what other things, other than nukes and napalm, did the Convention ban?
Under the Geneva conventions, any building, vehicle or person bearing the Red Cross (or Red Crescent in the Middle East) is a non-combat target, and it is illegal to attack it. Therefore, it would be a cheap shot to say "You can’t attack me, but I can shoot missiles at you."
But since our enemies lack any sense of honor, they shoot medics first, and they probably get double virgins if they blow up an aid station. So, we transport patients on Blackhawks so we can light haji up during evac 
Chemical weapons and white phosphorous are also banned.
What do you think? (the GC is for armed, uniformed soldiers, under the GC spies could be immediately executed.. get it? Spies.. non uniformed, deceitful, dangerous, infiltrated)
Can someone explain how a Soldier.. armed and uniformed fighting for his country HONORABLY is akin to a disguised, despicable terrorist?
Just curious.
Yes but these people need to be disposed of, we can’t just hold them forever. They need to be charged, tried, and executed. They committed crimes and should be treated as criminals.
The Constitution’s been tossed aside. Why not the rest?
Hey, isn’t that kind of what happened to cause the Roman Republic to became the Roman Empire? More and more rights removed, lots of fighting to distract the populace, finally erupting into civil war and the appointment of an emperor? And what a swell bunch of guys those emperors were! Hitler and Stalin would have fit right in. Around 500 years of institutionalized slavery and conquest followed, with torture, rape, degradation and fights to the death as the main form of mass entertainment. But everybody loves a winner so the Romans are still admired today – I’m sure the same thing would have occurred if the Nazis had won WWII.
Me, if I had a time machine and could go back and somehow prevent the Patriot Act from being passed, I would be sorely tempted to do so. Same goes for the drug seizure laws. Since I don’t, I’ll have to settle for doing my best to get them repealed. And to get some powerful environmental laws enacted – and enforced – before it is too late. Hey, it is possible to enact positive change – just not easy. And it requires a lot of us to get off our butts and do something more than just complain about it.
Pretty sure terrorists don’t follow the GC nor does the Constitution apply to POWs caught on the battlefield.
Enlighten me please? I really want to know. Please don’t give me the typical knee jerk "it’s just wrong" argument.
You may not be aware that treaties ratified by Congress (the Senate) is a higher equivalent than US law. It’s in the Constitution.
EDIT: Come on children, 3 thumbs down? Are you really Americans or just ignorant?
Article VI : This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Like it or not, when the President negotiates and 2/3 of Senators approve a treaty, it is as good as the Constitution. If you don’t like the treaty, withdraw from it as Bush did with the ABM Treaty. It looks like some conservative children got left behind.
Would terrorist organizations sign it?
Short answer: As impotent and corrupt as the U.N. is, it really doesn’t matter what that entity’s stance on terrorism happens to be.
To the best of my knowledge, the United Nations (which happens to be a ridiculous concern that replaces another ridiculous concern, the League of Nations) had little to nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions.
I think the reason the U.N. will be ineffective in addressing terrorism it first and foremost due to moral relativism (i.e., one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter). Secondly, if you look at some of the nations that are on human rights committee, it is obvious you cannot take the U.N. seriously. Finally, the U.N. has itself acted as a terrorist organization… look at the continent of Africa and the women and children who were raped by "peace keeping" forces.
I don’t care who signs any document from the U.N. The U.N. is an impotent joke and the U.S. is resented when we act on ‘their’ resolutions.
A link is okay if it’s too complicated to post.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/geneva1.html
i am wondering this because i heard that it was only legal to fire a 50 caliber at equipment and not at a human because it is inhumane.
Sure, you can even use a rocket launcher……
Or at least make the United Kingdom less attractive for asylum applications?
Because we are bound hand and mouth to an organisation called the EU!
For all of those who support our troops. Do you think the outcome of this current conflict would be different if wed didnt have to follow the Geneva Convention. I just think its unfair. Kind of like me and you fighting but you get to use a knife and I dont. Unfair right?
So the insurgents blowing us up are bound by the Geneva Convention too? (riddler)?
I don’t think we should have to follow and of the many Geneva conventions since terrorists/insurgents don’t. That aside the military’s hands have been tied since the get go with the rules of engagement. Hope fully that’ll change now.
C’mon, this is not a trick question, Americans.
You are probably thinking of the 3rd Geneva Convention, which was developed after WWI and signed in 1929. I believe our primary motivation was protection of our own soldiers who might fall into the hands of the enemy and become POWs.
During WWII, about 130,000 US personnel were captured and imprisoned as POWs. About 14000 died while POWs (mostly in the Bataan Death March, see table 2 note c), and the remainder were returned to us after the war. In the European theatre of operations, the death rate of American POWs was about 1.2% (vs 40% in the Philippines). I think the Geneva Conventions protected them and prevented POWs in Europe from being used as slave labor or human shields; however, the Japanese did not adhere to the Conventions and treated POWs as slave labor.
.