Should the Geneva Conventions Apply to This War?

[loseyourname]

I'm not saying they shouldn't, but the purpose of upholding the conventions, for any nation, is to ensure that their own people receive the same humane treatment they are affording their enemy. Now, not only is the US not fighting a nation that can be held accountable for violating the conventions, but it is clear that this particular enemy is not too concerned about upholding them. Kidnapping and beheading civilians, booby-trapping dead bodies, faking death, and hiding out in religious buildings are all forbidden. Is it fair to scrutinize the US for perceived violations of a treaty that its enemy is not upholding?

 

[Smurf]

The first geneva convention was laregly disgarded because it was unconventional for most of the nations in the world... So is this one, but historians tend to wait a few decades before pointing out the obvious.

Since the Geneva Convention is mostly about civilians, there is no reason why anyone who agrees to it should not uphold it in any war any where any time,
furthermore every soldier in the enemy's forces are not responsible for suffering of your own troops at the hands of the enemy if they, the enemy, does not uphold the convention, therefor it is illogical and unethical to follow an 'eye for an eye' policy. Especially if these violations are covered up from the regular soldiers and civilians of the enemy nation. Such was the case in Germany in WW2 and possibly to several of these so-called 'Terrorists'.

 

[PerennialII]

Smurf said it very much to my liking about the ethical aspects of this "conflict", you just don't turn them on/off. What I find most important is that all people involved in the war belong to something, whether that be the Geneva conventions or the justice system, but just as long as noboby is declated to be an outsider in this respect because of some convenient reason the other side sees.

 

[Hurkyl]

OTOH, consider that the design of the Geneva convention protects civilians by putting restrictions on both the attacking and defending forces. When the defenders are fully compliant, the attackers shouldn't have any reason to carry out actions that would endanger civilians. In turn, the attackers are prohibited from endangering civilians.

They were designed to protect civilians by rendering them irrelevant to armed conflict, not by requiring the attacking force to cripple itself.

 

[jcsd]

There are four Geneva conventions*, only the fourth Geneva conventions is about the protection of civilians (the others are about the sick and the wounded on land, the sick and the wounded at sea and the treatment of prisoners of war).

The Geneva Conventions provide and were inteneded to provide a bare minimum standard in war and none of their provisons are unreasonabele therefore tre is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not adhering to them.

*Actually I believe there are quite a number of international treaties bearing the moniker 'Geneva Convention', but when we talk about the Geneva Copnventions it is usually these for treaties as violatingf them constitues a war crime.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it fair to scrutinize the US for perceived violations of a treaty that its enemy is not upholding?

I don't know if "fair" really applies, but it is certainly right to hold the US to such high standards. If nothing else, it puts the barbarism of our enemy in high contrast. And politically, we need the moral high ground.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't know if "fair" really applies, but it is certainly right to hold the US to such high standards. If nothing else, it puts the barbarism of our enemy in high contrast. And politically, we need the moral high ground.

Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.

 

[jcsd]

The Geneva conventions should be adhered to primarily because it is the right thing to do any other reason is secondary.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.

That's true to a point, but it doesn't alleviate our moral responsibility. Opinions of the general public are often easily swayed/manipulated. But history will judge fairly.

 

[gravenewworld]

LOL rules for war? That is an oxymoron. The Geneva conventions are a joke, nobody follows rules in war, not even American soldiers.

 

[Smurf]

I wouldn't say its an oxymoron, an oxymoron has to cancel itself out, the geneva convention is just ignored, not self destructive.

 

[Smurf]

Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.

Maybe because your as bad as your enemies, despite having the only superpower behind you? And its more than 40% of your own country.

 

[loseyourname]

Maybe because your as bad as your enemies, despite having the only superpower behind you? And its more than 40% of your own country.

I'm pretty sure polling indicated that 54% fully support the war, and only 40% are fully against it. Then again, we all know how reliable those polls can be. But if you think you've got some insider information regarding US opinion, go ahead.

I'd really like to know how we are as bad as our enemies. Let's again recount violation of international laws committed by each side:

US:

1. Forced prisoners in Abu Ghraib to strip naked.
2. Might have intentionally killed wounded insurgents without just cause.

Insurgents:

1. Fake death.
2. Booby trap corpses.
3. Disguise themselves as civilians and hide out in civilian buildings.
4. Fight in religious institutions.
5. Intentionally kidnap and murder civilians.
6. Torture and murder POW's.
7. Murder aid workers.

Please tell me how an unbiased person could possibly say that the US is just as bad as its enemies?

 

[Smurf]

Please tell me how an unbiased person could possibly say that the US is just as bad as its enemies?

By not leaving out all the crimes of the other party. Opposite of what you just did.

On another note your very system of government has acquired a reputation for this kind of thing in all of its wars so in general people arn't going to believe you're going to be any better than you were last time. But i think it's accually worse that it was in even the first Iraq war

 

[loseyourname]

By not leaving out all the crimes of the other party. Opposite of what you just did.

Then tell me, Smurf, what other provisions of the conventions do you think the US has violated?

 

[PerennialII]

US:
1. Forced prisoners in Abu Ghraib to strip naked.
2. Might have intentionally killed wounded insurgents without just cause.

You might want to add a huge civilian body count for starters (and a couple of other "minor" issues affecting what is going over there) ... but what the civilian population is going through in the "modern liberation effort" of the US is staggering enough.

 

[loseyourname]

You might want to add a huge civilian body count for starters (and a couple of other "minor" issues affecting what is going over there) ... but what the civilian population is going through in the "modern liberation effort" of the US is staggering enough.

I would have included that, but it can be equally attributed to an enemy that disguises itself as civilian and fights in civilian areas. In fact, that is the very reason these practices are forbidden by the conventions - because they endanger civilians.

 

[Smurf]

Just in Iraq? Or just since ww2? Cause if its since ww2 - then every single bloody one.

But just in iraq the list is a little shorter:
1. Intentionally killed wounded/unarmed insurgents
2. Intentionally killed unarmed suspected insurgents.
3. Intentional killing, or really just disregard thereof, civilians.
4. Hiding POWs from the red cross
5. Bombing red cross base (possible accident?)
6. Torturing Prisoners (there are worse things than sharp hooks and curved blades - and CIA knows all of them)
7. Attempting to terrify civilians into refusing to shelter insurgents.
8. Dumping large amounts of depleted uranium into Bhagdad causing cancer and severly polluting the area.

Thats just off the top of my head.
BAN WMD, NO MORE CNN!

 

[PerennialII]

I would have included that, but it can be equally attributed to an enemy that disguises itself as civilian and fights in civilian areas. In fact, that is the very reason these practices are forbidden by the conventions - because they endanger civilians.

I can appreciate your reasoning, but the large civilian body count ( ~10k to 100k depending on whom you want to believe) implies that this is not the "smart" warfare it is supposed to, civilians still way too often get caught in the way of the massive US warmachine. How you wish to classify with respect to the thread topic is surely somewhat dubious, but in the list of what are causing the problems in the area & what are the greatest violations it gets the first place just because of its impact.

 

[Hurkyl]

I can appreciate your reasoning, but the large civilian body count ( ~10k to 100k depending on whom you want to believe)

Do you find this large because you've compared it against an objective standard, or simply because you've been told it's large?

 

[russ_watters]

But just in iraq the list is a little shorter:
1. Intentionally killed wounded/unarmed insurgents
2. Intentionally killed unarmed suspected insurgents.
3. Intentional killing, or really just disregard thereof, civilians.
4. Hiding POWs from the red cross
5. Bombing red cross base (possible accident?)
6. Torturing Prisoners (there are worse things than sharp hooks and curved blades - and CIA knows all of them)
7. Attempting to terrify civilians into refusing to shelter insurgents.
8. Dumping large amounts of depleted uranium into Bhagdad causing cancer and severly polluting the area.

Thats just off the top of my head.
BAN WMD, NO MORE CNN!

Even if everything on that list is true, and I won't concede that they all are true/violations, it still does not compare to what the "insurgents" are doing.

I can appreciate your reasoning, but the large civilian body count ( ~10k to 100k depending on whom you want to believe) implies that this is not the "smart" warfare it is supposed to, civilians still way too often get caught in the way of the massive US warmachine.

"way too often" is pretty vague, so let's just lay it right out there: the civilian:military body count ratio in this war is the lowest in any urban war, ever. Yes, let's compare it to WWII:

Germany 3.2m military, 3.8m civilian.

http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

If you really want to see some awful numbers, look at the numbers for the countries Germany invaded...

 

[BobG]

Russ's numbers are so big they're hard to comprehend.

The per day numbers might be easier to understand.

The US had around 370 dead/day, virtually all military.
The Germans lost about 3400/day; over 1800 civilians killed per day (that's about 670,000 per year)
The Soviets lost about 15,000/day; over 5000 civilians per day (about 2 million civilians per year). Add the result of Stalin's purges to that and you start to wonder how they still had anyone left by the end of the war.

War is always ugly (that's why you should make sure your reason for getting into one is airtight). But, modern warfare isn't nearly as deadly for civilians as it was in the old days.

Edit: You want to read some depressing material - something to make even your dreariest days seem good - read about Poland and Russia during the WWII, especially the siege of Leningrad (it's not even so much how they managed to survive the siege, it's more like why would anyone want to).

 

[franznietzsche]

Sure, we should have the moral high ground, but it's becoming increasingly clear that, in the eyes of a large portion of the world, we don't have it. Even 40% of our own countrymen don't seem to think we have it, and that's becoming incredibly difficult for me to understand, given the blatant disregard for all life and liberty, whether it be male, female, child, civilian or military, arab or otherwise, shown by our enemies.

Its ok for them to do it, Bush didn't tell them too.

Oh wait...I'm not liberal. Nevermind, disregard that.

 

[PerennialII]

Do you find this large because you've compared it against an objective standard, or simply because you've been told it's large?

I really don't need anyone telling me its large. Its large because it seems that every time a major country (like US or Russia etc.) initiates a conflict for whatever reason, the first thing they promise is that "this is something different, we're going to do a surgical strike and keep civilians out of the way and it'll be over in a couple of weeks" ... and what follows are 10ks of civilian deaths etc. Does not quite fit the picture we're been given. Other threads I believe have tried doing comparisons to previous conflicts (the ratio of civilian deaths / combatant losses) if you're looking for such an answer.

"way too often" is pretty vague, so let's just lay it right out there: the civilian:military body count ratio in this war is the lowest in any urban war, ever. Yes, let's compare it to WWII:

Germany 3.2m military, 3.8m civilian.

http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

If you really want to see some awful numbers, look at the numbers for the countries Germany invaded...

So you're telling me I should judge this war by the same standards as WW2, I don't want to see the connection between this conflict and WW2, then I would have to consider the participants working by the same standards as they did back then (==nonexistant, slaying the civilian population is a good way of degrading the enemies morale & a method of revenge for own casualties etc.) ... does not quite fit in with the concept of liberating an oppressed country.

 

[russ_watters]

I really don't need anyone telling me its large. Its large because it seems...

"...it seeems..." is not an objective criterea. I guess I could end the conversation by saying it seems small to me - there'd be nothing more to discuss. But...

...this is something different...

So you're telling me I should judge this war by the same standards as WW2...

Don't you see you're arguing against yourself? Yes, this is different from WWII. That's the whole point of the comparison - it illustrates how far we really have come.

Other threads I believe have tried doing comparisons to previous conflicts (the ratio of civilian deaths / combatant losses) if you're looking for such an answer.

If you have numbers you think are a better comparison, please post them.

 

[Hurkyl]

I really don't need anyone telling me its large. Its large because it seems that every time a major country (like US or Russia etc.) initiates a conflict for whatever reason, the first thing they promise is that "this is something different, we're going to do a surgical strike and keep civilians out of the way and it'll be over in a couple of weeks" ... and what follows are 10ks of civilian deaths etc. Does not quite fit the picture we're been given.

But nowhere in this paragraph have you given any reason to think 10k is large...

 

[wasteofo2]

So uh... Russ...

You believe we should follow the geneva convention.

Yet think 10-100k dead civilians isn't necessarily a bad thing, and require convincing that it's excessive dead civilians? Did you think the 3,000 civilians that died on 9/11 was a bad thing, that it was too many innocent people being killed? If you did, I don't see how you can be so uncaring about the 10-100k innocent Iraqi's that have been killed.

 

[Smurf]

I thought it was only about 1,300 that died at the WTC.

 

[PerennialII]

"...it seeems..." is not an objective criterea. I guess I could end the conversation by saying it seems small to me - there'd be nothing more to discuss. But...

Yeah, its not and I certainly will not make it an objective criteria ... for someone its small, for others any number of "collateral" is too large. What would I consider acceptable ... not really a number, but if I could believe the US is doing all that it can to prevent civilian casualties. Currently, I'm seeing the campaign been executed in a quite trigger happy sense.

Don't you see you're arguing against yourself? Yes, this is different from WWII. That's the whole point of the comparison - it illustrates how far we really have come.

The point I was making is that if you have to get your references and illustrate your case by comparing to WW2, then to me that already presents that the body count is too high. WW2 should not have anything in common with the Iraqi campaign, if US were to go to Iraq using methods & mentality that would enable the conflict to be compared to WW2 the whole war would be a one big crime (which it by many other standards appears to be). As you in all likelihood know, in WW2 it was "just ok" to bombard civilian targets and do whatever it takes to win the war ... which resulted to many actions taken against "total" war to make sure it would never happen again, one of these actions were the Geneva conventions.

 

[wasteofo2]

I thought it was only about 1,300 that died at the WTC.

Nope, it's definitely around 3,000.

[ignore]
God, f*** Osama Bin Laden
And f*** Reagan for training him
And f*** Bush for not catching him
[/ignore]

 

[kat]

There are four Geneva conventions*, only the fourth Geneva conventions is about the protection of civilians (the others are about the sick and the wounded on land, the sick and the wounded at sea and the treatment of prisoners of war).

The Geneva Conventions provide and were inteneded to provide a bare minimum standard in war and none of their provisons are unreasonabele therefore tre is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not adhering to them.

*Actually I believe there are quite a number of international treaties bearing the moniker 'Geneva Convention', but when we talk about the Geneva Copnventions it is usually these for treaties as violatingf them constitues a war crime.

Just FYI, the United States did not ratify all of the Geneva conventions, specificly the protocals of 1977.

 

[jcsd]

Just FYI, the United States did not ratify all of the Geneva conventions, specificly the protocals of 1977.

Yes it did, it ratified all four Geneva conventions.

 

[Hurkyl]

not really a number, but if I could believe the US is doing all that it can to prevent civilian casualties. Currently, I'm seeing the campaign been executed in a quite trigger happy sense.

And that is based upon what?

If you say the number of civilian casualties, then you've got yourself stuck in a circle -- you believe the number of civilian casualties is large because the US is "trigger happy", and you believe the US is "trigger happy" because of the number of civilian casualties.


But, I think you're beginning to see that the body count is more or less irrelevant for the analysis of this war -- the ends don't condemn the means, and even if they did, there isn't an objective standard to which the ends can be evaluated.


So the question is, why do you think the US is being "trigger happy"?

 

[kat]

Yes it did, it ratified all four Geneva conventions.

Oh no no... The additional protocals of 1977 were signed by Carter, but when it came time to ratify them...during Reagans administration...the United States declined.

The additional protocals of 1997 can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079?OpenDocument

I guarantee you that Bush is thanking his lucky stars we did not ratify.

 

[Smurf]

If that's so, then this is even more disturbing now since it means the US isn't just slipping up, it isn't even trying.