(OT) 4th Geneva Convention

Simon Robbins Wrote:

Should it simply be down to a rule of law that prevents us from doing those
kinds of things to people? If we claim to be the civilised, respectful
peoples that we do, should our morals be so easily cast aside with a "well
they started it" attitude?

The Law of reciprocity does not mandate those actions, simply allows them. I'm
not arguing for or against it. Personally, I'm in line with U.S. policy and
that is; regardless of illegal actions used against us, we will follow the
Geneva Convention. In other words, we'll never take advantage of the Law of
Reciprocity and as someone who may be called upon to execute a combat mission,
this comforts me. I'd hate to get shot down, wounded or killed bombing a school
for reprisal purposes.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Actually, you may be able to answer a question for me, considering you seem
well versed in the GC:

Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're
fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those
captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants?

Regards,

Si

"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On 12 May 2004 20:32:54 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did
I
spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles,
the
opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye
for an
eye" rule.

'Eye for an eye' (that is, reprisal) is prohibited by Article 33 of
Convention IV: " No protected person may be punished for an offence he
or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise
all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage
is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property
are prohibited."

BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if
it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever
article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel
giving up that protected status themselves.

Brooks


It's even more explicitly codified in Protocol I Additional (and yes,
I know America's relationship to that protocol).

Scott

Reprisals are prohibited unless *explicitly* authorised.

I believe the Law of Reciprocity does this.

It's a damn sight easier to hold the high moral ground, than it is to
fight in the foggy valleys.

I agree.

It's much easier and more convincing to
simply say "we do not torture detainees" than to argue "shoving Cyalumes
up a prisoner's arse isn't *technically* torture so we're just
interrogating with extreme prejudice, what are you complaining about?".

Uhh, I'm not making *any* kind of argument to support or defend the prisoner
abuses. I already said, if it were up to me, those guards would serve as
infantry in the hottest spots in Iraq until their court martial. What I'm
arguing (and how we even got on the subject I'll never know) is that there are
provisions in the Geneva Convention that permit the lawful violation of the
articles. I think this was brought up because someone said that under *no*
circumstances could a signatory violate any of the articles.

Meanwhile, *unauthorised* reprisals are war crimes pure and simple.

Absolutely.

Under what circumstance can an individual soldier / sailor / airman
decide that the GCs are no longer relevant?

None that I know of and I'm not arguing that individuals have that right.

If "any servicebeing" can't make that call, what's the minimum rank for
the decision to be made?

You'll have to quote where I said that "any servicebeing" can decide to envoke
the Law of Reciprocity.

There are many bad and misguided reasons to be brutal in pursuing the
current scandal up the ranks as possible.

Uhh, where did I say otherwise?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Simon Robbins wrote:

Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're
fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those
captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants?

Not all those captured in Afghanistan were considered unlawful combatants. If
you were an Afghani with no ties to Al Queda you were not considered an
unlawful combatant. If you were an Afghani with ties to Al Queda, or a foreign
national (Saudi, Brit, American) you were an unlawful combatant. Same is true
in Iraq. Any Saudi national found conducting combat operations in Iraq is an
unlawful combatant. We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Jordons
(is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful combatants...however,
they are all *supposed* to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Simon Robbins wrote:

Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're
fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when
those
captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants?

Not all those captured in Afghanistan were considered unlawful combatants.
If
you were an Afghani with no ties to Al Queda you were not considered an
unlawful combatant. If you were an Afghani with ties to Al Queda, or a
foreign
national (Saudi, Brit, American) you were an unlawful combatant. Same is
true
in Iraq. Any Saudi national found conducting combat operations in Iraq is
an
unlawful combatant. We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians,
Jordons
(is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful
combatants...however,
they are all *supposed* to be treated in accordance with the Geneva
Convention.

"Jordanians" is the word you were looking for.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Jordanians" is the word you were looking for.


Thanks.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

It doesn't say Which GOD. Wise up. God is god is god. Religion has not
part of any of our anti-terrorist plans. Rid the world of all terrorists
and let "GOD" sort them all out according to his justice. I always say if I
don't punish you or punish you injustly that god will take care of it or me.


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"John Harris" wrote in message
...
Of course this means that ONLY the United States should observe the
rules.
It is OK for the Terrorists (who by the way are not signators to the
Geneva
Convention) to demand the one-sided protection of that Treaty while
disallowing it to those they murder, take hostage, torture, etc.

Actually, the Convention itself says that those who do not subscribe to
the
Convention are3 not entitled to seek protection under it.

.....Under such circumstances the Geneva Convention is NOT applicable..

Actually, the Convention is applicable to those who subscribed to it.
Nowhere
does it say that if one party to the armed conflict or whatever you want
to call
it fails to subscribe to the terms of the Convention that the other party
is
excused from complying with its terms.

.....only the word of God as given to Christians is. Islam requires the
death
of all
infidels without mercy, pity, or second thoughts. It is their Satanic
Religion given by the
Angel of the Devil...Mohammed..that has so distorted the minds and
thinking
of the Arabs.

I'd prefer to leave the word of God out of the discussion, since the
Convention
applies to all of its signatories, including even those who worship other
Gods
or those who worship none.

.....The Convention requires BOTH parties to observe the terms.
Besides, the
war in IRAQ is
only being carried to terrorists...not the law abiding Iraqi people who
loath the terrorists as much as we do.

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...

I'll have to find the Law of Reciprocity, because this statement runs counter
to its intent. The intent of the Law of Reciprocity is that if nation X bombs
religious sites in nation y than nation y is *legally* allowed to bomb nation
X's religious sites on a 1 for 1 basis.

My understanding is that that article bans reprisals against
non-combatants (civilians, POWs and etc), although probably not
against combatants. I was thinking here of your 'you bomb our high
school, we bomb your high school' example. There's a good discussion
of some of these issues at the Crimes of War Project site... see
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/ge...gc-ratner.html

Scott

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if
it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever
article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel
giving up that protected status themselves.

I was thinking of his high school example when I wrote. That article
does ban such reprisal against non-combatants, but probably not
against combatants.

Scott