ANY US soldier violating the Geneva Conventions ...
 

.. should be brought out back and shot.

you never know... there will be some harsh sentances Im sure.

What about Iraqi's who violate geneva conventions?

Don't torture them. Shoot 'em in the head.

Well thats why the US is there in the first place...to stop shit like that...not to show them how

How do you violate the Geneva Convention when your country is being invaded by the country with 40% of the world's WMD?

:rasta

you lynch and burn innocent civilians and put them on tape?
you rape and torture captives?

Don't count too much on it!

Iraq and the US both ratified the Conventions.

Americans were outraged when US soldiers were "humiliated" by being shown as captives on TV. That was nothing compared to this.

There's no debate. These are grave violations of international law and the soldiers responsible should be tried as war criminals.

The Americans who were lynched and burned were not soldiers, and the autrocidies were not performed by soldiers or anyone under government authority.

The GC does not apply to mobs. How could it?

:rasta

The Iraqi government that ratified the GC has been overthrown by the American invaders.

The freedom fighters in Iraq are fundie muslims and have no connection to the overthrown government.

:rasta

amen to that.

Doesn't matter. The Geneva conventions protect civilian contractors too.

Nice try. Changing the question. You asked how one violates the "Geneva Convention when your country is being invaded by the country with 40% of the world's WMD?" The Geneva conventions do apply under such circumstances. Possession of ?40% of the world's WMD? changes nothing.

The Iraqi government that ratified the conventions has been out of power for decades. What's the point?

Civilians can commit war crimes.

From whom?

I, as an individual, am not bound by the Geneva convention.

Remember, it was the US government who opted out first when they came up with the lable: "illegal combatent."

:rasta

As long as Iraq is represented at the UN, their government is bound by the GC.

Individuals acting without government authority are not bound by the GC.

That is the argument of the US government when it uses the term "illegal combatent"

:rasta

An individual does not need to be acting under government authority to be tried for war crimes. There were cases of this during World War II.

The conventions also apply to occupied nations and specfically say so. In this case, they apply to all Iraqi citizens.

An interesting twist is that citizens of a country (occupied or not) which are not bound by the convention are not protected by it. You can't have it both ways and that is how the conventions are designed. You are either protected by and responsible for following them or neither.

So the US is vilolating the GC with all the "Illegal Combatents" they are holding in Cuba?

These prisoners were taken in occupied Afghanistan.

:rasta

I think it's a dangerous path to head down and that Bush is taking the low road there. There's no reason for it.

It's that kind of attitude that leads to abuse. Let's massacre everybody thats we feel is untermenschen.

Brought to fair and impartial justice -> yes, summary executin -> no

hahaha, yes, http://BlackWaterUsa.com are innocent civilian contractors ...

Please get over it. The only punishments you will ever see will be for show only.

And you are who to say that?

Have you been down there,have you ever been to a similar war,have you ever been to war?

You know,it's quite easy to sit in a house behind your keyboard and to judge soldiers that are putting their lives into play for serving their country.

If you havent been to war you have no clue what you're talking about Sir.

This happens in any war and it will happen again and again.

The only difference is that about 10% more of the reality is published in the news.


Thanx,
Steve

Nah, thats all propaganda to demonize the Enemy

Oh, Jesus. It's called"Dark humor". Read further where I said "the soldiers responsible should be tried as war criminals" (and then shot ;-) )

Not really, we were there because Saddam could fire nukes and Bio/Chemicval warheads in 45 minutes after given such order by Saddam.

Try sticking with the facts, not the ever changing reasons the Bush administration reason of the week is.

Golly gee, Joker. Try reading the whole thread.

Precisely why the Geneva Conventions were written in the first place.

:Graucho

Guess stupid

Stupid Red Cross.

why does someone have to fight in a war to be in the opinion that US military troops should not be torturing prisoners.

people like you are why people all over the world hate the USA. you sound like one more flag waving moron, who is quick to brag about the land of the free, home of the brave, the Constitution, your rights, your freedoms and everything you think the USA represents, all while trying to rationalize all the hypocrisy of US policy and behavior.

torturing prisoners is ok? really? is it ok as long as it is only in Iraq? or is it ok in Fargo, North Dakota? Is it ok if you get arrested for a DUI and end up standing naked with womans panties on your head while police officers piss on you or hook you up to wires you are led to believe will be hot?

There is no such thing as "Illegal Combatents" in the GC
The US invented it so they could hold them indefinitly and do what they want with them.

i think the soldiers only did it, so that people on internet messageboards would have something to talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about and talk about ...

*yawn*

The phrase probably did appear first in the US - during World War II though. A number of nations (including most of those who read this board) have offered varying interpretations over the years.

I agree, but dont forget about this one.


There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions


......-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

It's simple. If you would have been there yourself you would understand whats going on.

Right now you only talk out of your ass.

Talk is cheap,serve your country and go to Iraq only for 2 weeks please.

Then you know what you're talking about.

I do not mean to bash you,but you really have no Idea what it is like to be there yourself.

S.

Great! So you are not going to comment on the decisions of world leaders since you have never been one and don't understand the pressures they face?

i NEVER said or implied i have ANY idea what it is like to be there myself. it does not matter.

i have never raped a dead horse either... does not mean i am not entitled to an opinion about it and certainly does not mean that my opinion is not valid until i stick my dick in one.

what they did was wrong. plain and simple. there is no defending that behavior.

Why would I ?

If I'm not in the position to comment then why should I find myself talking out of my ass?

This is a waste of time.

Either I have a clue and know what I talk about or I do not start to argue about it in the first place.

Quite simple,no?


Steve

this is the quiet part, right before the storm of Colin ripping you apart with logic you can't beat.

So only criminals have the experience to discuss what is right or wrong for their various crimes? What about the victims?

Do you know what empathy is? Useful concept.

:Graucho

:glugglug


S.

Definition: [n] understanding and entering into another's feelings



Ok,if it's such an usefull concept.

Then describe me how a soldier feels that is in this war.

Tell me his reaction,tell me how he changes.

Make me believe your theory :winkwink:

Looking forward to hear what you have to say.


Thanx,
Steve

I agree, but War Criminals should be hanged since being shot would be an honorable death...

People that think they should be shot are idiots. The penalty for some hazing and humiliation shouldnt be death. That penalty wouldnt fit the crime, unless the criminal act was a murder.

If I remeber correctly (and I do) nothing happened to those american POW:s

Shows who are the real savages in this war :thumbsup

Isn't the whole war against the convention anyway?

I didn't mean that they should be hanged if they violate a small rule of the convention. I meant if they fuckin go nuts and start torturing and killing prisoners... something like that they should be hanged.