23 replies to this topic

[AllStarZ]

There's a loophole in there. Can you find it? And can you tell me why it exists?

It's one that the United States has exploited ever since.

[Libains]

There's more than one, you'll have to be a little more precise.

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.

[AllStarZ]

Okay.

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.

[SquigPie]

Uhmm...

The Marshall Aid?

[Libains]

Hmmm.

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.

[SquigPie]

Yeah, but it was the only thing I could think of really.

[CodeCat]

A terrorist is essentially a civilian combatant. Perhaps that combination is what makes the whole thing ambiguous.

[AllStarZ]

Let's see...

The Germans did it, and so did the Japanese to a lesser extent.

[SquigPie]

Vegetarianism?

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.

[Chyros]

He probably means a false flag operation or something. I dunno about you guys but I'd rather not keep groping at obscure political references for the heck of it .

[Jok3r]

Gas Attacks? Execution of civilian dissidents? Chemical warfare?

[Golan]

Something we'd never guess because it's totally not obvious or clear? The whole GC is a loophole. Civilized war my ass...

Quote

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. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

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.

[SquigPie]

does sabotage include people who've blown up a tank?

[AllStarZ]

Quote

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.

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.

[Golan]

What, that's it? You can't realistically ban collateral damage in a time where everyone is measuring the power of their pew-pew-toys in equivalents of tons of TNT.

[Major Fuckup]

I hear my bullbar is going into the Geneva's list of no-no's.

But is it that ruling is you feel threatened you can shoot at an object?

[AllStarZ]

*sigh*

What I'm referring to is aerial bombing.

[Golan]

And isn't that quite of a common, not-at-all-special tactic today? What with just about every military having bombers?

[SquigPie]

Oh, that.

Like when they bombed the everliving hell out of Dresden?

[AllStarZ]

Golan, on 17 Jun 2010, 12:15, said:

And isn't that quite of a common, not-at-all-special tactic today? What with just about every military having bombers?

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.

[SquigPie]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble guys, but war can't never be civilized, no amounts of rules and ethics can prevent people from fucking each other up. When war is declared, attrocities are made.

[Libains]

WhatI'll point out is that this ruling was not adopted until 1949 so the bombing of Dresden, and anywhere else in WW2, was strictly legal. Shock and awe campaign may be the best description for that now.

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.

[TehKiller]

Except nowadays it turns out that you aim at a house that is suspected of hiding a Taliban gunmen only to end up leveling 2-3 surrounding houses and the bodies of which none is actually a real militant

[Golan]

That's not using loopholes, that's pure and simple military and publicity stupidity.