesitate beating their soldiers. The difference, however, is that Israel is not employing physical force. It's time that Geneva realises that a.) not all combantants are POWs, and b.) war's deadlier than it use to be, and "gentle abuse", if you will, may be the only way to get vital information out of a combantant.
P.S: In recognition that something needs to be done, the Pentagon must stop hiding behind Geneva when our soldiers are captured and shown on TV.

Actually, a great many of them were not insurgents at all, but people who got caught stealing something. People living in poverty forced into crime. Helping themselves to the contents of an abandoned building, for example. Or just being involved in a "breach of the peace", as they call being loud and noisy in the street over here in the UK. Not insurgents at all, not in general.

EDIT: One of the problems in Iraq is that there is no civil criminal justice system for dealing with brawls and petty thieves, so they end up sitting in US prisons for weeks on end.

After all, the prisoners aren't POWs. All of them were arrested after last August, meaning that technically, Geneva has no classification for them, and therefore, doesn't entitle them to anything.


Incorrect.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) provides "protection of civilians during times of war and under any occupation by a foreign power." If the prisoners being held in Iraq are not soldiers or P.O.W.'s, but are civilians in an occupied country, then the Geneva Conventions certainly do provide protection, just as they do to any other civilian, prisoner or not, within an occupied country.

(EDIT: And as far as I can tell, Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention#Article_3) forbids torture reguardless of a person's status. Article 3 says that (bolds and italics are mine):

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

"(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture

"(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

Whether or not those detained in Iraq are P.O.W.'s is irrevelant, the Geneva Convention specifically forbids torture. Period.)

Actually, a great many of them were not insurgents at all, but people who got caught stealing something. People living in poverty forced into crime. Helping themselves to the contents of an abandoned building, for example. Or just being involved in a "breach of the peace", as they call being loud and noisy in the street over here in the UK. Not insurgents at all, not in general.

EDIT: One of the problems in Iraq is that there is no civil criminal justice system for dealing with brawls and petty thieves, so they end up sitting in US prisons for weeks on end.
The Iraqi judicial system, actually, was the best progressing part of the reconstruction, and it still may be. However, the problem is that there's no real way for the Iraqi police to patrol the streets for insurgents and thieves at the same time. As for the courts, they have no where to put their convicts once they are convicted, except US and UK run prisons. Luckily, that may change, as funding was approved a long time ago to build four new prisons in Iraq, and they should be built by the time an Iraqi government can take over security.

After all, the prisoners aren't POWs. All of them were arrested after last August, meaning that technically, Geneva has no classification for them, and therefore, doesn't entitle them to anything.


Incorrect.

The Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) provides "protection of civilians during times of war and under any occupation by a foreign power." If the prisoners being held in Iraq are not soldiers or P.O.W.'s, but are civilians in an occupied country, then the Geneva Conventions certainly do provide protection, just as they do to any other civilian, prisoner or not, within an occupied country.

(EDIT: And as far as I can tell, Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention#Article_3) forbids torture reguardless of a person's status. Article 3 says that (bolds and italics are mine):

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

"(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture

"(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

Whether or not those detained in Iraq are P.O.W.'s is irrevelant, the Geneva Convention specifically forbids torture. Period.)

^5!!!, You just so totally PWNED his argument.. ;)

The Geneva Conventions, really, are just another pascifist ploy to prevent all wars, and are way too utopian. They even say POWs must recieve a wage! No one follows that one. I've concluded that they are vague and inflexible for the situations. These people won't talk unless they are made to. If any treaty says anything about this, it should be that POWs are not physically abused, but certainly can be emotionally and verbally abused.
The Israelis seem to have the right idea. They employ sleep deprivation by flashing bright lights and loud music. They are generous compared to the PO, that don't hesitate beating their soldiers. The difference, however, is that Israel is not employing physical force. It's time that Geneva realises that a.) not all combantants are POWs, and b.) war's deadlier than it use to be, and "gentle abuse", if you will, may be the only way to get vital information out of a combantant.
P.S: In recognition that something needs to be done, the Pentagon must stop hiding behind Geneva when our soldiers are captured and shown on TV.

The Geneva Conventions are really just an addendum to the HAgue Conventions, and surely there is nothing enherently pacifistic about them. If anything, they were premised on the inevitability of war, and were an attempt to try and put some limits on them - to make them as "civilized" as possible - if that CAN be possible during armed conflicts.

And, indeed, there was supposed to be a measure of comfort to them for the troops. The idea being that if there is an expectation of adherence to them, then you have some assurance that YOU will not be tortured if captured.

In reality - conflict brings out the worst in people and the conventions are routinely broken in any war.

After all - if we didn;t care about humane treatment - then we wouldn't have this war going on in Iraq in the first place. WE wouldn't have complained about chemical weapons as they would not have been illegal. We would not have cared about Saddam's abuses of his citizens, because abuse would be an acceptible part of life.

Are they vague and inflexible? well every law must have a definition else it would be useless. And these were written between 50 and 100 years ago. Technology has outpaced the law in some cases.

But the thought that they were written to encourage pacifism is simply not the case. They were written out of the knowledge that wars were inevitable. The Pentagon is not "hiding" behind them at all. Frankly, if US servicemen were captured and tortured and the Pentagon just said "oh well - it's war - what do you expect", the public would not consider that an acceptable attitude. Would they?

I think not.

-Z-

And just to add, here is the definition of a POW under the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

And just to add, here is the definition of a POW under the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The part about the militias and other volunteer groups is way too vague. Does a command structure have to formally exist? Does the group have to have a name, so that there's an identifiable sign? Do most of the insurgents even have an identifiable sign? But, Article A, Section 2 (a) concerns me the most. What are these laws and customs of war? Is this in reference to Geneva, or does this mean attributes of war a custom places on? If the forward (and it looks like that's what it means), then technically, both the US military and the Iraqi insurrgency groups are technically outside the Geneva Conventions, meaning that either side can treat the other however the hell they want to, as that section basically nullifies both armies' right to exist. In other words, the Geneva convention, at least in this section, has set itself up so that it is never applicable to any wars, legally speaking.

If we're going by the Geneva conventions, isnt what America is doing to the "detainees" (aka POW's) in Guantanimo bay flagrantly breaching them?

If we're going by the Geneva conventions, isnt what America is doing to the "detainees" (aka POW's) in Guantanimo bay flagrantly breaching them?
If it weren't for such contradicting clauses in Geneva, then yes. But as such clauses exist, every action at Guantanamo can be described as legal. I guess one could say that the Phillipines's battle against the Moros and other Islamic extremists is legal. They employ such techniques that even I find easy to condemn, like stretching people's arms out, then sticking live wires to their genetalia. Yet, Geneva seems to make this legal with such clauses as article A, Section 2(a). There are probably more out there elsewhere in the document.

The Geneva Convention is stupid, not because torture is good, but because it happens in every war regardless of who's involved. Human nature.

The Geneva Convention has been the basis of conditions for prisoner treatement during wartime since what? The 19th Century? I believed this Convention has helped many during the First and Second World Wars. It was only after the hegemony of the United States in the second half of the 20th Century it was beginning to be largely ignored, that is, unless the terms are in her favour. What a hypocrite.

If we're going by the Geneva conventions, isnt what America is doing to the "detainees" (aka POW's) in Guantanimo bay flagrantly breaching them?
If it weren't for such contradicting clauses in Geneva, then yes. But as such clauses exist, every action at Guantanamo can be described as legal. I guess one could say that the Phillipines's battle against the Moros and other Islamic extremists is legal. They employ such techniques that even I find easy to condemn, like stretching people's arms out, then sticking live wires to their genetalia. Yet, Geneva seems to make this legal with such clauses as article A, Section 2(a). There are probably more out there elsewhere in the document.

As I have already explained above, torture (i.e. stretching people's arms out, etc.) is comdemned and forbidden by the Geneva Conventions in Article 3 (http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention#Article_3).

(EDIT: This prohibition of torture by the Geneva Conventions applies to all non-combatant human beings reguardless of status as a POW, soldier, etc. If the person has layed down arms, or has never taken up arms at all, and is incapable of fighting then the Geneva Conventions apply and torture is illegal. The prohibition of torture does not rely on the definition or status of a POW.

From Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (link above):

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

If the person/people in question involved fit the description above, then they are protected by the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment. Note that the description above makes no distinction between POW and non-POW. This description, however, covers POW's just as it covers civilians, civilian detainees, and all other non-combatants.)

And just to add, here is the definition of a POW under the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The part about the militias and other volunteer groups is way too vague. Does a command structure have to formally exist? Does the group have to have a name, so that there's an identifiable sign? Do most of the insurgents even have an identifiable sign? But, Article A, Section 2 (a) concerns me the most. What are these laws and customs of war? Is this in reference to Geneva, or does this mean attributes of war a custom places on? If the forward (and it looks like that's what it means), then technically, both the US military and the Iraqi insurrgency groups are technically outside the Geneva Conventions, meaning that either side can treat the other however the hell they want to, as that section basically nullifies both armies' right to exist. In other words, the Geneva convention, at least in this section, has set itself up so that it is never applicable to any wars, legally speaking.

What exactly is vague about this article? It defines the criteria by which a group is considered to be militia or not, and the clause regarding the laws and customs of war did not define a specific law so that this convention would not have to be redrafted ever time any other laws regarding warfare would be enacted.

By leaving it open - it allows other laws to be drafted and ratified without invalidating this one.

So it included adherence to the 1856 Declaration of Paris outlawing such things as privateering when it was originally signed, and now includes adherence to the 1975 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) including the ammendment relating to toxin weapons in 1972.

Had the Geneva conventions not been written in this manner, combattants could violate these treaties and still be eligable for their Geneva Conventions rights.

In practice, this law like most others is also generally a matter of precedence. Rarely is a law written in it's original form in such a way that it encompassses every eventuality. It is then left up to judicial bodies to adjudicate the applicable limits.

That is - after all - the purpose of the Supreme Court as relates to US law. There is no exact similar correlation in many international law such as this - however judicial precedent applied at the discretion of one court is still generally noted by another.

-Z-

The part about the militias and other volunteer groups is way too vague. Does a command structure have to formally exist? Does the group have to have a name, so that there's an identifiable sign? Do most of the insurgents even have an identifiable sign? But, Article A, Section 2 (a) concerns me the most. What are these laws and customs of war? Is this in reference to Geneva, or does this mean attributes of war a custom places on? If the forward (and it looks like that's what it means), then technically, both the US military and the Iraqi insurrgency groups are technically outside the Geneva Conventions, meaning that either side can treat the other however the hell they want to, as that section basically nullifies both armies' right to exist. In other words, the Geneva convention, at least in this section, has set itself up so that it is never applicable to any wars, legally speaking.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

___________________

Hey Purly Euclid, could you clarify this for me? I read A.2.a as being, "That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates" but you mention the "laws and customs of war" am I missing something here? What A.2.a are you reading that mentions laws or customs?

If we're going by the Geneva conventions, isnt what America is doing to the "detainees" (aka POW's) in Guantanimo bay flagrantly breaching them?

Yes. (And also a flagrant breach against the US constitutions 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, as well.)

No, due to the legal way things turned out (Guantanamo is only leased to the USA by Cuba, so its neither owned by the USA nor under the control of Cuba), techically the USA can't be faulted for Guantanamo.

Why does it need a set of laws to prevent people abusing others? Has the world degraded to such a point that compassion and kindness is not on the agenda anymore, at all? :?

If we're going by the Geneva conventions, isnt what America is doing to the "detainees" (aka POW's) in Guantanimo bay flagrantly breaching them?

Yes. (And also a flagrant breach against the US constitutions 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, as well.)
The vast majority of detained are not US citizens, and therefore, arguably not under the protection of the constitution.

No, due to the legal way things turned out (Guantanamo is only leased to the USA by Cuba, so its neither owned by the USA nor under the control of Cuba), techically the USA can't be faulted for Guantanamo.

That's a stretch. It's not, after all, like the detainees magically apeared in Cuba so "gosh - guess no Geneva Conventions apply!".

They were considered to be exempt from the rules regarding legal combattants under the Geneva Conventions as they were mostly foreign nationals within Afghanistan, although some legal experts have disagreed on this interpretation. But GW designed his new "enemy combattant" designation to let them fall between the cracks that define combattants versus civillians. He then deliberatly set them up in camp in Cuba to ensure that US domestic laws would also no apply.

It took a good bit of legal work to put this together to absolve the US of any need to give legal rights to these detainees. Whether you "fault" them for that is up to you - however looking for ways to remove peoples rights seems to be a trend with this administration.

-Z-

Alright I'd like to make two points:
1.) This war is not and never has been about stopping a dictatorship! :x
If it had been it would have happened along time ago. In fact if were gonna be brutally honest let's admit one thing-- nearly everytime we have ever interfered with another country particularly we they have requested we leave them along it always comes back to haunt us. Don't believe me here are a few examples: Castro and the missile crisis; the Al Quada and 911; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; and soon to be Iraq. Look in a history book if you need proof.

Moving on to point 2...
2.) If you toss something like the Geneva Convention out the window you open the door for something worse then what has already happened. Rules maybe broken, but so long as they exist they offer protection and recompansation for damages. Besides all you'll be doing is playing tit for tat. You hurt them, they hurt you, you both might as well be in elementary school.

Okay sleep deprived gotta go...

No, due to the legal way things turned out (Guantanamo is only leased to the USA by Cuba, so its neither owned by the USA nor under the control of Cuba), techically the USA can't be faulted for Guantanamo.

Sorry, but the SC is still out on this issue. The rulings are expected at the end of next month. I expect even this SC to rule in favor of the constitutional rights argument.

The part about the militias and other volunteer groups is way too vague. Does a command structure have to formally exist? Does the group have to have a name, so that there's an identifiable sign? Do most of the insurgents even have an identifiable sign? But, Article A, Section 2 (a) concerns me the most. What are these laws and customs of war? Is this in reference to Geneva, or does this mean attributes of war a custom places on? If the forward (and it looks like that's what it means), then technically, both the US military and the Iraqi insurrgency groups are technically outside the Geneva Conventions, meaning that either side can treat the other however the hell they want to, as that section basically nullifies both armies' right to exist. In other words, the Geneva convention, at least in this section, has set itself up so that it is never applicable to any wars, legally speaking.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

___________________

Hey Purly Euclid, could you clarify this for me? I read A.2.a as being, "That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates" but you mention the "laws and customs of war" am I missing something here? What A.2.a are you reading that mentions laws or customs?
My mistake. It's A.2.e.

And just to add, here is the definition of a POW under the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The part about the militias and other volunteer groups is way too vague. Does a command structure have to formally exist? Does the group have to have a name, so that there's an identifiable sign? Do most of the insurgents even have an identifiable sign? But, Article A, Section 2 (a) concerns me the most. What are these laws and customs of war? Is this in reference to Geneva, or does this mean attributes of war a custom places on? If the forward (and it looks like that's what it means), then technically, both the US military and the Iraqi insurrgency groups are technically outside the Geneva Conventions, meaning that either side can treat the other however the hell they want to, as that section basically nullifies both armies' right to exist. In other words, the Geneva convention, at least in this section, has set itself up so that it is never applicable to any wars, legally speaking.

What exactly is vague about this article? It defines the criteria by which a group is considered to be militia or not, and the clause regarding the laws and customs of war did not define a specific law so that this convention would not have to be redrafted ever time any other laws regarding warfare would be enacted.

By leaving it open - it allows other laws to be drafted and ratified without invalidating this one.

So it included adherence to the 1856 Declaration of Paris outlawing such things as privateering when it was originally signed, and now includes adherence to the 1975 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) including the ammendment relating to toxin weapons in 1972.

Had the Geneva conventions not been written in this manner, combattants could violate these treaties and still be eligable for their Geneva Conventions rights.

In practice, this law like most others is also generally a matter of precedence. Rarely is a law written in it's original form in such a way that it encompassses every eventuality. It is then left up to judicial bodies to adjudicate the applicable limits.

That is - after all - the purpose of the Supreme Court as relates to US law. There is no exact similar correlation in many international law such as this - however judicial precedent applied at the discretion of one court is still generally noted by another.

-Z-
What is vague is that it doesn't define a militia. The A.2.e clause can be interpreted to say that as a prerequisite for an army or militia to be legal, they need to follow the rest of the Geneva Convention. Neither side is following the conventions. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions have been nullified by all parties in Iraq. I'm not saying that now, the US may freely blow Baghdad to smitherines for no reason at all. I believe that with or without Geneva, civilians should never be targets in war. I'm just saying that Geneva has been nullified in Iraq thanks to clauses like A.2.e.

Therefore the Geneva Convention should not be scrapped - it should be updated! :shock:

Why does it need a set of laws to prevent people abusing others? Has the world degraded to such a point that compassion and kindness is not on the agenda anymore, at all? :?

Yes.

Alright I'd like to make two points:
1.) This war is not and never has been about stopping a dictatorship! :x
If it had been it would have happened along time ago. In fact if were gonna be brutally honest let's admit one thing-- nearly everytime we have ever interfered with another country particularly we they have requested we leave them along it always comes back to haunt us. Don't believe me here are a few examples: Castro and the missile crisis; the Al Quada and 911; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; and soon to be Iraq. Look in a history book if you need proof.
Not even Vietnam has haunted us in a serious way. The Korean dictatorship is causing the problems, and as they were aligned with the Soviet Union, they'd taunt us with or without a war. Castro's just a rock in our shoe. Iraq actually has the most potential to haunt us, but as I've said from Day 1, Iraq's a gamble. If we win, great things will happen. Otherwise, we may plunge the world into a new era of dispear.

Moving on to point 2...
2.) If you toss something like the Geneva Convention out the window you open the door for something worse then what has already happened. Rules maybe broken, but so long as they exist they offer protection and recompansation for damages. Besides all you'll be doing is playing tit for tat. You hurt them, they hurt you, you both might as well be in elementary school.

The Geneva Convention is not being followed, really. It exists in virtually all current wars only as a pretty piece of paper. Throwing it out would only restate the obvious. In fact, by definition, the rules of war are an oxymoron.

Why does it need a set of laws to prevent people abusing others? Has the world degraded to such a point that compassion and kindness is not on the agenda anymore, at all? :?

Yes.

that's why we're all so sad.

Why does it need a set of laws to prevent people abusing others? Has the world degraded to such a point that compassion and kindness is not on the agenda anymore, at all? :?

Yes.

that's why we're all so sad.
If it's updated, it's just upholding the myth that wars can have easily abided rules. Perhaps an entirely new treaty would help, but one that is less utopian and inflexible as Geneva. Personally, any "rules of war" should stick to the protection of civillians. It's more pointless trying to protect prisoners or combatants.

a new era of despair if the US is kicked out of Iraq? excuse, but have i made a mistake reading your typo, or did you really type that?

a new era of despair if the US is kicked out of Iraq? excuse, but have i made a mistake reading your typo, or did you really type that?
Not necessarily kicked out of Iraq, but if we were kicked out soon, Iraq would be unable to hold itself together. Therefore, it'd be subject to every terrorist, fundementalist, powerbroker, and foreign nation in the area, and only create a breeding ground for terrorists. If we succeed, however, the terrorists currently being drawn to Iraq would be immobilized, and as Iraq starts to be a political and economic example for the Middle East to follow, fundementalism would loose its double-edged sword.

The Geneva Conventions, really, are just another pascifist ploy to prevent all wars, and are way too utopian. They even say POWs must recieve a wage! No one follows that one. I've concluded that they are vague and inflexible for the situations. These people won't talk unless they are made to. If any treaty says anything about this, it should be that POWs are not physically abused, but certainly can be emotionally and verbally abused.
The Israelis seem to have the right idea. They employ sleep deprivation by flashing bright lights and loud music. They are generous compared to the PO, that don't hesitate beating their soldiers. The difference, however, is that Israel is not employing physical force. It's time that Geneva realises that a.) not all combantants are POWs, and b.) war's deadlier than it use to be, and "gentle abuse", if you will, may be the only way to get vital information out of a combantant.
P.S: In recognition that something needs to be done, the Pentagon must stop hiding behind Geneva when our soldiers are captured and shown on TV.

The Geneva Conventions are really just an addendum to the HAgue Conventions, and surely there is nothing enherently pacifistic about them. If anything, they were premised on the inevitability of war, and were an attempt to try and put some limits on them - to make them as "civilized" as possible - if that CAN be possible during armed conflicts.

And, indeed, there was supposed to be a measure of comfort to them for the troops. The idea being that if there is an expectation of adherence to them, then you have some assurance that YOU will not be tortured if captured.

In reality - conflict brings out the worst in people and the conventions are routinely broken in any war.

After all - if we didn;t care about humane treatment - then we wouldn't have this war going on in Iraq in the first place. WE wouldn't have complained about chemical weapons as they would not have been illegal. We would not have cared about Saddam's abuses of his citizens, because abuse would be an acceptible part of life.

Are they vague and inflexible? well every law must have a definition else it would be useless. And these were written between 50 and 100 years ago. Technology has outpaced the law in some cases.

But the thought that they were written to encourage pacifism is simply not the case. They were written out of the knowledge that wars were inevitable. The Pentagon is not "hiding" behind them at all. Frankly, if US servicemen were captured and tortured and the Pentagon just said "oh well - it's war - what do you expect", the public would not consider that an acceptable attitude. Would they?

I think not.

-Z-

One big difference..we wouldn't be crying for them to adhere to the Geneva Conventions..we KNOW they don't adhere....the Geneva Conventions are all well and good between two honorable enemies such as was between the Allies and the Germans..the Germans went to great lengths to keep safe Allied prisoners...but the Allies and the Japanese were a totally different matter...they didn't adhere to the Conventions at all, i.e the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March..we wouldn't expect them to treat our boys humanely...I say again.why should only the Conventions be adhered to by only one side in this conflict?

One big difference..we wouldn't be crying for them to adhere to the Geneva Conventions..we KNOW they don't adhere....the Geneva Conventions are all well and good between two honorable enemies such as was between the Allies and the Germans..the Germans went to great lengths to keep safe Allied prisoners...but the Allies and the Japanese were a totally different matter...they didn't adhere to the Conventions at all, i.e the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March..we wouldn't expect them to treat our boys humanely...I say again.why should only the Conventions be adhered to by only one side in this conflict?

The US did expect both Germany and Japan to adhere to the "customs and laws of war", otherwise the multitude of war crimes trials would not have occured.

As for thid conflict (and others before it), the US has proceeded on the moral high ground (and much as this may draw flames, this has usually been the case - certainly not always, but usually...).

The flauting of both constitutional and intwernational protections for prisoners by the Bush administration is both embarassing and worrying.

One big difference..we wouldn't be crying for them to adhere to the Geneva Conventions..we KNOW they don't adhere....the Geneva Conventions are all well and good between two honorable enemies such as was between the Allies and the Germans..the Germans went to great lengths to keep safe Allied prisoners...but the Allies and the Japanese were a totally different matter...they didn't adhere to the Conventions at all, i.e the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March..we wouldn't expect them to treat our boys humanely...I say again.why should only the Conventions be adhered to by only one side in this conflict?

The US did expect both Germany and Japan to adhere to the "customs and laws of war", otherwise the multitude of war crimes trials would not have occured.

As for thid conflict (and others before it), the US has proceeded on the moral high ground (and much as this may draw flames, this has usually been the case - certainly not always, but usually...).

The flauting of both constitutional and intwernational protections for prisoners by the Bush administration is both embarassing and worrying.

But that still doesn't answer my question...why should the US adhere to the Conventions when one of the parties isn't even a signatory partner to those conventions and if that party itself embraces conduct that could not be in sync in any fashion of the word with the Conventions, why should we be expected to give them any consideration?

But that still doesn't answer my question...why should the US adhere to the Conventions when one of the parties isn't even a signatory partner to those conventions and if that party itself embraces conduct that could not be in sync in any fashion of the word with the Conventions, why should we be expected to give them any consideration?

Well the most compelling reason is that it is law, and we are supposed to be a nation of laws. It is part of a treaty ratified by congress. And furthermore most of the violations are also statutory law, under the UCMJ.

I would also point out that Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva conventions, so claims that "one of the parties isn't even a signatory partner to those conventions" are patently false, and undermine your argument.

Further, if we expect our own POWs to be treated in a legal fashion, we must treat POWs in our custody according to the conventions. Failure to do so endangers US fighting men. US forces mistreatment of Afghan or Iraqi POWs opens the door to foreign mistreatment of US POWs.

As you sow, so shall you reap....

(BTW, your claims to not understand this undermine what may be viewed as your dubious claims to having been in US service.....)


Also, in regards to the questions of the vaugeries of the wording "customs" , here is some explanation: http://webpages.charter.net/gipg/genevaconventions/intro.html#customary

And a bit of history:
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

But that still doesn't answer my question...why should the US adhere to the Conventions when one of the parties isn't even a signatory partner to those conventions and if that party itself embraces conduct that could not be in sync in any fashion of the word with the Conventions, why should we be expected to give them any consideration?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it or to try and put on airs, but because we're supposed to be better than that. More specifically, we're supposed to be better than them, whoever the "them" happens to be at the time. In this case, we're supposed to be better than Saddam and his government.

The Geneva Conventions provide a thorough and well thought out manner to deal fairly with not only combatants in wartime, but also civilians. How can we claim moral superiority, much less justify regime change if we break the very agreements that we claim they broke in the first place? Of course war is a confusing mess and anyone with any sence of decency is shocked and appalled at the barbaric level it sometimes drives men to, but to willfully disregard a code of conduct that is agreed upon globally simply proves those with anti-American sentiment correct. We become the demon they've painted us to be.

Like Daistallia said, we are a nation of laws. We are also a nation of morals, or at least we claim to be. To abandon the only blueprint for morality in wartime makes us not only immoral, but liars and hypocrites as well, with no justification of any sort to combat terrorisim or Al Qaeda or the Taliban or any other forgien power that seeks to subdue us by breaking those laws themselves.

But that still doesn't answer my question...why should the US adhere to the Conventions when one of the parties isn't even a signatory partner to those conventions and if that party itself embraces conduct that could not be in sync in any fashion of the word with the Conventions, why should we be expected to give them any consideration?

Well the most compelling reason is that it is law, and we are supposed to be a nation of laws. It is part of a treaty ratified by congress. And furthermore most of the violations are also statutory law, under the UCMJ.

I would also point out that Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva conventions, so claims that "one of the parties isn't even a signatory partner to those conventions" are patently false, and undermine your argument.

Further, if we expect our own POWs to be treated in a legal fashion, we must treat POWs in our custody according to the conventions. Failure to do so endangers US fighting men. US forces mistreatment of Afghan or Iraqi POWs opens the door to foreign mistreatment of US POWs.

As you sow, so shall you reap....

(BTW, your claims to not understand this undermine what may be viewed as your dubious claims to having been in US service.....)


Also, in regards to the questions of the vaugeries of the wording "customs" , here is some explanation: http://webpages.charter.net/gipg/genevaconventions/intro.html#customary

And a bit of history:
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

This is faulty reasoning, though. You might as well say that, since people regularly ignore speeding laws and get away with it, I should follow speeding laws and any ticket given to me is an unfair prosecution because others are doing it.

However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that a single violation somehow tosses the whole conventions out.

That is simply incorrect.

What it DOES to is diferentiate which participating combattants can be deemed to be war criminals.

To go back to the WWII mention, Germany mostly followed the conventions, however there were instances where they were breached. e.g. the treatment of Russian prisoners was markedly diferent from how most Brits / Yanks / Canadians were treated. Did that make every German soldier a war criminal and give us the right to breach the conventions at will too?

No.

IF you want to toss them aside and let your troops be as bad as they want - fine. However don't expect the rest of the world to ever buy some "we're liberating... bringing peace and democracy" argument again. You reap what you sow. And expect resistance to be even tougher the next time around. Because if people are expecting abuse at the hands of the approaching army, they will fight back all the harder.

-Z-

However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

This is faulty reasoning, though. You might as well say that, since people regularly ignore speeding laws and get away with it, I should follow speeding laws and any ticket given to me is an unfair prosecution because others are doing it.
However, when one speeds, they don't automatically loose their driver's liscense. That's the difference with the Geneva Convention. If they are broken, then an army officially doesn't exist as such, as they need to follow the Conventions in order to exist.

However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

This is faulty reasoning, though. You might as well say that, since people regularly ignore speeding laws and get away with it, I should follow speeding laws and any ticket given to me is an unfair prosecution because others are doing it.
However, when one speeds, they don't automatically loose their driver's liscense. That's the difference with the Geneva Convention. If they are broken, then an army officially doesn't exist as such, as they need to follow the Conventions in order to exist.

I'm not familiar with this. Are you saying if the Conventions are broken that turns a military into a lose confederation of thugs immediately?

I think Zepp illustrated my point better than I did. An infraction of the code doesn't excuse further infractions on either side and doesn't immediately nullify the code itself.

However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that a single violation somehow tosses the whole conventions out.

That is simply incorrect.

What it DOES to is diferentiate which participating combattants can be deemed to be war criminals.

To go back to the WWII mention, Germany mostly followed the conventions, however there were instances where they were breached. e.g. the treatment of Russian prisoners was markedly diferent from how most Brits / Yanks / Canadians were treated. Did that make every German soldier a war criminal and give us the right to breach the conventions at will too?

No.

IF you want to toss them aside and let your troops be as bad as they want - fine. However don't expect the rest of the world to ever buy some "we're liberating... bringing peace and democracy" argument again. You reap what you sow. And expect resistance to be even tougher the next time around. Because if people are expecting abuse at the hands of the approaching army, they will fight back all the harder.

-Z-
The German army was lead by war criminals, and made up in large part by war criminals. What they did was more like pissing on the Geneva Conventions. They were literally asking for nullification.
Now, my claim, as you noted, is that an army violating one section of Geneva means that Geneva doesn't apply to them. However, is there proof that this isn't the case? Sure, the world tends to overlook this unpleasant little fact, but it's there for all to see. The only Geneva signitories should've been the most peaceful and isolated countries, because quite frankly, this is saying that the only legal war seems to be one fought with wet noodles and water cannons instead of guns and tanks.

The German army was lead by war criminals, and made up in large part by war criminals. What they did was more like pissing on the Geneva Conventions. They were literally asking for nullification.
Now, my claim, as you noted, is that an army violating one section of Geneva means that Geneva doesn't apply to them. However, is there proof that this isn't the case? Sure, the world tends to overlook this unpleasant little fact, but it's there for all to see. The only Geneva signitories should've been the most peaceful and isolated countries, because quite frankly, this is saying that the only legal war seems to be one fought with wet noodles and water cannons instead of guns and tanks.

Ummm.... clearly you haven't actually read the laws. Perhaps you could point to the section that outlaws weapons? Or combat? You are discussing the sections that relate to treatment of civillians and POWs, and extending that to war as a whole - which is a mistake of fact as well as of how it relates to these laws.

The laws regarding combat are one thing. Those relating to the treatment of prisoners and civilians is something else.

And nowhere is there ANY way to nullify these laws. You seem to have that idea stuck in your head. It just doesn't happen that way.

You seem to be doing your best to read things that aren't there, or just using it as an excuse to absolve any adherence to it. I think you will find that most active duty soldiers apreciate the expectation that they will be treated humanely should they become captured.

Your preference seems to be that as long as a war has been declared that everything goes. A notion that is generally held more often by people that have no expectation of a war being fought in their own neighbourhoods, and who have no expectation of seeing active duty.


-Z-

In regards to all this, here is one of the most extensive list of the treaties and instruments the laws of warfare: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/auoy.htm

An examination of these should clear up any questions of the vaugeness of the phrasing "laws and customs of war".

In regards to the means of waging war, the following are prohibited toxic and biological weapons, non-detectable fragments, and expanding bullets,
And the following are restricted: mines, booby traps, incendiary weapons, certain small caliber weapon systems.

That seems to leave plenty of room for "guns and tanks"...

apparently the US hasnt signed up to the geneva convention reguarding POWs, so no matter what the convention says, it dosnt matter to americans

However, who follows these customs and laws to the fullest extent? As our troops have abused the Iraqi prisoners, it means that, as we are not following these "laws and customs" of war, we technically are not covered anymore by the Geneva Conventions. That is, however, only if one thinks that this was an action of the entire US Army, which the court of public opinion seems to think so. Therefore, as we, according to many signatories of the Geneva Conventions, have violated a few rules of war, we are not a legitamite military force, and thus, are exempt from Geneva. This has happened in every single conflict being fought today. The Geneva conventions, therefore, have no real use in the world today.

This is faulty reasoning, though. You might as well say that, since people regularly ignore speeding laws and get away with it, I should follow speeding laws and any ticket given to me is an unfair prosecution because others are doing it.
However, when one speeds, they don't automatically loose their driver's liscense. That's the difference with the Geneva Convention. If they are broken, then an army officially doesn't exist as such, as they need to follow the Conventions in order to exist.

I'm not familiar with this. Are you saying if the Conventions are broken that turns a military into a lose confederation of thugs immediately?

I think Zepp illustrated my point better than I did. An infraction of the code doesn't excuse further infractions on either side and doesn't immediately nullify the code itself.
That's my point in a nutshell. Perhaps not a loose confederation of thugs, but they are thugs. The Geneva Convention applies only to armies and militias. Every army at war right now, according to Geneva, has turned into illegal combantants as they do not fully adhere to the conventions. As stated in A.2.e., that means they don't exist as a real army or militia. If they don't exist as a real army or militia, then Geneva is more or less a series of guidelines, rather than hard or fast rules.
Let me reaffirm that I'm not saying that the US military, or any military, should run around like maniacs shooting everyone they see. All millitaries have morals. The US military, for example, condemns the delibrate killing of civilians if they pose no threat to soldiers. However, I feel that asside a few other things, like not hurting or killing POWs, or committing warcrimes like genocide, the rules of war end there, as really, they are unenforcable. Geneva is an attempt to impose rules on war, but almost as if they were written by a mystic power, they immediately suffer from self-nullification.

apparently the US hasnt signed up to the geneva convention reguarding POWs, so no matter what the convention says, it dosnt matter to americans

No. The United States is a signatory state.

www.state.gov/documents/organization/24226.pdf++%22red+cross%22+%22red+cross%22+%22treaties+in+force%22&hl=en]Treaties (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:vpfqbClYEOwJ:

[url]http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/t04072003_t407genv.html

With respect to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, they were negotiated after World War II. Out of 194 nations in the world today, 190 are states parties to those 1949 Geneva Conventions. That includes the United States and Iraq. There are more governments states parties to this -- to these conventions than are member nations of the United Nations, giving you an idea of how widely accepted and received they are.

And, as far as I know, the US was actually the first nation to codify the laws of war in the Lieber Code (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/liebercode.htm)

In regards to all this, here is one of the most extensive list of the treaties and instruments the laws of warfare: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/auoy.htm

An examination of these should clear up any questions of the vaugeness of the phrasing "laws and customs of war".

In regards to the means of waging war, the following are prohibited toxic and biological weapons, non-detectable fragments, and expanding bullets,
And the following are restricted: mines, booby traps, incendiary weapons, certain small caliber weapon systems.

That seems to leave plenty of room for "guns and tanks"...
I can see the rest of the weapons, but mines and booby traps are necessary to defend territory. The US has never signed the anti-mine treaty, because we need them to deter North Korea from a ground invasion. Incendiaries I have trouble seeing as well, but then again, whoever wrote this probably meant this for usage on cities. They should be allowed for remote outposts or forests (to hamper resources).

The German army was lead by war criminals, and made up in large part by war criminals. What they did was more like pissing on the Geneva Conventions. They were literally asking for nullification.
Now, my claim, as you noted, is that an army violating one section of Geneva means that Geneva doesn't apply to them. However, is there proof that this isn't the case? Sure, the world tends to overlook this unpleasant little fact, but it's there for all to see. The only Geneva signitories should've been the most peaceful and isolated countries, because quite frankly, this is saying that the only legal war seems to be one fought with wet noodles and water cannons instead of guns and tanks.

Ummm.... clearly you haven't actually read the laws. Perhaps you could point to the section that outlaws weapons? Or combat? You are discussing the sections that relate to treatment of civillians and POWs, and extending that to war as a whole - which is a mistake of fact as well as of how it relates to these laws.

The laws regarding combat are one thing. Those relating to the treatment of prisoners and civilians is something else.

And nowhere is there ANY way to nullify these laws. You seem to have that idea stuck in your head. It just doesn't happen that way.

You seem to be doing your best to read things that aren't there, or just using it as an excuse to absolve any adherence to it. I think you will find that most active duty soldiers apreciate the expectation that they will be treated humanely should they become captured.

Your preference seems to be that as long as a war has been declared that everything goes. A notion that is generally held more often by people that have no expectation of a war being fought in their own neighbourhoods, and who have no expectation of seeing active duty.


-Z-
The part about outlawing weapons was an exaggeration. And did I read the whole document? It's quite lengthy, but then again, I'm an aspiring lawyer. A good lawyer never reads the entire document, but rather, they try their best to stonewall arguements based on one clause of a document. I'm really glad, btw, that I voted for you as a top five debator. You are tough to beat, but you haven't persuaded me. Tell me, how is it that the Geneva Conventions can be adhered to by a non-army, as defined by A.2.e?

The Iraqi torture scandal has made me question the Geneva Conventions more and more. Sure, I feel that what our troops did to the prisoners was deplorable. However, I question if their actions weren't technically illegal by the Geneva Conventions.
After all, the prisoners aren't POWs. All of them were arrested after last August, meaning that technically, Geneva has no classification for them, and therefore, doesn't entitle them to anything. While I do admit the fallacy that 90% of the prisoners may, in fact, be innocent, I don't see what's wrong with cohersing the known insurgents to talk (the unknowns should be released for the time being, I feel).
The insurgents and the terrorists captured aren't about to crack if an interrogator just asks them questions for hours on end. They need to be cracked open, and their are plenty of safer ways to do that. For example, sleep and sensory deprivation, I feel, are ok as they do not inflict physical harm. Threatening prisoners may also work (as long as they aren't threatened with something real bad, like being sent to another country for torture). The terrorist soldiers we shamefully have in the US military have crossed the line by physically abusing the prisoners, but we do have to ask if humiliation and verbal abuse are really that bad.
The Geneva Conventions, really, are just another pascifist ploy to prevent all wars, and are way too utopian. They even say POWs must recieve a wage! No one follows that one. I've concluded that they are vague and inflexible for the situations. These people won't talk unless they are made to. If any treaty says anything about this, it should be that POWs are not physically abused, but certainly can be emotionally and verbally abused.
The Israelis seem to have the right idea. They employ sleep deprivation by flashing bright lights and loud music. They are generous compared to the PO, that don't hesitate beating their soldiers. The difference, however, is that Israel is not employing physical force. It's time that Geneva realises that a.) not all combantants are POWs, and b.) war's deadlier than it use to be, and "gentle abuse", if you will, may be the only way to get vital information out of a combantant.
P.S: In recognition that something needs to be done, the Pentagon must stop hiding behind Geneva when our soldiers are captured and shown on TV.
For one, you can't treat prisoners that way even if there is no declared war going on. The Iraq war is ongoing, these people were in uniform. That entitles them to treatment under the GC.
Two, any combatant that has been caught and is being held against his will is a POW.
3. Humiliation is worse than physical beatings. Physical wounds can heal, psychic wounds never heal.

If we're going by the Geneva conventions, isnt what America is doing to the "detainees" (aka POW's) in Guantanimo bay flagrantly breaching them?

Yes. (And also a flagrant breach against the US constitutions 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, as well.)
The vast majority of detained are not US citizens, and therefore, arguably not under the protection of the constitution.

Actually there is no room for argument. The Constitution affects actions and responsibilities of the government without regard to the citizenship of the accused. You'll find the words, accused or person but not the word citizen used in these amendments.

SHL

Note that incediaries, mines, and booby traps are listed as restricted.

More fun reading for an aspiring lawyer:

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III),
1342 U.N.T.S. 171, 19 I.L.M. 1534, entered into force Dec. 2, 1983. (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980e.htm)
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

In short: don't napalm civilians or forests.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II), 1342 U.N.T.S. 168, 19 I.L.M. 1529, entered into force Dec. 2, 1983; as amended May 3, 1996, 35 I.L.M. 1206. (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980d.htm)

A lot more detailed restrictions there. Essentially it says don't
use mines indescriminately, don't target civilians, don't booby trap certain protected things (dead bodies, churches, cemetaries, civilians, etc.), don't use booby traps booby-traps "designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering", and try to clean up when you're finished.

(edited twice)

The part about outlawing weapons was an exaggeration. And did I read the whole document? It's quite lengthy, but then again, I'm an aspiring lawyer. A good lawyer never reads the entire document, but rather, they try their best to stonewall arguements based on one clause of a document. I'm really glad, btw, that I voted for you as a top five debator. You are tough to beat, but you haven't persuaded me. Tell me, how is it that the Geneva Conventions can be adhered to by a non-army, as defined by A.2.e?

Well, In order to do that you would have to prove that these persons do indeed qualify as a "non-army".

Let's reprint the clauses again:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

First, there is no A2(e).

But I gather that you wonder how to ensure that these people are in fact an army. Well which people are you discussing? Certainly the US has indicated that they are primarily fighting Saddam Loyalists - mostly ex-military - who probably still have some command structure, and the other group are the followers of al Sadr - who also seems to be deemed a leader. That makes for a defacto command structure as there is leadership.

The attachment of insignia and open carriage of weapons then only applies during actual combat. The French Resistance, for example, wore armbands on operations. Otherwise if caught they would have been exempt from their rights. There is no obligation for militia members to so identify themselves as they go about the rest of their daily lives.

Now, it has been stated that most of these people were picked up during sweeps - not captured during combat. So the requirement for insignia at that time is irrelevant. There have also been statements from the US and the Red Cross that indicate that between 60 and 90% of the detainees turned out not to be affiliated with any resistance groups.

Now, the question regarding adherence to the laws of war - again this must be taken on an individual basis. You do not throw out the conventions for one soldier because of what another has done. And frankly - surprise attacks are NOT prohibited. So - which of the abused prisoners had actually commited war crimes?

Given the uncertainty in many cases of the prisoners, at least they should have been afforded all rights normally given to civilians under the conventions, which are primarily:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

And I should point out that for those captured enemy combattants KNOWN to have violated their conditions to be deemed as a lawful combattant - this does NOT deny them all rights. You cannot then just torture them at whim. All it does is deem them to be a war criminal under law liable for prosecution. Which is to say that it only removes their special POW protections.

At the final conclusion, unless these detainees were taken in combat after violating the laws of war (or not properly showing visible identification) they should still have either POW or Civillian rights under law - depending on the level of proof as to involvement that the coalition had on them.

And in both of those cases - torture is not acceptible.

-Z-

Now, the question regarding adherence to the laws of war - again this must be taken on an individual basis. You do not throw out the conventions for one soldier because of what another has done. And frankly - surprise attacks are NOT prohibited. So - which of the abused prisoners had actually commited war crimes?

Umm no. Not quite.

Unless you consider the Iraqi resistance a chaotic disorganized bunch of independently operating individuals, their actions as an entity should also be examined.

From article 2:
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.

Do the insurgents accept and apply the Geneva Convention provisions?

No, due to the legal way things turned out (Guantanamo is only leased to the USA by Cuba, so its neither owned by the USA nor under the control of Cuba), techically the USA can't be faulted for Guantanamo.

That's a stretch. It's not, after all, like the detainees magically apeared in Cuba so "gosh - guess no Geneva Conventions apply!".

But GW designed his new "enemy combattant" designation to let them fall between the cracks that define combattants versus civillians. He then deliberatly set them up in camp in Cuba to ensure that US domestic laws would also no apply.

SNIP

-Z-

Not completely true.

The term 'enemy combatant' has been around for quite awhile. It has been subdivided into two catagories; Lawful and Unlawful or Illegal. The latter was coined in 1942 by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quinn, (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1) a case involving German sabotuers. The SC said, ""...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

The Fourth District Court ruled in Hamdi v affirmed Bush's stand on detainees, but the matter was heard by the Supremes on April 28th. They also heard Rasul v and Fahad Al Odah v on the 20th. Those decisions have yet to be rendered.

Coming up in the next few weeks though.

SHL

Alright I'd like to make two points:
1.) This war is not and never has been about stopping a dictatorship! :x
If it had been it would have happened along time ago. In fact if were gonna be brutally honest let's admit one thing-- nearly everytime we have ever interfered with another country particularly we they have requested we leave them along it always comes back to haunt us. Don't believe me here are a few examples: Castro and the missile crisis; the Al Quada and 911; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; and soon to be Iraq. Look in a history book if you need proof.
SNIP...

Korea??

Castro and the missle crisis??? We should have left that alone????

al Qaeda and 9-11???????????? :shock: :shock:

Damn bro, you definitely are sleep deprived! Sleep in tomorrow!

SHL

Why does it need a set of laws to prevent people abusing others? Has the world degraded to such a point that compassion and kindness is not on the agenda anymore, at all? :?

Yes.

In war? No, it never was.

SHL

apparently the US hasnt signed up to the geneva convention reguarding POWs, so no matter what the convention says, it dosnt matter to americans

No. The United States is a signatory state.

www.state.gov/documents/organization/24226.pdf++%22red+cross%22+%22red+cross%22+%22treaties+in+force%22&hl=en]Treaties (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:vpfqbClYEOwJ:

[url]http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/t04072003_t407genv.html

With respect to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, they were negotiated after World War II. Out of 194 nations in the world today, 190 are states parties to those 1949 Geneva Conventions. That includes the United States and Iraq. There are more governments states parties to this -- to these conventions than are member nations of the United Nations, giving you an idea of how widely accepted and received they are.

And, as far as I know, the US was actually the first nation to codify the laws of war in the Lieber
Code (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/liebercode.htm)

sorry, the us signed the main convention but not the

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977

i didnt read it quite right before

Now, the question regarding adherence to the laws of war - again this must be taken on an individual basis. You do not throw out the conventions for one soldier because of what another has done. And frankly - surprise attacks are NOT prohibited. So - which of the abused prisoners had actually commited war crimes?

Umm no. Not quite.

Unless you consider the Iraqi resistance a chaotic disorganized bunch of independently operating individuals, their actions as an entity should also be examined.

From article 2:
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.

Do the insurgents accept and apply the Geneva Convention provisions?

That is moot both under the convention and according to the DoD.

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2004 – Actions, not words, are important now, said Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, deputy commanding general for detainee operations for Multinational Forces, Iraq.

Miller spoke at a Baghdad press conference today. He said that in the face of the allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. actions must demonstrate "our adherence to the Geneva Conventions and the principles of dignity to each of those … protected individuals under the Geneva Conventions. I give you my personal guarantee that we will continue to do that seven days a week, 24 hours a day." NOW (http://www.dod.gov/news/May2004/n05082004_200405082.html) and A YEAR AGO (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/t04072003_t407genv.html)

SHL

Alright I'd like to make two points:
1.) This war is not and never has been about stopping a dictatorship! :x
If it had been it would have happened along time ago. In fact if were gonna be brutally honest let's admit one thing-- nearly everytime we have ever interfered with another country particularly we they have requested we leave them along it always comes back to haunt us. Don't believe me here are a few examples: Castro and the missile crisis; the Al Quada and 911; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; and soon to be Iraq. Look in a history book if you need proof.
SNIP...

Korea??
Castro and the missle crisis??? We should have left that alone????
al Qaeda and 9-11???????????? :shock: :shock:
Damn bro, you definitely are sleep deprived! Sleep in tomorrow!
SHL

Read it again SHL ;) It says that Korea, Castro, al- Queda and Vietnam were old enemies/allies/victims of Western nations' foriegn polies (US or otherwise) that came back to haunt us.

It didn't say 'leave this alone' per se, it said 'this will come back to hurt us later', an assessment that is probably quite on par.

Alright I'd like to make two points:
1.) This war is not and never has been about stopping a dictatorship! :x
If it had been it would have happened along time ago. In fact if were gonna be brutally honest let's admit one thing-- nearly everytime we have ever interfered with another country particularly we they have requested we leave them along it always comes back to haunt us. Don't believe me here are a few examples: Castro and the missile crisis; the Al Quada and 911; the Korean War; the Vietnam War; and soon to be Iraq. Look in a history book if you need proof.
SNIP...

Korea??
Castro and the missle crisis??? We should have left that alone????
al Qaeda and 9-11???????????? :shock: :shock:
Damn bro, you definitely are sleep deprived! Sleep in tomorrow!
SHL

Read it again SHL ;) It says that Korea, Castro, al- Queda and Vietnam were old enemies/allies/victims of Western nations' foriegn polies (US or otherwise) that came back to haunt us.

It didn't say 'leave this alone' per se, it said 'this will come back to hurt us later', an assessment that is probably quite on par.

Let me try this again;

In fact if were (we're?) gonna be brutally honest let's admit one thing-- nearly everytime we have ever interfered with another country particularly we (when?) they have requested we leave them along (alone?) it always comes back to haunt us.

Did I make an error in translation here? I may have, it's hard to tell. But let me elaborate.

Korea? Hardly a haunt. If you believe for a moment that those in the south would trade places with those in the north you are sadly mistaken. RoK enjoys a per capita income roughly twenty times that of the north and a standard of living far beyond the capacity of the north. Has the north instead spent it's capital on weapons development and a standing army of one million? Yes and that is not just a concern for the US but for anyone Kim Chong-il sets his aim on. Read Japan or anyone with resources he wants and needs within his target range.

Would the RoK even have had a chance of existing if not for UN intervention? No and we would still have the Stalin hand picked Kim family leading the place. Haunted? Hardly. Rather a legacy to be proud of.

Castro and the missile crisis? We might have had much greater problems and a horribly deep sense of regret had JFK not acted to block the siting of ICBMs in Cuba by the USSR. We are not haunted by Castro or by Cuba. Once he kicks the bucket Cuba will fall away from it's failed policies. The only thing sustaining it at the moment is the cult of Castro. Again, a good outcome.

al Qaeda/9-11? That one is hardly in dispute anywhere. Did al Qaeda ask us to leave them alone?

Nam? That was a clusterf*&k from the beginning and JFK knew it. Had he survived he would have withdrawn the "advisers". It was LBJ the Texas Democrat who pulled the Gulf of Tonkin out of his ass and made it what it became. You might remember there was some difference of opinion in the US over that crap.

So what point did I miss? I am a babe in the woods here. Show me the way of my errors.

SHL

The part about outlawing weapons was an exaggeration. And did I read the whole document? It's quite lengthy, but then again, I'm an aspiring lawyer. A good lawyer never reads the entire document, but rather, they try their best to stonewall arguements based on one clause of a document. I'm really glad, btw, that I voted for you as a top five debator. You are tough to beat, but you haven't persuaded me. Tell me, how is it that the Geneva Conventions can be adhered to by a non-army, as defined by A.2.e?

Well, In order to do that you would have to prove that these persons do indeed qualify as a "non-army".

Let's reprint the clauses again:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

First, there is no A2(e).

But I gather that you wonder how to ensure that these people are in fact an army. Well which people are you discussing? Certainly the US has indicated that they are primarily fighting Saddam Loyalists - mostly ex-military - who probably still have some command structure, and the other group are the followers of al Sadr - who also seems to be deemed a leader. That makes for a defacto command structure as there is leadership.

The attachment of insignia and open carriage of weapons then only applies during actual combat. The French Resistance, for example, wore armbands on operations. Otherwise if caught they would have been exempt from their rights. There is no obligation for militia members to so identify themselves as they go about the rest of their daily lives.

Now, it has been stated that most of these people were picked up during sweeps - not captured during combat. So the requirement for insignia at that time is irrelevant. There have also been statements from the US and the Red Cross that indicate that between 60 and 90% of the detainees turned out not to be affiliated with any resistance groups.

Now, the question regarding adherence to the laws of war - again this must be taken on an individual basis. You do not throw out the conventions for one soldier because of what another has done. And frankly - surprise attacks are NOT prohibited. So - which of the abused prisoners had actually commited war crimes?

Given the uncertainty in many cases of the prisoners, at least they should have been afforded all rights normally given to civilians under the conventions, which are primarily:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

And I should point out that for those captured enemy combattants KNOWN to have violated their conditions to be deemed as a lawful combattant - this does NOT deny them all rights. You cannot then just torture them at whim. All it does is deem them to be a war criminal under law liable for prosecution. Which is to say that it only removes their special POW protections.

At the final conclusion, unless these detainees were taken in combat after violating the laws of war (or not properly showing visible identification) they should still have either POW or Civillian rights under law - depending on the level of proof as to involvement that the coalition had on them.

And in both of those cases - torture is not acceptible.

-Z-
Physical and sexual torture is not acceptable, as it physically damages prisoners. But like you said, as they aren't truely POWs, they must give more than their name, rank, and serial number. The problem is, however, that most of the insurrgents, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, are fanatical believers in their religion, and as they see it, they'd rather die before giving their information. As fundementalist circles are smaller and tighter-knit than most militias, they are more knowledgeble of events. Therefore, the best way of protecting civilians is to find out what they know, as their attacks are often on civilian targets. However, the US military, according to this clause I thought was A.2.e (it's on the first page of this thread, concerning the laws and customs of war) officially makes the US not an army. Therefore, Geneva isn't able to make sure we protect civilians by getting the vital information that'll prevent attacks. Geneva, if interpretted one way, uses the ends to justify the means. But as Geneva systematically self-nullifies itself, it's pretty much saying that they could care less about the ends or the means. There is another option, however. As you like interpretting it, Geneva, according to you, justifies the ends only by the means. It's nothing more than a bundle of contradictions.