# Correct interpretation of the Geneva Conventions



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2006)

This really falls under the "be careful what you wish for" file, since the constant refrain from the anti-war crowd is that "we" (the West) must accord captured terrorists (oh, excuse me, "militants") the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Read and see what would happen if "we" actually listened to the anti-war crowd....

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/07/geneva-conventions-warm-up-firing.html



> *Geneva Conventions: Warm up the Firing Squads *
> 
> Beware What You Wish For
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (19 Jul 2006)

> The Geneva Conventions, when judged by the standards they were held to by the Allies during WW2, could be used to make quick end of hundreds, if not thousands, of captive terrorists. The problem is in defining, or deciding, if terrorists are combatants at all and where exactly they fit into the long-winded conventions. Defining exactly what these thugs are becomes the problem. If I were a terror monkey, I’d be very nervous about having the Geneva Conventions applied… Guantanamo would be just fine thank you very much. Unless that is, a meeting with those incredibly worn out 72 was-a-virgins was my desired end.



Impossible.

Clearly this blogger has no idea what they are talking about. The Geneva conventions he's talking about were not signed 
until 1949, four years after WW2.  The protocols were not signed until 1977.

It was the 1929 treaty on the wounded and prisoners of war that was used during WW2.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Jul 2006)

old medic said:
			
		

> It was the 1929 treaty on the wounded and prisoners of war that was used during WW2.


yeah, this guy is all fucked up like a soup sandwich.


----------



## dglad (19 Jul 2006)

old medic said:
			
		

> Impossible.
> 
> Clearly this blogger has no idea what they are talking about. The Geneva conventions he's talking about were not signed
> until 1949, four years after WW2.  The protocols were not signed until 1977.
> ...



But...in "Hogan's Heroes", Hogan is constantly hammering Klink with the Geneva Convention (note...not plural, singular, Convention).  Are you suggesting that "Hogan's Heroes" ISN'T actually a documentary...?


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Jul 2006)

First, he needs to define the status of the individuals in question:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



> combatant status
> 
> Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (19 Jul 2006)

I was being brief earlier, for lack of time....

There were several previous Geneva Conventions;

The first was signed in 1864 and only dealt with the sick, wounded and the red cross.
The 1899 treaty, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. 
The 1907 Hague Conventions (13 treaties)
The 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol (poison gas and bacteriological warfare).
and two conventions In 1929, treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war.

I'm sure it's the 1929 Prisoner of War convention being referenced by the writers 

The four modern ones were signed 12 August 1949, and the two protocols 
were 8 June 1977. They revised or replaced the 1929 set, as can be seen in the
preamble to the current GC:



> The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic
> Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12 1949, for the purpose of revising the
> Geneva Convention for the Relief of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of July 27,
> 1929, have agreed as follows:


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2006)

The problem facing continued adherence to the Conventions is that the zeal for enforcement is lopsided.  International law evolves.  Customary practices are formalized in agreements; agreements start as compacts between self-selected parties and over time become customary practices with universal application.

There is an expressed principle that the means of war are not unlimited to belligerents.  There is an implied principle which many people overlook: the customs and laws of war must not unduly limit the means of war if the customs and laws are to remain intact.  This is so because there is no authority with the mandate and means to enforce the rules; when the customs and laws of war produce unsatisfactory limitations on states, states will change the customs and, eventually, the laws.

The situation in some conflicts right now is that some belligerents are openly contemptuous of what is at the root of the Geneva Conventions: protections (of non-combatants and non-military materiel and infrastructure).  Protected areas and protected peoples are physically used as shields; simultaneously, those generally opposed to war - and not a few who are perenially opposed to selected nations - demand the shields be respected.  This places the parties which try to respect the laws and customs at a disadvantage.  If that disadvantage becomes pronounced enough, frustration should be expected to overcome rational and humane judgement as it always does.  It is unrealistic and imprudent to expect otherwise.

The people who use the Conventions primarily as a stick to beat the US and Israel probably do not understand that the stick can and will be taken out of their hands if they persist in using it unidirectionally.  As much as it is necessary to hold ourselves mutually to the standards we collectively set - each honest nation among us will sometimes need encouragement and admonishment to remain honest - it behooves us to come down a hundred-fold times more harshly on those who commit more flagrant breaches.  Otherwise, the baby goes out with the bathwater.


----------



## KevinB (22 Jul 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I was wondering what part of the Geneva conventions the palestinians used last week when they ripped apart the body of an Israeli soldier and spread him across a street?



Reminisant of BHD...


My tolerance for these people is ZERO.   They won't give any of us quater --- why the hell should we give any of them.


para --> #9


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jul 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> para --> #9


damn skippy!


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jul 2006)

The disturbing use of civilians as human shields is against the Geneva Convention. The leadership of Hizbollah if arrested need to be tried for war crimes.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=072406D


----------



## KevinB (24 Jul 2006)

T6 -- not a big shock though is it...

They rant about Israeli use of force, and then m(as always) ignore their personal violations...


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

Isn't part of the issue the problem of thinking that imprisonment is punishment?

It is no crime to be a soldier.  It is no crime to be captured (except perhaps in the mind of your own leaders).  Both sides take prisoners for the same reason they destroy ammunition dumps: to reduce the opposition's ability to conduct operations.  The alternative is killing all enemy forces.  

The problem lies in the fact that the soldier's ability to contribute to operations lasts as long as hostilities continue.  If hostilities are never opened, how can they be closed?  If nobody ever declared them started, who is to declare them finished?  If nobody ordered forces to commence operations, who is to order them terminated?

The problem for all these individuals that involve themselves in such a campaign then becomes a case of exposing them to indefinite confinement for as long as their enemy perceives hostilities to continue.  If you end up with the Hundred Years War you risk being detained for the rest of your natural life. Or, historically, you might be able to convince your captors that you personally are an honourable individual, that your word means something and that when you say you will renounce hostile actions you mean it.  Then you might be granted parole.

Detention in time of war is not a punishment.  It is a humane method of reducing the enemy's ability to fight.  The alternative is killing them all.

Having said that, it also implies that the conditions of detention should not be onerous.  The detainees should be accorded reasonable care and not be given punitive treatment. In fact, as I understand they are supposed to be given care roughly equivalent to that accorded to our own forces.

In WW2 where our own troops were held in clapboard shacks and Nissen/Quonset huts, many to the room with one stove and a set of camp showers, surrounded by barbed wire and guards and eating lousy food that wasn't a difficult standard to keep.

But now, while field accomodations (BATs?) can be pretty spare it seems, home base accomodations are of a considerably higher standard.  Perhaps that implies a duty to hold all detainees in PMQs with mess privileges indefinitely?  As a taxpayer that thought does not fill me with glee.

Warcrimes and criminals are a separate issue entirely.


----------

