Article

2008-04-27 Home Front: WoT

Geneva Convention May Be Applied Selectively

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2008-04-27 07:07|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 "And for the president to say that it is acceptable to interpret Geneva on a sliding scale means that he thinks that it is acceptable for other countries to do the same.

That's funny - as Bobby mentions above, I don't believe I've once heard any media / leftist complain that terrorists aren't adhering to the GC, but it's okay for them to accuse our soldiers of not adhering to same.

Screw 'em.

Posted by Raj 2008-04-27 08:42|| 2008-04-27 08:42|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, that is what we *do* expect other countries to do in similar circumstances. Beyond those minimal requirements, all the US can do is reach bilateral agreements for higher standards of treatment if both sides wish it.

If other countries have unilateral higher standards, then that is their business.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-04-27 08:46|| 2008-04-27 08:46|| Front Page Top

#3 Technically, its 'conventions'. And there are numerous addendum which all states, including in some instances the United States, have not signed on to or ratified. So all parts are not applicable, thus 'selective'.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-04-27 08:49|| 2008-04-27 08:49|| Front Page Top

#4 The GC protections do not apply to illegal combatants anyway. They can (and should in many cases) be summarily executed in the field.

If we were doing it to uniformed soldiers of another nation - who was also abiding by the GC - then I'd be concerned. Until then I just don't give a shit - bring on the next Paris Hilton story.

As it is I don't think China or Iran or whoever our next adversary is will give a flying f-k about GC protections for American prisoners. Simply because they know that we will abide by it in any event (even for illegal combatants) and that the media will ignore any of their violations and magnify our own.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-04-27 10:17|| 2008-04-27 10:17|| Front Page Top

#5 well put crazy

Posted by sinse 2008-04-27 13:52|| 2008-04-27 13:52|| Front Page Top

#6 There are 4 major Geneva Conventions that the US is a signatory to, and one major that we said "Hell, No" to. Also, the moment the other side fails to abide by the Geneva Convention regarding conduct of warfare, we are NOT obligating to apply its provisions to them, as is STATED in that Convention.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-04-27 16:10|| 2008-04-27 16:10|| Front Page Top

#7 Geneva Convention is a joke. Unless both sides follow it is meaningless and McCain should stand up and say so.

We should perhaps follow similar guidelines because they are right, or because its for the best mental health of our own guys but following the letter of the law when the other guy doesn't is nonsense and actually undermines the Geneva Convention.

Personally I'd follow all of them because I don't think the convention Explicitly covers toilet paper with Koranic verse on them.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-04-27 16:19|| 2008-04-27 16:19|| Front Page Top

23:41 USN,Ret.
23:26 Pappy
23:08 Abu Uluque
23:03 Abu Uluque
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:04 gorb
22:03 Gomez Chavith6752
21:44 JosephMendiola
21:42 Vincent McMahon
21:37 JosephMendiola
21:32 DarthVader
21:28 Chinegum McGurque5166
21:27 Barbara Skolaut
21:23 Sgt. Mom
21:18 Chinegum McGurque5166
21:14 Nimble Spemble
21:01 Pappy
20:58 Jan
20:57 JosephMendiola
20:54 Frank G