Slashdot Mirror

Every resource of the nation-state becomes a valid target.

That's ridiculous; go read the Geneva Convention.

You are ridiculous.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

If you think that there are NO countries, signatories or not, that would violate the shit out of the Geneva Convention should it suit their purposes; you are more than ridiculous; you are criminally naive.

It's a freaking piece of paper, and more useless than most.

No, permanent blinding weapons are illegal

Blinding weapons are banned by 1995 United Nations Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/49de65e1b0a201a7c125641f002d57af?OpenDocument

... And what does this have to do with using White Phosphorus?

that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The only line I could find that even relates to the War in Iraq is this one, and doesn't apply for two reason:

1. The official reason has nothing to do with religion.
2. The treaty you reference is applied to Trippoli, in Libya, which is next to Niger, and therefore really doesn't apply.

Also, when the US signed the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, it made a reservation about Article 7, the most applicable part quoted here:

When one of the parties to a conflict is not bound by an annexed Protocol, the parties bound by this Convention and that annexed Protocol shall remain bound by them in their mutual relations

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, defines a reservation as:

unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when ratifying, acceding or succeeding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty)

So to sum it up, we said that if we were at war with a country and they were not signers of the treaty, we can ignore it as we see fit (within reason). IMO, all bets were off the moment they started violating other agreements.

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

While I can't speak for Israel's "policy" as you put it, it is worth noting that Israel's primary enemies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the various lesser paramilitary groups in the area routinely flout Article 28. And Israel can attack civilian areas under circumstances of Article 53. We probably will find that your claim above about Israel taking out a block of flats to get "a terrorist" was probably to kill a leader of Hamas or Hezbollah. In that case, Article 53 applies. How else can Israel kill leaders of these organizations, who organize and direct attacks against Israel and who hide in civilian areas?

Moving on to the topic at hand, this provides some sort of rationale for counterattacks to a cyberwarfare attack up to and including actual military attacks on targets that may kill civilians. Personally, I think cyberwarfare will remain too murky for that degree of retaliation even in extreme cases where a lot of people are dying as a result.

Furthermore they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court and the stewards of the Geneva Conventions disagree with you there. At a minimum, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provide a baseline of protections the United States must afford to every detainee.

They signed in 1956. Nice try.

#3 - Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. - Geneva Conventions. You should be aware that at NO time has any Islamic force, least of all the terrorist forces, ever followed ANY portion of the Geneva Conventions.

A little digging on the internet turns up a list of signatories to the Geneva convention including a number of "Islamic" countries - see the list at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P (International Red Cross). For what it's worth, the Geneva Conventions are signed by nation states, not nationless entities. Also it should be noted that unfortunately being a signatory to the Convention does not necessarily mean that the Conventions are observed fully by a nation's forces in the field.

If you're blocking civilian access to sites advising them on emergency procedures or preventing them from accessing medical assistance, that's pretty shady.

But it makes it easier to rack up collateral damage. Think of it as shock and awe.

You've got to be really careful if you're doing anything that makes it appear that you're punishing "both guilty and innocent alike". Some countries consider it tacky.

(In case you're curious, both Georgia and Russia are included on the linked list of signatories. Along with 194 others.)

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

The above is a list of countries that have signed the fourth geneva convention. USA signed in 1949 and ratified in 1955.
what is being done is quite illegal and to most people immoral. Even with the convention there are ways of dealing with troublesome people, but it rules torture and the like out. Blaming it on commie's trying to expand is a bit weak. I'm still somewhat amazed you were modded insightful on your initial post when it's premise was incorrect, goes to show how many peoples view on human rights have been twisted by the affair.

Your interpretation doesn't fit with my understanding of the Geneva Conventions so I looked them up and started reading them. They very clearly do not agree with your rather inflammatory and anti-islamic statements. Amazing how an anti-islamic rant can get rated informative by stating poppycock and complaining that no one else plays by the rules. Anyone interested in what the Geneva Convention actually states should read it, not rely on some uninformed partisans "interpretation". You can google, or go to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm or http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/365?OpenDocument

Let's take some of your statements:

Did you know that they really don't protect civilians under "contemporary" conditions ? It specifically states that if "the enemy" (anyone whom you're at war with) does not clearly identify itself (which is defined to mean military bases OUTSIDE of population centers and CLEARLY uniformed troops) that civilians, enemy troops AND casualties are fair game ?

What the conventions actually say is that it's forbidden to perform certain acts. However, if one party commits such acts, it doesn't mean that any civilian population is then "fair game". Civilians are never "fair game".

As in, if there is a faction using people as human shields, any army fighting them is completely within their rights to shoot all the human shields first. (think about what rights this theoretically gives Israel in fighting Gaza, they go above and beyond what Geneva requires of them, since a genocide in Gaza would be clearly within Israel's rights under the Geneva conventions)

The fact that some of the acts of one party are forbidden, doesn't mean the other party may commit crimes in response. Specifically, the Geneva conventions talk of proportionality: "Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." Given furthermore the fact that Israeli's occupation of Gaza is illegal by international law in general, any action taken by Israel to keep Gaza occupied is in fact a crime (though not necessarily by the Geneva conventions, which only deals with very specific humanitarian issues).

Even in an open war a military is completely within their rights to let a civilian population starve. Everything except direct, unprovoked attacks is not the subject of the Geneva conventions.

Actually the Geneva conventions cover several aspects about war that have humanitarian consequences: the treatment of prisoners of war, the treatment of a population by their occupier, and so on.

The convention also CLEARLY states who gets to judge (obviously without possibility of appeal) whether the provisions of the Geneva conventions allow you to shoot a certain person : the field commander. His decision is final, and he gets to be judge, jury and executioner.

It's the responsibility, not the discretion of the commander.

Besides, there isn't a single warring faction in the world today, except the United States (and Israel, Turkey and "maybe" China (insofar you call Tibet a war, besides I doubt you will find China respecting Geneva in Africa)), that even pretend to respect the Geneva conventions. E.g. hezbollah has declared upon multiple occasions that it doesn't, nor does it ever intend to (and then they say something about some prophet not respecting them as justification).

It's very true that no army ever respects the Geneva conventions. Israel, the United States and many other countries tend to profess how humane their acts of war are. Ofcourse, the harder they claim this, the more of a lie it usually is. (Collective punishment in Palestine, 10,000s of civilian prisoners of war without any outlook on a trial, but with rampant torture going on, the United States ofcourse has Guantanamo Bay, the en-masse destruction of civilian infrastructure in Iraq during both wars there, and so on). Regarding the statement you make about Hezbollah's declarations on multiple occasions, would you mind providing a reference to one such declaration?

In other words, anyone attempting to abolish

Not that I particularly agree with the ban but it isn't anything new. As said the issue is only with lasers strong enough to reasonably blind people. Even as someone who regularly shoots firearms I fear said lasers more than a firearm - the laser is "on" or "off" and the "on" state lasts until the laser looses power. It is *immediately* dangerous through the whole process and is deceptively so (after all it is only a small dot). For various reasons people do not give it the necessary respect, if they did then I wouldn't mind so much.

The Red Cross has been trying to ban the blinding ones as weapons since the early 90's (and they explicitly state terrorist use even back then). A simple google search turned up a few articles on the front page, I'm sure there are better, yet since the first page results are good enough:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14419521.100-ban-cruel-laser-weapons-says-red-cross.html
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7120/1392
http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/12/18/edmol.t.php

and finally what they actually passed: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/49de65e1b0a201a7c125641f002d57af?OpenDocument

So, yea, not really anything new and is pretty much in line with international law. I don't know if Australia is a signatory to the law, however as we know from the US detractors that is irrelevant as it is an "international law".

Can't say as I agree with it (even as used as a weapon - better to be blinded than the alternatives) and I would really like one of the things that could pop a balloon, but for most of what the posters here who want to enforce this it *should* be a triumph of international law and the logical progression of said law. If you want your country to follow "international law" then kiss these thing good buy as you cant have them since the early 90's, Bush's term and the current so called "War on Terror" have nothing to do with said laws. We can't simply pick and choose which laws we observe (as is rightly said by Bush detractor's - it is pretty much all or nothing).

As for "every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians"

" * Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." *1

"Only civilian prisoners and UNIFORMED enemy prisoners cannot be killed. They can, however, be locked up indefinitely without recourse to trial."

Yes, thats what the current rulers in the US thinks, but the international laws only distinguish between civilians (common criminal laws) and combatants (laws of war) (in some cases I think people can be held until the end of the war (a war against an other nation, not war on terrorism/drugs/infidels...))

"The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.[7] However--unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian"--the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[8][4]" *2

"Anyone who does not intend to respect other's human rights (and muslims don't, declaration of Cairo on human rights in islam, stating that there can be no freedom of religion and that religious discrimination is mandatory, and adds to that that sexual discrimination is also mandatory) cannot call upon the human rights"

You can't sign away your human rights, not even if you/your country says you hate them. If you do to horrible things thou you can always be tried as a war criminal.

Sorry for my bad English, not an English speaker

*1 http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMEEM
*2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Mass graves are still being filled.

Sill sucks to be a woman in Iraq.

There will be rape rooms as long as there are US interrogators in Iraq.

Saddam's charitable donations to grieving families have been stopped. Wonderful. Giver yourselves a pat on the back.

A few bad guys have been captured and killed. Could have been done a lot cheaper through covert ops than the 1.6 trillion and counting war on terror. That's just the money spent on warfare. The destruction wreaked by the war... I don't think anyone wants to even try to calculate that figure.

The facts aren't very encouraging to anyone outside the military-industrial complex.

Seriously, do you know what the Egyptian security forces are capable of? Do you have living relatives?

If they threatened to electrocute my Mom, I'd be singing like a bird, and so would you.

Admittedly, the ICRC defines the infliction of psychological pain as being "ill-treatement", of which torture is only one flavor. So it's only prohibited by international law...

"Methods of ill treatment may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects."

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/69MJXC

The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans

It's also worth pointing out that those rights aren't there to protect the guilty, they are there to protect the innocent. And there's good reason to believe that there are innocent people detained in these camps:

• The vast majority were turned in by people looking for reward money or to suck up to U.S. forces. Witch hunt, anyone?
• We know that innocent people have been detained and then killed by U.S. forces. If you're not familiar with the case of Dilawar the taxi driver, you need to read this. This guy was captured by an Iraqi warlord trying to deflect suspicion from himself for an attack on U.S. troops. Then, because they thought he screamed funny, a bunch of United States soldiers "pulped" (the words of the doctor who performed the autopsy) his legs. The other four guys were shipped to Gitmo and held for a year or so before they finally decided they posed no threat.
• The soldiers there "know" these are bad guys, and treat them that way, regardless of who they are. You ask how I know that? So, a U.S. soldier at Guantanamo is asked to impersonate an unruly detainee for a drill. Unfortunately, the soldiers sent in to subdue him aren't told it's a drill. He ends up with brain damage and seizures.

Detaining 'enemy combatants' makes sense, to an extent. But they are still entitled to a tribunal under the Geneva Convention to determine if they actually are 'enemy combatants'. Go ahead, read Convention III, Article 5 for yourself. Signatories (like the U.S.) are supposed to extend protection preemptively, until and unless a tribunal has determined that the Geneva protections don't apply.

Sure, the U.S. is better than a Soviet gulag or Saddam Hussein's torture rooms. So what? That's not much to brag about. We ought to be an example to the world of the rule of law, like when we advocated and won trial against the Nazis in WWII. The Soviets and the British were all for summary executions... how far we've fallen.

Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference. Geneva, 26-29 October 1863.
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563 da005fdb1b/1548c3c0c113ffdfc125641a0059c537?OpenDo cument [icrc.org]

The International Conference, desirous of coming to the aid of the wounded should the Military Medical Services prove inadequate, adopts the following Resolutions:

Article 1...7
Article 8. They shall wear in all countries, as a uniform distinctive sign, a WHITE ARMLET WITH A RED CROSS.
Article 9...10

Maybe J&J can start using a circle to represent their empty cranial capacity or a vertical bar with an x on it ... "Hold It", that may be an astrix*, and globally J&J would lay claim to all logos and text in the world, I hope it is already copyright/trademark protected in the USA from corporatist/congressional piracy.

The International Committee (18631029) and American (1881????) Red Cross were both in existence and using the "Red Cross" prior to J&J (1887????). J&J and their legal are really big fyucking idiots. J&J just screwed themselves to the wall (another example of USA Corporatism). The ICRC & ARC can demand J&J halt its use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public and pay for previous use and pay the ICRC license fees for any further future use. J&J ... such boneheads, maybe they are like other C-average pirate skulls&bones leaders, empty-space where there was never a brain; Therefore, useless, but terrifyingly threating.

IOW: It does not mater (even in the USA) when J&J began using the "Red Cross" trademark, it was illegal and infringed on the property right of the IRIC. If the ARC has begun licensing the symbol to third parties then approval by the ICRC has been obtained or is required.

Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference. Geneva, 26-29 October 1863.
http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563 da005fdb1b/1548c3c0c113ffdfc125641a0059c537?OpenDo cument

The International Conference, desirous of coming to the aid of the wounded should the Military Medical Services prove inadequate, adopts the following Resolutions:

Article 1...7
Article 8. They shall wear in all countries, as a uniform distinctive sign, a WHITE ARMLET WITH A RED CROSS.
Article 9...10

Maybe J&J can start using a circle to represent their empty cranial capacity or a virticle bar with an x on it ... "Hold It", that may be an astrix*, and globally J&J would lay claim to all logos and text in the world, I hope it is already copyright/trademark protected in the USA from corporatist/congressional piracy.

!HAVEFUN!

CHAPTER VIII

REPRESSION OF ABUSES AND INFRACTIONS

Art. 27. The signatory powers whose legislation may not now be adequate engage to take or recommend to their legislatures such measures as may be necessary to prevent the use, by private persons or by societies other than those upon which this convention confers the right thereto, of the emblem or name of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, particularly for commercial purposes by means of trade-marks or commercial labels.
The prohibition of the use of the emblem or name in question shall take effect from the time set in each act of legislation, and at the latest five years after this convention goes into effect. After such going into effect, it shall be unlawful to use a trade-mark or commercial label contrary to such prohibition.

Does the Red Cross symbol even meet the standard for originality? It's been used for a long time by military organizations to denote an on-battlefield hospital, and international treaty prevents the attacking of anything near a white flag with a red cross on it.

I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case. Of course, whether the law is good or not is a different debate (and those of you who know my politics will know my opinion on laws in general...).

... after all, the swiss flag is the same, except that the colors are inverted. An "obvious attempt to hide a blatant ripoff of Swiss cultural heritage".

Johnson and Johnson are just being dickheads.

On a more serious note - they don't have a case. The International Red Cross created the symbol in 1863, and it was recognized by the First Geneva Convention in 1864

International treaty establishes the prior claim and trumps any later claim by J&J.

Great, now Switzerland will get involved and claim that the red cross is obviously a derivative work of their flag...

The Red Cross symbol used by the International Committee of the Red Cross is based on the Swiss flag. The Red Cross on white background was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva Convention. It is, in terms of its color, a reversal of the Swiss national flag, a meaning which was adopted to honor Swiss native and Red Cross founder Henry Dunant.

Since the emblem was to reflect the neutrality of the armed forces' medical services and the protection conferred on them, the emblem adopted was formed by reversing the colours of the Swiss flag.

Zorglub

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."

Perhaps that is what the Army field manual says, if so then the U.S. is abrogating the Geneva Convention IV which specifically covers civilians and to which the United States is a signatory.

Article 4 from said convention

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

This seems to clearly cover those who have been captured, even if they had taken up arms as you described. The conventions are meant to apply after capture.

And if you read article 3 you will find:

(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.

In fact, even GCI covers individuals who are not fighting.

But on a closer look,

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents, are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment (FM 27-10 Par. 80).

could fall within the conventions if the trial includes "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."(GCI art. 3)

The problems is that the U.S. is not doing so.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[then goes on to define them, including your misnamed "Section 2".. it's actually "Section A, Item 2" of Article 4]

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[then goes on to define them, including your misnamed "Section 2".. it's actually "Section A, Item 2" of Article 4]

"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of this Convention.
"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following reservation to Article 68:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"

There are no exceptions to the Geneva Convention.. War is war, and when you state that you're at war, even if your enemy is terrorism (a too wide of term, IMHO), then ALL of the rules apply. You can't just pick those that happen to suit you each step of the way, and ignore the rest, or amuse yourself torturing semantics until the words mean what you wish them to mean. Well, as we've seen, you _can_, but then you're not in compliance.

Besides, your point seems to be that since the "other side" (ie, terrorists) respect nothing, then neither should you.. Well, I'm sorry, but aren't you supposed to be the good guys here? Aren't you supposed to be a nation of laws, a beacon of freedom, an example for everyone else to follow? I am not being sarcastic nor glib: it is a genuine question. Because to me it seems like you're saying it's ok, even warranted, to lower yourself to the lowest possible denominator in order to win. But then, all things taken into account, what separates you from "them"? Who wins when you become the evil you sought out to defeat?

I do give you this much.. I'm anti-Bush as one can be, but I too don't appreciate whenever someone gets accolades (ie, mod points) just for making some vague remark in line with the "popular" opinion. It cheapens the entire discussion by voiding it of real arguments and leaves me with the feeling that people don't even bother making up their own minds anymore. As far as I'm concerned, swallowing propaganda or being spoon-fed opinions is just as bad when you agre

"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of this Convention.
"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following reservation to Article 68:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"

There are no exceptions to the Geneva Convention.. War is war, and when you state that you're at war, even if your enemy is terrorism (a too wide of term, IMHO), then ALL of the rules apply. You can't just pick those that happen to suit you each step of the way, and ignore the rest, or amuse yourself torturing semantics until the words mean what you wish them to mean. Well, as we've seen, you _can_, but then you're not in compliance.

Besides, your point seems to be that since the "other side" (ie, terrorists) respect nothing, then neither should you.. Well, I'm sorry, but aren't you supposed to be the good guys here? Aren't you supposed to be a nation of laws, a beacon of freedom, an example for everyone else to follow? I am not being sarcastic nor glib: it is a genuine question. Because to me it seems like you're saying it's ok, even warranted, to lower yourself to the lowest possible denominator in order to win. But then, all things taken into account, what separates you from "them"? Who wins when you become the evil you sought out to defeat?

I do give you this much.. I'm anti-Bush as one can be, but I too don't appreciate whenever someone gets accolades (ie, mod points) just for making some vague remark in line with the "popular" opinion. It cheapens the entire discussion by voiding it of real arguments and leaves me with the feeling that people don't even bother making up their own minds anymore. As far as I'm concerned, swallowing propaganda or being spoon-fed opinions is just as bad when you agre

"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of this Convention.
"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following reservation to Article 68:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"

There are no exceptions to the Geneva Convention.. War is war, and when you state that you're at war, even if your enemy is terrorism (a too wide of term, IMHO), then ALL of the rules apply. You can't just pick those that happen to suit you each step of the way, and ignore the rest, or amuse yourself torturing semantics until the words mean what you wish them to mean. Well, as we've seen, you _can_, but then you're not in compliance.

Besides, your point seems to be that since the "other side" (ie, terrorists) respect nothing, then neither should you.. Well, I'm sorry, but aren't you supposed to be the good guys here? Aren't you supposed to be a nation of laws, a beacon of freedom, an example for everyone else to follow? I am not being sarcastic nor glib: it is a genuine question. Because to me it seems like you're saying it's ok, even warranted, to lower yourself to the lowest possible denominator in order to win. But then, all things taken into account, what separates you from "them"? Who wins when you become the evil you sought out to defeat?

I do give you this much.. I'm anti-Bush as one can be, but I too don't appreciate whenever someone gets accolades (ie, mod points) just for making some vague remark in line with the "popular" opinion. It cheapens the entire discussion by voiding it of real arguments and leaves me with the feeling that people don't even bother making up their own minds anymore. As far as I'm concerned, swallowing propaganda or being spoon-fed opinions is just as bad when you agre

Actually, the US has signed the Geneva Convention. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=37 5&ps=P

• It was revised in 1949, and with the modified form and name, it was adopted on August 12 of that year by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, that was held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949. The Third Geneva Convention entered into force on October 21, 1950.

Articles 4 and 5 of Convention IV (Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War):

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

See here for a list of signatories to the Geneva conventions. You'll note that Afghanistan signed in 1956, although I'll confess I'm not 100% sure if that was still relevant at the time

The former: resignation, the latter takes a bit longer to explain:
The US is, compared to any other western society, extremely religious (that Bush actually used the word "crusade" to refer to the Iraq War didn't exactly help, either). Granted, there are quite religious countries in Europe, too (Poland, Ireland and Italy), but not to the same extend, and they seem to be more successful separating it from politics.
You can compare survey data of various aspects of life between countries, and you will find that religion is not as important in Europe as it is in the US. For example, if you look at the results of the question "How important is god in your life?" for the US, Iran, and secular European countries like France or Germany ("Old Europe") the US' relative similarity to Iran, compared to Europe, is striking (sorry, no direct link to the graphs is possible, but trust me it's worth the effort).
I also found a poll that said 45% of Americans believe in the biblical creation, 38% in ID creationism, and only 13% that no god had part in it. In a German poll with the same questions the results were 12%/25%/61% (link in German).
The relatively common references to god even by mainstream US politicians, along with the Good/Evil classification, let many things appear religiously motivated, even if not intended. I assume those Americans that don't share the mainstream's religiousity perceive that rhetoric as as frightening as I do.

When there's a culture that believes westerners are the devil, peaceful integration is very difficult to accomplish.

Well, bombing them probably doesn't help making them see us in a more positive light, either.
Peaceful integration is the only way. You can't force somebody to share your believes.

[Bush] had a very difficult decision to make. He could either let things continue to happen organically and knowingly face more 9/11 incidents or he could make a desperate attempt to speed up the integration.

The key to preventing "more 9/11 incidents" lies in understanding the terrorists' motivation. The US' military presence in the Middle East, along with the support for oppressive regimes as in Saudi Arabia and what is seen as agressive Israeli politics/military actions, is a major factor.

I'd like to expand on Iraq in particular because it seems to bring out the most cynical of viewpoints. There are so many people blaming us for the current state of Iraq. I can understand blaming us for Iraq no longer being under Saddam's control and therefore introducing freedoms that the people never had. Nobody seems to want to put any responsibility on the Iraqis themselves.

The US chose to attack Iraq, and as the occupying power carries the responsibility to provide security for the parts of the population not taking part in the fighting. The US created a power vacuum and different factions try to fill it -- that was predicted by many people who opposed the war from the very beginning. You can put some of the blame on Jaafari & Co., on the terrorists, or on the insurgency if you believe resistance was unexpected, but not on the Iraqi people as a whole.

They have many more freedoms that they never had before.

That depends. Actually many women, especially in the Shiite south, probably would point out several freedoms they have lost. Saddam was bad, but he was secular (which, incidently, is why the islamists hated him).
Also, elections are not the same a

I'm not sure that you actually understand the meaning of the Geneva Convention articles that you quote, or what the designation of Prisoner of War means under the terms of the treaty.

Articles I & II establish that the treaty governs all conflicts regardless of where or who is in conflict, and that the treaty will be complied with. That doesn't negate the tests of Article IV paragraph 2 to determine who qualifies for special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War.

Article IV, paragraph 2, establishes tests to determine who qualifies for special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War. Al Qaeda fails at least 3 of the 4 tests. Failing those tests means that they don't qualify for the special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War. Paragraph 6 applies to a Levee en Mass and doesn't apply.

Article V simply requires that the Geneva Convention applies as long as a detainee is held, and that they be assumed to qualify for the special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War until a different determination is properly made. Once again, that doesn't negate the tests of Article IV paragraph 2 to determine who qualifies for special status, privileges, and protections of a Geneva Convention Prisoner of War.

While you can use slippery lawyer talk to try and get al qaeda members out of the POW definitions in Article 4, it simply isn't a logical argument, and it is completely bereft of any moral standing. You want so badly for this to be a "WAR", but then you want to throw away the protections that we've agreed to for the treatment of prisoners of war, because.. oh.. uh.. they're not prisoners.. or something.

I realize it might seem unfair to actually apply the treaty as written and hold people to it, but there are some practical advantages to doing things that way. First, the standards are clear. There is nothing slippery about it. It is all very straight forward under the treaty and the law of war. Captured Al Qaeda members will be treated humanely, but not as Geneva Convention Prisoners of War if they don't abide by the laws and customs of war. As things stand today, they are unlawful combatants, or simply enemy combatants.

Second, it considerably simplifies dealing with them. It means that Al Qaeda members don't qualify to be treated as Geneva Convention POWs which would entitle them to be paid a regular wage (Article 60) by the US, would entitle them to prepare their own food (Article 26) (which would require knives and other potential weapons), and would require furnishing them a store with snacks and dry goods (Article 28), and to write home (Article 70) to let Osama know they've been captured but Abdula wasn't (so the attack can continue), as well as many other rights afforded legitimate Geneva Convention Prisoners of War.

Third, it gives them an incentive to comply with the treaty and the law of war. (You do think that it is a good thing to encourage them to obey the law of war, right?) They might qualify for treatment as Geneva Convention POWs if they obeyed the treaty and the law of war. Nothing requires them to chop off the heads of their prisoners (a war crime = treaty noncompliance) or the other ghastly things that they do. Not requiring them to live up to the same standard as anyone else to receive the benefits of the treaty decreases their incentive to comply with the treaty. That isn't a good thing.

There really isn't much to be confused about in this.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I know very well about the red "lion and sun." You can see it on the IRC web site, so it's not some dark secret.

The fact that Eritrea and Kazakhstan were also caught up in the emblem debate shows it isn't simply an issue of anti-Semitism.

I didn't mean to suggest that Magen David Adom adopting the red cross was a particularly favorable solution, but simply making the point that holding out for a unique emblem for a single country of 7 million people in a movement of 180 nations poses problems other than ethnic or religious prejudice.

I'm sure you'd ignore the Red Cross and other charities that had religious origins

Think about how many Africans will die (malnourishment, diseases) because you use your "charity" budget on stuff that makes your life better.

Think about exactly why you would be outraged if millions of people died of hunger or cold (think Pakistan) in your country, yet this is not such a big deal if it happens far enough away.

Think about how much suffering could be prevented if you gave 10% of your income, how little suffering that would cause you, and why you (like most people) consider it okay to give much less than that.

International Red Cross
Médécins sans frontières
UN World Food Programme

The Third Convention. Note no "unlawful combatants" there.

Those not covered by GC3 fall under the Fourth Convention

i am interested in hearing how president bush went back in time to 1942 and added the idea of unlawful combatants in the US legal system.

US legal system is irrelevant as the Geneva Conventions override it (as all treaties do). The GC3 was signed in 1949 which would take precedence over a 1942 decision even within US legal system itself. "Unlawful combatant" in regards to the Geneva Convention is a never before used (in this context) invention of the Bush Administration and you can quote all appologist-made Wikipedia articles (this being the main reason Wikipedia is such a poor source of political data) you can find and it will still not change this rather obvious and easily verified fact.

I believe the geneve convention was about a weapon which was designed to render enemies blind. It was a laserweapon and was quite effective, yet it was found to be "too inhumane" hence it being banned globally.

Blinding lasers would not actually save lives as they are intended to be used in addition to other weapons. They might even have the effect of increasing mortality rates as blinded opponents would not be able to defend themselves and thus be easily targeted by other weapons. As it is unlikely that an attacker would be able to assess at a distance whether an opponent has been rendered out of action by blinding, he would also use his other weapons. The result would therefore be just as many deaths and many more blind, thus increasing the suffering which results from battle.

Unlike other injuries, blinding results in very severe disability and near total dependence on others. Because sight provides us with some 80-90% of our sensory stimulation, blinding renders a person virtually unable to work or to function independently. This usually leads to a dramatic loss of self-esteem and severe psychological depression. Blinding is much more debilitating than most battlefield injuries.

Even if soldiers are not hit by lasers, the silent and invisible threat created by the presence or suspected presence of blinding lasers in an opponent's arsenal would increase the occurrence among soldiers of combat stress disorder and, later, of post-traumatic stress disorder.

If it is indeed a core principle, then perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where this entitlement is established? I agree that it doesn't forbid such activities against non-signatories (even then, it does if such a power "accepts and applies the provisions" of the treaty; see Article 2 of Convention III - the convention reating to POWs) but I seeing nothing saying that if one side violates the treaty, then the other side is entitled to as well. In fact, Article 132 of Convention III merely says:

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

IANAL but I don't think this is intended to include torturing POWs of the violating power. No, signatories are bound to treat POWs from other signatories according to the Convention whether the other signatories do so or not. It's only when a non-signatory violates the Geneva conventions that a signatory can disregard it in relation to POWs from the violating nation.

In fact, the Saddam Regime, not being Signatory to the convention, was a legitimate target for U.S. nuclear attacks, under the Geneva Convention.

Iraq was and is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (there's actually more than one). According to the Red Cross, Iraq acceded to them in 1956, although not to the later additional protocols.

In fact, it even permits torture against signatories who haven't violated the Convention, with the caveat that they are then free of their Convention commitment to not practice torture against you.

Even if that were true, it would be like saying the law permits me to walk up to you and shoot you dead, with the caveat that the the police are then free to arrest me and imprison me for the rest of my life.

How about putting together a more modest sum, say, $100,000, and giving it to these guys, and then donating the rest to something like tsunami relief or something. Yeah, I love Trek, too. But (a) even if they make enough to fund another season, Berman and Braga still have the helm and (b) Paramount still gets the revenue, I'm sure, since they wouls still own the franchise.

Art 45. The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take the measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of any abuse of the distinctive signs provided for under Article 43.

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about Tickenest, or anyone, taking independent action in the name of the U.S., or in my name.

I'm talking about him, personally, taking action to solve a problem that he, personally, perceives -- on his own terms and with his own resources, representing himself, taking responsibility for his actions.

And yes, it most definitely *is* in the interest of Americans to act based on their own conceptions. That's what people do.

I'd much rather have that than a group of people implementing foreign policy based on the conceptions of a right-wing nutjob with a messianic complex -- in my name, no less. I'd feel much better if the people of Iraq knew that the occupation of Iraq was not being in my name.

People should be able to act on their own, and face the consequences of their own actions -- not force other people to act in their stead and die for it.

These efforts can and are being done both collectively and voluntarily through organizations like The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, International Crisis Group, and scores of others if you care too look. I don't know of any armed groups that act in defense of helpless people, but there should be. I'd much rather support that than what happened at Abu Ghraib.

The point is that there is a bulk of organizations with history and a wealth of experience that works with volunteers and donations that practice what what you call "foreign policy" -- not in the name of government, but just because they want to do good in the world, and care enough to do something about it. It *could* be done. The infrastructre and experience is there.

I think it's a good thing. I'd like to see more of it.

My home town in the North Island of New Zealand is serviced by one of ten Wind Farms in the country. This one is the largest in the Southern Hemisphere, featuring roughly 100 turbines on a ridge 10 kilometres away that are barely noticable from the central city.

From memory the wind farm generates about 70% of energy requirement of the city, it's outlying townships and farms. As an added bonus, it's cheap for the consumer.

Because New Zealand is a Nuclear Free Zone the alternatives to Wind Power are primarily Geothermal which accounts for 18% of the national total, Hydroelectric which accounts for about 75% and Natural Gas making up the bulk of the remainder.

It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're (sic.) fault

That's why the prisoners in Guantanamo aren't covered by the Geneva Convention

WTF? Then why was Donald Rumsfeld crying on TV about the fact that Iraq better damn well be following the Geneva conventions when after capturing Jessica's unit, they were relatively harmlessly (in retrospect) asking them their names in front of a TV camera? WTF was that about then? And some wonder why the world considers the US a bunch of fat, selfish hypocrites.

BTW, a reporter brought up a good point at that time, that many US military operatives in Iraq were not "wearing uniforms or insignia" as the Bush administration was arguing for their reason for denying Taliban members Geneva rights.

bad road to start down
lots of combant definitions
lots of war related treaties we signed

That's why the prisoners in Guantanamo aren't covered by the Geneva Convention

WTF? Then why was Donald Rumsfeld crying on TV about the fact that Iraq better damn well be following the Geneva conventions when after capturing Jessica's unit, they were relatively harmlessly (in retrospect) asking them their names in front of a TV camera? WTF was that about then? And some wonder why the world considers the US a bunch of fat, selfish hypocrites.

BTW, a reporter brought up a good point at that time, that many US military operatives in Iraq were not "wearing uniforms or insignia" as the Bush administration was arguing for their reason for denying Taliban members Geneva rights.

bad road to start down
lots of combant definitions
lots of war related treaties we signed