Fourth Geneva Convention
#1
Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:58
It's one that the United States has exploited ever since.
#2
Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:25
However, probably the best loophole that I know of is the level of enforcement. The convention is very, very specifically worded as to how it enforces things, and on whom it enforces them. The US, when invading Afghanistan, for example, labelled the Taliban as supporters of terrorists, not as soldiers. The Geneva Convention does not protect supporters of terrorists - they fall in-between the two groups the Geneva Convention is built to protect, which is theoretically everyone, but in reality, it's civilians and soldiers. Supporters of Terrorists is neither.
EDIT: http://www.youtube.c...J488SRU#t=0m27s
Edited by AjPod, 16 June 2010 - 10:42.
#3
Posted 16 June 2010 - 16:13
Here's another clue.
This loophole exists because of certain actions undertaken by the United States and Great Britain during the Second World War.
Edited by AllStarZ, 16 June 2010 - 16:15.
#4
Posted 16 June 2010 - 16:30
The Marshall Aid?
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#5
Posted 16 June 2010 - 16:38
You know, I'm still not entirely sure. Is it something regarding combatant/non-combatant status and thus treatment as a POW? That remains, imo, the largest loophole in the Convention that I am aware of.
Squig, the Marshall Aid was an economic stimulus package after the end of WWII, it's not something I'd have thought of as a loophole, nor relevant to the modern day.
Edited by AjPod, 16 June 2010 - 16:41.
#6
Posted 16 June 2010 - 17:17
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#8
Posted 16 June 2010 - 17:50
The Germans did it, and so did the Japanese to a lesser extent.
#9
Posted 16 June 2010 - 18:01
No wait!
Experiments upon humans? You mean they're experimenting on the terrorists?
Damn!
Or is it just good ol' torture?
Edited by SquigDR, 16 June 2010 - 18:02.
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#10
Posted 16 June 2010 - 19:05
The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm
#11
Posted 16 June 2010 - 19:20
#12
Posted 16 June 2010 - 19:38
Quote
There's also that thing about the rules not applying if the person in question is suspected to have partaken in Sabotage or Espionage.
Edited by Golan, 16 June 2010 - 19:56.
#13
Posted 16 June 2010 - 19:57
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#14
Posted 16 June 2010 - 23:58
Quote
It's not the thing itself, but it certainly facilitates it. Especially since it's not expressly prohibited.
Edited by AllStarZ, 16 June 2010 - 23:59.
#15
Posted 17 June 2010 - 07:01
#16
Posted 17 June 2010 - 12:06
But is it that ruling is you feel threatened you can shoot at an object?
I question the general assumption that i am inherently deficient in the area of grammar and sentence structure
#17
Posted 17 June 2010 - 15:00
What I'm referring to is aerial bombing.
#18
Posted 17 June 2010 - 16:15
#19
Posted 17 June 2010 - 16:16
Like when they bombed the everliving hell out of Dresden?
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#20
Posted 17 June 2010 - 19:14
Golan, on 17 Jun 2010, 12:15, said:
What's special is using them to bomb cities "for military purposes".
Many of the war's greatest atrocities were perpetrated through aerial bombing, and yet it hasn't been outlawed.
Edited by AllStarZ, 17 June 2010 - 19:17.
#21
Posted 17 June 2010 - 19:36
Quote
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov
#22
Posted 17 June 2010 - 21:51
In current warfare, this article does what it needs to do - this so-called loophole was specifically adopted because of protestation by the Allies after the war, iirc, as making any bombing illegal would result in modern warfare being rendered absolutely useless. In modern warfare, I don't believe you'll find any examples of what happened at Dresden, which, while claimed to have been of strategic value to the Allies, was at the end of the day, just a demolition. Currently, bombs are extremely precise, and take out targets of military importance. Should they cause collateral damage, that comes under the heading of absolutely necessary - if you are bombing a bunker occupied by Taliban forces, and your bomb happens to blow up the house next to the bunker, you are protected from prosecution by the Geneva Convention. The point of this Convention is as much to protect attackers from prosecution for fulfilling objectives, as it is to prevent soldiers/civilians from being unlawfully injured/humiliated etc. Warfare is a bitch, and it's the last resort to anything, this we know and all agree on. But you would have an extremely difficult time presenting an argument that shows the military indiscriminately destroying property, as it doesn't happen. Every mission sent out is sent out to fulfil an objective, as deemed 'necessary by military operations'. The Geneva Convention is there to protect both sides in this scenario - but you can't say that people are using loopholes when they bomb strategic positions and hit other targets in the process - the Convention was specifically designed that way, and not simply due to biased representatives when forming the Convention.
#23
Posted 17 June 2010 - 22:57
#24
Posted 18 June 2010 - 15:08
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users