Diet Convention

Why are they given more rights then our own countrymen? Why do libs care more about our prisoners then they do the families of the beheaded?
Thank you peyton, I am sure you are doing your fellow libs proud.

Wow! You are absolutely right. Let’s do the same to criminals in this country. Waterboard ‘em until they tell us what they know. Let’s start with Cheney and Bush.

Is there any country in the world that did not sign up for the Geneva Convention?

The Soviet Union didn’t. That is of course one of the many reasons why their inhumane treatment of German prisoners of war was excused. The other reason was that German treatment of Russian prisoners of war had not been that humane, either. Russia has since signed.

There are, as has rightly been pointed out, many other non-signatories. Many of these countries simply did not exist at the time of the Fourth – the most recent – Geneva Convention (1949). There have been a number of amendments and provisions since, many of which have addressed the problems posed by new or "misused" weapons systems. Again, many countries have failed to ratify these proposals.

Here is a list of the current signatories to the Fourth Convention:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con_sp.html

Have fun looking!

Is there any country in the world that did not sign up for the Geneva Convention?

The Soviet Union didn’t. That is of course one of the many reasons why their inhumane treatment of German prisoners of war was excused. The other reason was that German treatment of Russian prisoners of war had not been that humane, either. Russia has since signed.

There are, as has rightly been pointed out, many other non-signatories. Many of these countries simply did not exist at the time of the Fourth – the most recent – Geneva Convention (1949). There have been a number of amendments and provisions since, many of which have addressed the problems posed by new or "misused" weapons systems. Again, many countries have failed to ratify these proposals.

Here is a list of the current signatories to the Fourth Convention:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con_sp.html

Have fun looking!

Why should we follow the Geneva Convention, for example, on the issue of torturing information out of a terrorist, if the terrorist broke the Geneva Convention first, and they are therefore no longer held by the rulings of it? Also, the last time I checked, Al Queda isn’t a country. The dissociate themselves from state borders, and they are not their own nation.

As a similar question, why should we treat an individual like an American citizen governed by the Constitution if they have shown no sign of upholding what the Constitution stands for?

I am trying to be unbiased, and I would like people to support whichever side they are on with further explanation and logic. I can understand this issue from both sides, but I want to know what other people think and why.

That’s exactly the point. Long ago we fought nations who at the end of armed conflicts wished to be brought into the community of nations.

Today we’re fighting terrorists, thugs and gangers who are in essence non-state actors and who are unlike in the past not fighting for oil, land and grain but for race and God. International law made up by the "infidels" or the "untermenshen" means nothing to these folks. They wouldn’t abide by it when they capture troops and can’t be held accountable for it. Look at all the beheaddings committed by Al Quaeda in Iraq … Those monsters capture allied troops, kill them and then dececrate the bodies.

As one German Kommandant in a fictional stalag in France once said to a captured US officer who dared talk to him about the Geneva Convention said … " Look around you Colonel, this is hardly Geneva!"

Why should we follow the Geneva Convention, for example, on the issue of torturing information out of a terrorist, if the terrorist broke the Geneva Convention first, and they are therefore no longer held by the rulings of it? Also, the last time I checked, Al Queda isn’t a country. The dissociate themselves from state borders, and they are not their own nation.

As a similar question, why should we treat an individual like an American citizen governed by the Constitution if they have shown no sign of upholding what the Constitution stands for?

I am trying to be unbiased, and I would like people to support whichever side they are on with further explanation and logic. I can understand this issue from both sides, but I want to know what other people think and why.

That’s exactly the point. Long ago we fought nations who at the end of armed conflicts wished to be brought into the community of nations.

Today we’re fighting terrorists, thugs and gangers who are in essence non-state actors and who are unlike in the past not fighting for oil, land and grain but for race and God. International law made up by the "infidels" or the "untermenshen" means nothing to these folks. They wouldn’t abide by it when they capture troops and can’t be held accountable for it. Look at all the beheaddings committed by Al Quaeda in Iraq … Those monsters capture allied troops, kill them and then dececrate the bodies.

As one German Kommandant in a fictional stalag in France once said to a captured US officer who dared talk to him about the Geneva Convention said … " Look around you Colonel, this is hardly Geneva!"

This ‘is’ a test.

Please, USA military people respond.

Now try your question in proper English, I can’t even figure out what you are trying to ask. Sorry…

I do not think Somalian pirates fall under GC rules but I am not lawyer so I can’t say for sure. If that is true then with that said, the U.S. Navy should have more freedom to do what they need to do to make the waters safe. What do you think?

They don’t. This has more to do with the UN than the GC.

Back in the 60’s, the UN signed a doctrine which stated that all incidents taking place on international waters (or even not if the ship has permission such as merchant maritime ships) fall under the jurisdiction of the ship that the incident occurs to.

So, if a US ship is attacked, they violate US law, and the pirates can be brought back to the US to stand trial in federal court. The same goes for french, or spain, so on and so fourth.

A ship in international waters is like a floating piece of it’s countries territory.

I do not think Somalian pirates fall under GC rules but I am not lawyer so I can’t say for sure. If that is true then with that said, the U.S. Navy should have more freedom to do what they need to do to make the waters safe. What do you think?

They don’t. This has more to do with the UN than the GC.

Back in the 60’s, the UN signed a doctrine which stated that all incidents taking place on international waters (or even not if the ship has permission such as merchant maritime ships) fall under the jurisdiction of the ship that the incident occurs to.

So, if a US ship is attacked, they violate US law, and the pirates can be brought back to the US to stand trial in federal court. The same goes for french, or spain, so on and so fourth.

A ship in international waters is like a floating piece of it’s countries territory.

Hi, Does anyone know what country/countries has not signed the Geneva Convention?

Thanks in advance!

Not all have signed to every aspect.

40 persent of the people in jail claim to have had sex in prison. How can the Government endorse and istitutiion in wich it can not protect its inmates from rape and violance? Is this indignation considered reasonable punishment for those who brake the law even in the most minor of offences? If you can’t protect your own citizens why do question tacticts in military prisons?

Specifically, the Geneva Convention refers only to soldiers at war.

Civilian criminals are not covered.