Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Luke-fu





Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9
Location: York

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 pm    Post subject: Do we need a new Geneva convention? Reply with quote

People cling to the Geneva convention as if it were holy writ. However, I wonder how many would hold their beliefs if they actually read the convention itself. They are largely designed for uniformed soldiers under governmental control.

When people insist we treat prisoners in our conflicts according to the tenants of the conventions, they do not realise that these prisoners would often be executed as war criminals.

Here's a quote from the convention:

<i>Protocol 2, Article 13, Section 2
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.</i>

If we were to absolve them of the war crimes committed, the Geneva convention would allow prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict, at which time they would be released unconditionally. Both of these are questionable inmodern conflicts.

These days, wars are rarely fought across borders by soldiers. We cannot negotitate with the Taliban, or even hold their leaders to account for individual war crimes, since they operate in independent cells. We need to expand the Geneva conventions to account for modern wars, or it is going to be useless.

Thoughts and debate are welcome.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geneva convention is fine, it just does not, and should not, be applied to an enemy in a guerrilla conflict. Also, if both sides do not sign on, I do not see how it can apply to either.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly. Guerilla warfare defies convention (literally and figuratively) so what can be done? The US solution isn't perfect but at least it takes them out of the battle theatre.

-Mac
Luke-fu





Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 18
Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9Reputation: 5.9
Location: York

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The challenge with guerilla warfare is treatment of prisoners. When a Canadian soldier captures a Taliban soldier and hands them to the Afghan government, which human rights rules do you use in their treatment?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Luke-fu wrote:
The challenge with guerilla warfare is treatment of prisoners. When a Canadian soldier captures a Taliban soldier and hands them to the Afghan government, which human rights rules do you use in their treatment?

The Geneva Conventions protect soldiers and non-combatants from mistreatment but make no mention of guerrillas, perhaps the solution is to simply kill any guerrillas found. It might sound extreme but it would certainly be effective.

-Mac
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it worked in the phillipines and against the boers, but something tells me if we started killing everyone we wanted the public support would dry up.

I feel strongly that we should treat prisoners we take in a humane manner, we are better than them, if we killed them we would be on their level.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the things that is wrong with the Geneva Convention today is Liberals and Socialist use it as a excuse......a Excuse that no more terror attacks be planned in the future dispite the fact Canada and USA are at war.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
it worked in the phillipines and against the boers, but something tells me if we started killing everyone we wanted the public support would dry up.

I feel strongly that we should treat prisoners we take in a humane manner, we are better than them, if we killed them we would be on their level.

No, we would not be on their level until we forced them to convert to Christianity, filmed it, and maybe got someone's 12 year old son to behead people with a dull rusty sword, and stuff like that. A quick execution would be very humane compared to the weeks or months of torture that it would take.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
FascistLibertarian wrote:
it worked in the phillipines and against the boers, but something tells me if we started killing everyone we wanted the public support would dry up.

I feel strongly that we should treat prisoners we take in a humane manner, we are better than them, if we killed them we would be on their level.

No, we would not be on their level until we forced them to convert to Christianity, filmed it, and maybe got someone's 12 year old son to behead people with a dull rusty sword, and stuff like that. A quick execution would be very humane compared to the weeks or months of torture that it would take.



Suffice to say that Al-Qaeda and the terrorists have followers numbering in the thousands who are willing to die for their sick perverted cause. But for us It seems Status Quo and Indulgence is more important then a War for freedom.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's true that very few people have more than a passing familiarity with the GC. I'm no expert, but I do know that guerilla fighters are dealt with in the convention, though they are not named as such.

Essentially, the convention requires that all sides of a conflict participate in uniform, seperate their operations from areas of civilian population, and avoid targeting civilians. Soliders and militaries acting in this manner are accorded the rights and privileges granted under the convention. Un-uniformed combatans are not. The GC is very clear on that.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunatly FF Canuck people on the left as well as the far-left twist the facts so they could scapegoat the Armed Forces 24/7.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If anyone is curious, here's a link: Geneva Conventions

-Mac
Sheldon Moore





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 36
Reputation: 12
Location: Northern British Columbia

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If everyone remembers the chap executed during the fall of Saigon that was captured on film. Apparantly the man was a NVA officer in cilvian clothes caught by security and summery executed as ALLOWED by the GC as a saboteur or spy. The Lefties don't care what they destroy to achieve their socialist paradises or foolish ideology. I believe any Taliban fighters caught in civilian clothing should be shot or hung as soon as possible i.e after interogation if required. This is a war not a social tea.
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really no country follows the convention. Everyone tries to look like the follow all the rules but when it comes down to it things like toruture, execution or civilian targeting are still used commonly in war.
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

War is war. It can only be fought as morally as it's combatants, regardless of conventions or treaties. Contrast the treatment of prisoners, combatants, and civilians in the hands of the US to the muslim fighters in Iraq, or Palestinian actions versus Israeli, and not much more need be said.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Do we need a new Geneva convention?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB