(OT) 4th Geneva Convention

"Perry" wrote in message
...
Personally I'm sick in tired of the
anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.

The only anti-American media I've seen coming out of the States in the last
few days has been the evidence of the actions of those criminal soldiers.
You want to look for anti-Americanism try starting by those few there who
also wear the star-spangled banner and who have fueled enough
anti-Americanism to last half a century.

Si

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
people
who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention,
enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:

"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

Note the "not of an international character" bit...unless the US annexed
Iraq prior to the start of the war, this article would appear to be of
questionable applicability.

You might want to also include Article 4 in your "lesson".

Brooks


(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from people
who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva Convention,
enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:

"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."



Thanks. Saves me a search.




--

It's good to be the King.

"Lucius Domitius Aurelianus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
people
who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention,
enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:

"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party
to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances
be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."



Thanks. Saves me a search.

You're welcome.

George Z.

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

"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.

George Z. Bush wrote:

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.

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.


BUFDRVR

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

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."

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

Scott

Scott MacEachern wrote:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he
or she has not personally committed.

The Law of Reciprocity is not considered as a punishment per se and as such
does not fit Article 33.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property
are prohibited.

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.

I'll have do a Google and find the article dealing with reciprocity.


BUFDRVR

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

"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