Slashdot Mirror

The Geneva convention only applies to nations at war, and the legal forces under their command (ie IN UNIFORM)

Even under geneva convention rules, if you are shot at by someone not in uniform you have the right to execute them on the spot.

You can read the text of the Fourth Geneva Convention Here

While I don't think the people in Cuba are being detained fairly, unfortunately they were explicitly violating the Geneva convention by not openly carrying arms or wearing a distinctive uniform, nor was there a clear leader to whom they answered.

Further, the people in Cuba are being treated a lot more fairly than the German POW's were at the time the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified, so that should give you some sense of how much that treaty really is significant.

This is a common misperception. The Geneva Conventions do not place journalists in a protected category like medics or priests. According to Article 79 journalists are to be treated exactly the same as any other civilian except when captured, then they are to be treated as POWs only if they have authorization papers from the opposing side.

It's bad enough if you believe lies; it's far worse to repeat them.

The official policy of the ICRC is that reports are not made public, and no comment on the conditions of prisoners under ICRC observation is ever made to the media or anybody else.

The Red Cross never released any reports.

Some reports were released to the public, despite the official policy.

The ICRC press release contains details. It does not assert that the released information was false.

It's bad enough if you believe lies; it's far worse to repeat them.

The official policy of the ICRC is that reports are not made public, and no comment on the conditions of prisoners under ICRC observation is ever made to the media or anybody else.

The Red Cross never released any reports.

Some reports were released to the public, despite the official policy.

The ICRC press release contains details. It does not assert that the released information was false.

An alleged report has been leaked; the consensus of opinion among those who I work for is that this report has been severely doctored by whomever released it to the Arab press.

Thats because under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Its a term invented by the US administration. But if you feel you can point to an actual international treaty that uses the term "illegal combatant" that was signed pre-9/11, feel free to post a link. Good luck, though.

The challenge is for YOU to post a link showing that unlawful combatants have some international protection. They do not.

As I have had to do the homework to expose the Left numerous times already and, it seems, SlashDot is a bastion of saying "proove a negative", here is the refrence to proove AGAIN that the detainees in Guantnamo are not in a protected class:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I. General Provisions
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:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(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.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Ratified by the USA with reservations

They fail test (1), they fail test (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) (usually), (2)(d). They even fail (6)

The term "unlawful combatant" is just a term for people who are not legal combatants. Illegal is a synonym for unlawful. Amazing that this must be pointed out to you, but not that amazing from the rest of the spew on this thread.

Now, if SOMEONE would please point out where these terrorists are protected by anything other than US law (giving them protection from US troops mistreating them), PLEASE POST IT! Otherwise, accept the facts and try a different arguement.

Thats because under international law there is no such thing as an "illegal combatant". Its a term invented by the US administration. But if you feel you can point to an actual international treaty that uses the term "illegal combatant" that was signed pre-9/11, feel free to post a link. Good luck, though.

The challenge is for YOU to post a link showing that unlawful combatants have some international protection. They do not.

As I have had to do the homework to expose the Left numerous times already and, it seems, SlashDot is a bastion of saying "proove a negative", here is the refrence to proove AGAIN that the detainees in Guantnamo are not in a protected class:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I. General Provisions
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:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(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.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Ratified by the USA with reservations

They fail test (1), they fail test (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) (usually), (2)(d). They even fail (6)

The term "unlawful combatant" is just a term for people who are not legal combatants. Illegal is a synonym for unlawful. Amazing that this must be pointed out to you, but not that amazing from the rest of the spew on this thread.

Now, if SOMEONE would please point out where these terrorists are protected by anything other than US law (giving them protection from US troops mistreating them), PLEASE POST IT! Otherwise, accept the facts and try a different arguement.

Plenty of companies hold back on selling new products that will undercut their existing sales. If I sell $200 vacumn cleaners that need replacing every 4 years, I don't want to market a new $500 model that lasts 20.

An industrial interest may choose to withhold a great new product, even if its expensive, if it will reduce their total profits.

"Speed up ending a battle and you sell some fighter jets. Speed up ending war and you lose a customer"

(I didn't say that the banned weapons were expensive either- the difference between a few kinds of bullets is minimal. In many cases, the loss of a banned weapon can spur expensive R&D into acceptable alternatives. Anthrax canisters are cheaper than atomic warheads.)

in 1899. I doubt that "military-industrial complexes" even existed

Oh yes they did. There's no such thing as "Military Industrial Complex" in formal terms of course- its no more real than a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". Both are amusing names that describe an emergent behavior of powerful groups: quasi-organizations that perform in a cohesive way without centralized control. (A collective unconcious)

The military has always been a profit center for nation-states. With today's technology, the wealth comes from "Defense" contracts for weapon systems. 100 years ago, it came from the prestige and position afforded to military leaders in society. (Societies that were more and more aristocratic and even feudal the further east you got into Europe).

The leaderships were built on a structure of occasional terrortorial squabbles with neighbors to enforce the insularity of their countries and strengthen their rule. The self-esteem of the Warrior-Kings and Dashing Archdukes were defined in terms of bravery in battle, and if a generation passed without a good war or two to impress their valor onto the poplace, they'd risk being discarded by a society that no longer valued them.

And that's what was happening as technology started to accelerate 150 years ago. Population density, transportation, and firearms had all advanced to the point where it could no longer be denied that a major battle was a horrible, disgusting affair that reflected poorly on all involved- skill and prowess were meaningless in the raw carnage of 10,000 opposing riflemen tearing each other to pieces through a ruined city.

It is this increasing vileness and blatant cruelty that the Geneva Convention was passed to address. (In 1864 btw- 1899 was an extension). You may think that this was a good thing- that it eased the suffering of poor soliders. And prehaps it did. But by making war more tolerable, you extend the time that it will be tolerated. That is, it is because of "Rules of War" like the Geneva Convention that it was possible for 1st world nations to wage war with frequency up until 1950.

Otherwise, the prospect of going into battle would've been that much less appealing, and even successful agressors would suffer so much in international opinion (such as Iraq suffers today) that violence would be less common.

By ameliorating the damage of war, the Geneva Protocol encouraged the fighting of them.

The IRC's noble efforts gave us another century of nationalistic bloodshed, encouraged by heads-of-state whose position as Commanders-In-Chief was legitimized by the realistic threat of war.

Lets finish up by going back to that link you provided, and reading between the lines. The only text of substance amoung the treaty boilerplate is

"abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body"

Now, why would any army willingly surrender the use of a weapon in combat? It can't be because the weapon is ineffective; otherwise they wouldn't want it anyway. So there must be some situations when a flattenable bullet is tactically superior to a hard one.

(For example, expending more effort from the medics who have to fish out several fragments from a wound, instead of removing a whole round. This reduces enemy mobility by slowing their evacuations.)

(I shall use you as if you were a military leader of a Geneva Signatory)

So if this weapon is effective, then by willingly forgoing it you are reducing your troop's performance. They won't fight as well, and more of them will die. More of your own people will die! in exchange for the comfort of a enemy group who you've already declared is to be shot on sight.

The whole point of war should be that it is the final extreme- the breakdown of all considerate communication and diplomatic recourse. "All's fair!" But yet, even in war, to uphold a promise written hundreds of miles away, the leadership sent their own young men to death. Your own gentlemanly honor, over the lives of the little people. The Geneva Signatories applied Law even to War- conveying upon War the status of an acceptable activity.

The effect of the bullet-regulation was a cosmetic one. If it applied to both sides, then it fairly degraded both's performance and the victor was the same- so why even bother? Because it made war "cleaner". Less messy. Not so many corpses lying splattered about. More clean kills, fewer crippled survivors. A genteel bandaid covering a festering fatal wound. More proud men marching home in the avenues, fewer being dragged in ambulances. A way to keep on with the parades and speeches and memorial ceremonies twice per year, but not needing to work all year round feeding a disillusioned ghost whose body survived where his soul died.

War is horrible. No one can change that, and if humanitarianism hides that then it is lying to conceal a crime.
</RANT>

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?

A gentleman's agreement between the respective military-industrial-complexes, really.

Why would any industrial interest *limit* the usage of new, advanced -- read EXPENSIVE -- weapons system? This is akin to Intel lobbying for a law limiting processors to 1 GHz.

Someone on /. always screws up the Geneva Convention angle whenever a military laser story hits the frontpage, though I admit this is a new way to do it...the first Geneva Protocol on limiting weaponry was passed in 1899. I doubt that "military-industrial complexes" even existed then.

You're right, it's a "legal" bonus. The International Red Cross has an excellent FAQ page on blinding laser weapons.
The problem with the systems under development is that they don't discriminate between human-operated sensors and machine operated sensors. One system, I believe called Pathfinder, is vehicle mounted and uses a search sensor like the AN/PXX TLOS to monitor the battlefield for the "glint" or reflection produced by sensor lenses, like a target designator or pair of binoculars. It then zaps the sensor with a visible or IR laser pulse. Of course, whether someone is looking through the sensor at that moment is not the Pathfinder's problem. So this "legal" use of lasers ends up blinding people anyway. Even a target designator when viewed through ordinary binoculars can blind, like looking at the sun through an unshielded telescope-- in response to this, during the gulf war the U.S. issued Ballistic/Laser Protective Spectacles and M22 Laser Protective Binoculars. One of the issues with these protection measures is that they only work with a few common wavelengths of laser. I have no doubt that the U.S. will develop defensive measures against wavelength-agile threats, but I still have a problem with the use of blinding energy weapons in combat because let's face it, sight is the most important sense. Unfortunately, our friendly dept. of defense doesn't view the eyesight of Iraqi conscript soldiers with much sympathy. *sigh*.

As long as it is meant to blow things up it is perfectly legal, even if it does fry some eyeballs in the process.

...under the Geneva convention its against the rules to build a weapon that can only maim or mutilate somebody...

Not necessarily. The Geneva Conventions actually require that soldiers use full metal jacket rounds in their personal weapons because they tend to punch small, neat holes in people. This increases the probability of the victim only being wounded as compared to someone struck by a hollow-point round, which type tends to make much larger, messier holes.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c412567 39003e636d/f1f1fb8410212aebc125641e0036317c?OpenDo cument

In fact, the Geneva Conventions on weapons are intended to eliminate the use of certain variants of weapons that are extremely likely to be fatal in favor of variants that are more likely to wound. The distaste for lasers which only blind comes from the permanance of the injury; a person can recover more or less fully from getting shot by an FMJ round, but there's no way to give a person their sight back. The International Red Cross has a lot of documentation on this:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57KJ 3E!Open#listanchor1

...under the Geneva convention its against the rules to build a weapon that can only maim or mutilate somebody...

Not necessarily. The Geneva Conventions actually require that soldiers use full metal jacket rounds in their personal weapons because they tend to punch small, neat holes in people. This increases the probability of the victim only being wounded as compared to someone struck by a hollow-point round, which type tends to make much larger, messier holes.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c412567 39003e636d/f1f1fb8410212aebc125641e0036317c?OpenDo cument

In fact, the Geneva Conventions on weapons are intended to eliminate the use of certain variants of weapons that are extremely likely to be fatal in favor of variants that are more likely to wound. The distaste for lasers which only blind comes from the permanance of the injury; a person can recover more or less fully from getting shot by an FMJ round, but there's no way to give a person their sight back. The International Red Cross has a lot of documentation on this:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57KJ 3E!Open#listanchor1

pth

The Geneva Convention is indeed designed to make war hard.

That is incorrect. I'm going to assume that the International Committee of the Red Cross knows a little bit more about the matter than you do, and they give a quite different set of reasons than you do. But don't take my word for it; do some reading of your own at their web site and draw your own conclusions.

IIRC, use of lasers to kill/wound/maim/blind soldiers is illegal under international law.

You're probably thinking of Protocol IV to the 1980 additions to the Geneva Convention (text at ICRC). As near as I can tell, it only applies to weapons designed to blind people. That's right, folks. You can blow people apart with laser weapons, according to international law, but you can't blind them. It is indeed a strange world we live in.

Mines

Imagine taking over a land that has been at war or in hostile hands for the last 30 years, where all the forces involved strew millions of mines with no recovery plan or deactivation capabilities.

If the US really plans invading this god-forsaken place on groud, or furthermore, setting up a legitimate government, then they better have an extensive mine-clearing program.

Mines are very hard to deal with once they are planted. I should know, that was part of my job description when I did my stint in the good ol' US army (MOS 12B). Often, once-cleared areas will be "reset" when a large rainstorm or monsoon repositions the land.

Makes me wonder what this whole operation is going to result in...

Ah, Las Vegas... home to every convention known to man -- except, apparently, for the Geneva Convention.