NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are we Americans and a few other nations the only countries that abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention. I think that we should only follow the rules with other nations that follow the rules. Not to the point of killing enemy prisioners but take away all comforts and decent food.

*cough*Guantanamo Bay*cough*
*cough*Abu Ghraib Prison*cough*

If you want an argument, I'd bring it. Try to get your news from someone other than Fox though.

JiangGuo

Why are we Americans and a few other nations the only countries that abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention. I think that we should only follow the rules with other nations that follow the rules. Not to the point of killing enemy prisioners but take away all comforts and decent food.
All of Europe comes to mind...

I'd like to point out that the Guantanamo Bay detanees, and the Abu Ghraib Prison detanees, they are in fact covered under the Geneva Convention. We have yet to violate it in regards to them. In fact, detanees have no rights under the Geneva Convention. The only war where both sides followed the Geneva Convention was the war of 1812. Pathetic isn't.

I'd like to point out that the Guantanamo Bay detanees, and the Abu Ghraib Prison detanees, they are in fact covered under the Geneva Convention. We have yet to violate it in regards to them. In fact, detanees have no rights under the Geneva Convention. The only war where both sides followed the Geneva Convention was the war of 1812. Pathetic isn't.

"yet to violate"...are you sure about that???

I'd like to point out that the Guantanamo Bay detanees, and the Abu Ghraib Prison detanees, they are in fact covered under the Geneva Convention. We have yet to violate it in regards to them. In fact, detanees have no rights under the Geneva Convention. The only war where both sides followed the Geneva Convention was the war of 1812. Pathetic isn't.

I'd call it remarkable, since the Geneva Convention dates from 1949. And physical and mental torture of detainees -- as perpetrated in Abu Ghraib at least -- is outlawed under the Convention.

EDIT: my mistake -- the first Geneva Convention dates from 1864, and was first signed by the USA in 1882. There's still time travel involved for the war of 1812, though.

I'd like to point out that the Guantanamo Bay detanees, and the Abu Ghraib Prison detanees, they are in fact covered under the Geneva Convention. We have yet to violate it in regards to them. In fact, detanees have no rights under the Geneva Convention. The only war where both sides followed the Geneva Convention was the war of 1812. Pathetic isn't.
Interesting. Geneva Convention is from 1949. Well done in 1812.
EDIT: shite! Jeldred is fast. :)

I'd like to point out that the Guantanamo Bay detanees, and the Abu Ghraib Prison detanees, they are in fact covered under the Geneva Convention. We have yet to violate it in regards to them. In fact, detanees have no rights under the Geneva Convention. The only war where both sides followed the Geneva Convention was the war of 1812. Pathetic isn't.

Oh and even if they aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions, which I'm not going to pass comment on because it involves an actual legal argument and not just believing labels, they are still covered by international human rights instruments.
The last I checked, the United States is a member of the Convention Against Torture and therefore everytime they do an act defined as torture under that, they are breaching international human rights law.

Doesn't the geneva convention only apply to uniformed combatants though? I'm not sure but that's what I remember. In any case, if that's correct then the GITMO detainees have no rights under it. Also anyone in abu gharib who was captured out of uniform in in a similar situation. Not that I'm advocating thier torture mind you, I just don't think geneva applies here.

Doesn't the geneva convention only apply to uniformed combatants though? I'm not sure but that's what I remember. In any case, if that's correct then the GITMO detainees have no rights under it. Also anyone in abu gharib who was captured out of uniform in in a similar situation. Not that I'm advocating thier torture mind you, I just don't think geneva applies here.
All POWs, so it does not matter what they're wearing. Heck, they could make them change clother (accidentally let acid fall on it).

Why are we Americans and a few other nations the only countries that abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention. I think that we should only follow the rules with other nations that follow the rules. Not to the point of killing enemy prisioners but take away all comforts and decent food.

You're supposed to be better than that though. In WW2 we treated Japanese prisoners as to the rules of the convention, and they did some of the most horrible things to our prisoners.

Doesn't the geneva convention only apply to uniformed combatants though? I'm not sure but that's what I remember. In any case, if that's correct then the GITMO detainees have no rights under it. Also anyone in abu gharib who was captured out of uniform in in a similar situation. Not that I'm advocating thier torture mind you, I just don't think geneva applies here.

POWs come under the Geneva Convention of 1939.
Civilians come under the Geneva Convention of 1949.
The Hague Regulations also cover conduct in war times.
As well as these treaties, there is a large body of international customary law that governs conduct during war.

Only combatants are entitled to POW status, combatants are merely members of the regular armed forces or irregulars that satisfy the conditions of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Geneva Conv 1949. However, members of the regular armed forces forfeit their entitlement to POW status if engage in hostilities while disguised as civilians.

But even though they're not POWs, they're still entitled to protections, just not the same ones. In that, they can be subject to criminal prosecutions whereas POWs can't for example

Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo bay are bad incidents, but not the fault of americans or its government. Its the fault of the soldiers and the officers in command of those prisons for breaking military law and all who have broken the law after the government identified the ill treatment of prisoners were prosecuted and dishonorably discharged from the military. Many of the soldiers that were responsible for Abu Ghraib are spending a minimum of 20 years in military prison, some have gotten lesser charges based on their participation.

The western civilisation is the forerunner of treating people humanely, like it or not, but there are other views on human rights in other parts of the world.

Ok, so then the thing is they're just not POWs. But I just looked at the 1949 convention and Article 64 requires that the penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in effect "with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention."

If so, can't the US then elect to treat these guys as the original iraq/afganistan regimes would have for similar crimes. In which case, well they're being let of kind of light. Also since interim governments now exist in both countries isn't it really up to them to complain.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


The 4th Geneva Convention.
For the war of 1812, I was refering to the rules of landwarfare, which are the predecessor to the Geneva Convention. If one reads Article 4, one will realize that the detanees do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. As such, they have no rights. We, have not actually tortued them as it is further described. I feel that the judicous use of sodium pethonel would be a wonderful thing in incedents like this, how ever wiser people then me are making the decisions on this one.