Correct interpretation of the Geneva Conventions

[a_majoor]

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

I always get a kick out of the “progressive” tendency to invoke the Geneva Conventions whenever word of “American” mistreatment of captured terrorists makes the rounds. Like some rookery of crows squawking , we hear the “accord them the Geneva Conventions rights” song so often its becoming painfully predictable. Ironically, those who squawk the most, which likely includes 75% of Europeans, 50% of North Americans, and most followers of that great religion, The United Nations, might all be dismayed if the United States administration actually accorded terrorists Geneva rights… and began executing them accordingly.

The Geneva Conventions are documents that are meant to make the making of war a tad more civilized. They were initially a rulebook, which included regulations on team uniforms, penalty boxes (captivity), and expulsions (executions).

It all makes one wonder what the “progressive” class would do, were the US administration to say that the Geneva Conventions were going to be followed to a T… which means no more “special” meals, no more pampering in air conditioned Cuban hostels for Islamic nuts, and quick military court appointments and executions based on any number of charges.

First and foremost, it is conceivable that all those even indirectly involved (the Guantanamo boys) in 911 could be executed. Unprovoked acts, without formal declarations of war, especially against non-military targets, can lead to a date with the pock-marked wall. Likewise, those who go about in civilian clothing while murdering civilians or soldiers, all qualify for a date with the hardball express. Every single joker in a civilian uniform who even shoots at a Coalition soldier would be shot when captured and convicted.

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.

Of course, there’d always be the option of returning the fascist scum to Afghanistan, where they could face the very people they brutalized years ago. It also seems to have been lost on the “progressive” hand-wringing class that the United States saved the lives of these captive animals when it moved them to Cuba… or locked them up in Abu Ghraib.

I wonder how they would’ve fared with the notorious interior ministry of Iraq, the one that’s full of Iranian backed Shia thugs. By now they’d be nothing but carp food in the Tigris. As for those who went back to face justice in Afghanistan, their bones would by now be providing great mineral nutrients for the poppy crops.

 

[old medic]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

 

[old medic]

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]

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]

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]

para --> #9   

damn skippy!

 

[tomahawk6]

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]

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]

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.