NationStates Jolt Archive

Whilst sitting around the table for dinner, my mom started an argument. She tryed to force feed the idea of George Bush appointing Alberto Gonzalez as the new Secretary-General as apalling, mainly becuase like many others, she was a little disturbed about the whole Geneva Convention comment he made, well the family got into an arguemnt which lead me to begin questioning whether the Geneva Convention was still needed, please dont start debating about Alberto or his statemnet, just whether the Geneva Convention is out of date are not, as in one angle, the nations that primarily follow the Geneva Convention are nations like the US, EU Nations, etc (with a few exceptions, Abu Gharib and all) when most future wars and campaigns of hostilitys will be against nations who do not accept the Geneva Convention and will probaly maim and kill all captured, yet on the other hand, should we more adavnced nations be held to a higher standard. I really cant make up my mind.

Are you silly in the head?? Of course it is necessary.

I think it is out of date. In the current times that we live in, many times tourcher is necessary. I think that we need to have a new convention, to lay out new rules.

the nations that primarily follow the Geneva Convention are nations like the US, EU Nations, etc (with a few exceptions, Abu Gharib and all) when most future wars and campaigns of hostilitys will be against nations who do not accept the Geneva Convention and will probaly maim and kill all captured, yet on the other hand, should we more adavnced nations be held to a higher standard. I really cant make up my mind.
Some 140 countries have ratified the convention. that's a whole lot more than just the us and eu nations.

I think it is out of date. In the current times that we live in, many times tourcher is necessary. I think that we need to have a new convention, to lay out new rules.
are you... are you serious??

Considering that we only obey certain parts of it now anyway...
I beleive there is a bit that says we arent allowed to use hollowpoint bullets for military/police situations. Something about 'Bullets designed to cause excess bleeding or pain', which I found rather funny.

are you... are you serious??

Yes. Many times, espicially in cases with terrorist, it is necessary to tourcher them to get info out of them.

Yes. Many times, espicially in cases with terrorist, it is necessary to tourcher them to get info out of them.
uhm. i'm shocked.

It is out of date, because it doesn't cover today's world situation: terrorists should be covered under the Geneva convention as well as POWs.
Torture has been proven time and again to be the worst form of interrogation; I for one would say anything to get out of even a little torture. That includes a crapload of false information.

Sadly, yes, it's out of date. It's violated all the time, and no one gives a damn. It's like the UN. What's the point of it if it accomplishes nothing and nobody takes it seriously?

I think it is out of date. In the current times that we live in, many times tourcher is necessary. I think that we need to have a new convention, to lay out new rules.
1) torching stuff isnt necesary, thats bad
2) torture only gets you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.


THINK YOU TWITS

Sadly, yes, it's out of date. It's violated all the time, and no one gives a damn. It's like the UN. What's the point of it if it accomplishes nothing and nobody takes it seriously?

Quoting for truth.

I think it is out of date. It needs to be updated to clearly encompass rights for victims--sorry, for prisoners of a war that is not a war against an undefinable enemy like "terror".

Some 140 countries have ratified the convention. that's a whole lot more than just the us and eu nations.
And the US hasn't even ratified it...

And the US hasn't even ratified it...
We have ratified the convention, but not Protocols I and II.

It's necessary, whether you like it or not.

All, the same, I feel that the Geneva Convention is fine as it is, although we do need to convene a summit to clarify the interpretation of some of the points, just so that people won't make interpretation mistakes.

Are you retarded? Of course it is necessary.
I realize that this is a controversial subject, but this isn't called for.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Considering that we only obey certain parts of it now anyway...
I beleive there is a bit that says we arent allowed to use hollowpoint bullets for military/police situations. Something about 'Bullets designed to cause excess bleeding or pain', which I found rather funny.

Yeah, hollowpoints and softtip rounds are not allowed in military conflicts or police (even SWAT.)

But, CT/Special Forces have no limits as they aren't covered under the Geneva Convention.

I think it is out of date. In the current times that we live in, many times tourcher is necessary. I think that we need to have a new convention, to lay out new rules.

people like you scare me. torcher is never neccisary

... the nations that primarily follow the Geneva Convention are nations like the US, EU Nations, etc (with a few exceptions, Abu Gharib and all) when most future wars and campaigns of hostilitys will be against nations who do not accept the Geneva Convention and will probaly maim and kill all captured, yet on the other hand, should we more adavnced nations be held to a higher standard. I really cant make up my mind.

The Geneva conventions came to be after mechanized war brought the horrors of it much closer to civilian populations. Before that time battles were conducted in fields far from cities with swords, muskets and maybe a short range cannon or two. Of course, villages and small towns suffered the devastations of war, emprisonment, slavement and murder by conquering armies. And that was considered ok. It was the spoils of war.

Nowadays entire cities can be flattened with aerial bombardment, and populations don't take kindly to being subjugated, in fact, all humans are regarded as equal regardless of the side they fight on.

And the Geneva convention simply codifies those things. It says what is a valid target, how to treat civilians, what's an enemy army and their rights. Just to keep wars from devastating it all and to punish those who overstep these boundaries.

Most nations in the world accept the Geneva conventions. If they don't abide by them their leaders and military personnel can be subject to trial.

Is it still necessary? Well, you tell me. Have we become sufficiently civilized as to make it unecessary?

Yes. Many times, espicially in cases with terrorist, it is necessary to tourcher them to get info out of them.

Torture does not work in extracting valuable information. Often victims will say or sign damn near anything to stop the torture.

It is a war crime for good reason. The side that most eagerly violates the conventions is the one to hate. That's how you tell who the bastard is in a war.

I realize that this is a controversial subject, but this isn't called for.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

My apologies.

Saying that the Geneva convention isnt necessary because it is violated, it is like saying that laws against murder arent necessary, because people get murdered anyway.

Yes, the geneva convention is necessary, not just because we should be better than those that we fight, but also it may give a little protection to the soldiers of the signatary countries.

Having the convention in place may or may not protect those soldiers, but not having them really makes shure that they have no protection.

should we more adavnced nations be held to a higher standard.
Yes, we should, or we cease to be advanced nations.
I think it is out of date. In the current times that we live in, many times tourcher is necessary. I think that we need to have a new convention, to lay out new rules.
It's spelled 'torture'.

I'm certain that in every time in the past, since 1949 included, there have been people who have felt the times to be sufficiently challenging so as to justify torture. Were they right?

It's not like torture really works anyway. Most of the answers you get from tortured suspects are false because they are either desparate to get out of being tortured, or they are delusional.

It is out of date, because it doesn't cover today's world situation: terrorists should be covered under the Geneva convention as well as POWs.
Torture has been proven time and again to be the worst form of interrogation; I for one would say anything to get out of even a little torture. That includes a crapload of false information.
I agree totally.

Sadly, yes, it's out of date. It's violated all the time, and no one gives a damn. It's like the UN. What's the point of it if it accomplishes nothing and nobody takes it seriously?
Roach, are you... are you advocating world government? ;)

Roach, are you... are you advocating world government? ;)

Nah, not me. :p

Nah, not me. :p
Yeah, I didn't really think that you had suddenly turned into a globalist.