It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sneaky Tactics: US breaks Geneva Convention

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
of course we are better. we do not have people in our country posting beheading videos and hanging bodies from bridges in the name of "God". the best way to do away with the terrorists is to fire bomb their country and burn it to the ground so we can totally rebuild the country from the ground up for us and any other group of people that understand it is not ok to screw with us. it is the best way to having a totally peaceful planet. bombs away...




posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by feklar
of course we are better. we do not have people in our country posting beheading videos and hanging bodies from bridges in the name of "God". the best way to do away with the terrorists is to fire bomb their country and burn it to the ground so we can totally rebuild the country from the ground up for us and any other group of people that understand it is not ok to screw with us. it is the best way to having a totally peaceful planet. bombs away...

Really?
What about the KKK?
We had the IRA and UVF conduct very horrible stuff over here, kneecappings, cementing thier feet and dumping them in the irish sea, rapeings, etc etc etc.

Do you know what we have done over the years to these people and our own?



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Wow, I know you aren't really that sick and demented are you? You sound just like Bin Laden... I heard they are recruiting...I have his phone number, do you need it? We always have conversations about the wierd people like you.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Just seeing this, but bottom line imho...

Q: Did the US violate the Geneva Convention?
A: NO, the Geneva Convention does not apply, because the combatants in Iraq do not meet the criteria for a force protected by the Convention.

Q: Did the US violate any other laws in their actions in Iraq?
A: Yes, several international laws and US laws were broken, and many are already being prosecuted for them.

Now, you can argue that the US is breaking laws, but you can't argue that they are violating the Genever Convention. The Convention applies to recognized forces, not cowards and cut-throats that kidnap and kill elderly women charity workers...



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Q: Did the US violate the Geneva Convention?
A: NO, the Geneva Convention does not apply, because the combatants in Iraq do not meet the criteria for a force protected by the Convention.


What is the US fighting for though?
Its values, it values the geneva convention. Right?
So its betraying what its fighting for, right?



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

as posted by devilwasp
So its betraying what its fighting for, right?


Nope. Simple as that.
You, as with others, can and will continue to spin and twist this as you will, correct?
If the US is in violation, then the UK, among a few other Coalition members, are likewise in violation.

You, or a few others, want to deny that one?



seekerof

[edit on 16-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Nope. Simple as that.

Why not?
They seem to be doing so...unless this is all a big anti war conspiricy!



You, as with others can continue to spin and twist this as you will, correct?

Only playing the game....


If the US is in violation, then the UK, among a few other Coalition members, are likewise in violation.

You, or a few others, want to deny that one?

We are not directly in violation..the UK actually is doing something sneaky, they let the US interogate them with MI5 officers present....



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
that is crazy to compare a couple kneecappings to a beheading video. i do not recall george washington and the other revolutionaries kill their friendly neighbors like the iraqi terrorists are doing. the other must be purged of these animals. we just need to do it in a way so that their land is alright for us to inhabit once they are gone. there is nothing in the geneva convention about destroying killers.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by feklar
that is crazy to compare a couple kneecappings to a beheading video.

You relise people cant walk after that and that was one of thier "nicer" techniques?



i do not recall george washington and the other revolutionaries kill their friendly neighbors like the iraqi terrorists are doing. the other must be purged of these animals. we just need to do it in a way so that their land is alright for us to inhabit once they are gone. there is nothing in the geneva convention about destroying killers.

George washington is not alive today, they are if you want to debate history then say so...
I dont remember iraqi insurgents begining a genocide, I do remember them killing civies in bomb attacks but we have done this before same with many other countries.
You cant call the entire middle east killers because thats what your suggesting.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Gazrok:

Q: Did the US violate the Geneva Convention?
A: NO, the Geneva Convention does not apply, because the combatants in Iraq do not meet the criteria for a force protected by the Convention.


FIRST TWO ARTICLES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


Wrong on one Q&A so far. Both countries do not have to be signatories in order to be responsible for following the Geneva Conventions, and I have no idea where you would get this idea. Were Nazis executed in cold blood because they didn't follow the Geneva Convention? No, they were tried at Nuremberg. In a court of law. Because that's what "the good guys" do. They follow the laws even when it doesn't 100% benefit them to.

By not following the Geneva Convention the US Army is putting its' own soldiers at risk if they are captured.


Q: Did the US violate any other laws in their actions in Iraq?
A: Yes, several international laws and US laws were broken, and many are already being prosecuted for them.


In US courts, even though the crimes were committed overseas. No International Criminal Court or any other impartial court, so that kind of falls flat.


Now, you can argue that the US is breaking laws, but you can't argue that they are violating the Genever Convention. The Convention applies to recognized forces, not cowards and cut-throats that kidnap and kill elderly women charity workers...


Read the Geneva Convention before you propagandize about it. Like Article 4 about the treatment of POWs.

Article 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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.


Is it becoming clear?



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
they are not all killers but who has time to go through a couple billion people and pick out the nice ones. the world is too dangerous so we must take drastic measures. it is also not feasible to locate the couple thousand peaceful people over there because of the money that would cost. it is like taking a world census.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The US attacs on Non-combatants and their treatment of them in all Conflicts Around the World (Not specific to Iraq) have broken the Geneva Convention...

People are sidestepping the question saying A and B are not violations, but review the post because you are missing C and D. Classic evasion in an arguement.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by devilwasp
So its betraying what its fighting for, right?


Nope. Simple as that.
You, as with others, can and will continue to spin and twist this as you will, correct?
If the US is in violation, then the UK, among a few other Coalition members, are likewise in violation.

You, or a few others, want to deny that one?

seekerof

[edit on 16-3-2005 by Seekerof]


I'd be happy to see my government front up and answer any violations of the GC that is levelled at them. And if they are guilty, they should pay the price. Because my loyalty lies with my country, not my government.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

[edit on 17-3-2005 by cargo]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I remember that incedent .... the complaint was made AFTER the EXACT SAME was suggested of US troops by the BBC.

This is how that went... just as the war was starting there was that big rush forward and we got to see pictures of Iraquis with their hands up walking back behind the allied lines. This is when the BBC said that this "could be seen as a breech of a POWs right to privacy and the geneva convention" (something like that) it was a day or so later when Rumsfeld came up with his his "revelation"



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Until the neo-cons started to wriggle out of it (it gets in the way, let's call it 'cute', pay loads of lawyers to pick at it etc) the Geneva Convention was non-negotiable and binding on whoever signed-up.

In WW2 with V2 raining down on London & Antwerp we still followed it. We (UK) even followed it is Sierra Leone when fighting people who cut babies' hands off.

Sophistry and word-play to duck out of a noble attempt to bring some humanity to the brutal and bloody business of war shows how steep America's moral decline has become. You've become no better than the people you're defending yourself against.

RIP America



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   


Originally posted by 00PS
The US attacs on Non-combatants and their treatment of them in all Conflicts Around the World (Not specific to Iraq) have broken the Geneva Convention...


This is just another example of US backed terrorism... Fear and scare tactics is the reason the "Islamic Fundamentalists" hate them... If only the general public in America was educated about the attrocities you commit



Originally posted by CTID56092
Sophistry and word-play to duck out of a noble attempt to bring some humanity to the brutal and bloody business of war shows how steep America's moral decline has become. You've become no better than the people you're defending yourself against.

RIP America


This is more ammunition for my argument; the US public needs an awakening if they are to save themselves and the rest of the world...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
you would call littering by a united states troop in iraq a atrocity. therefore your argument that there are atrocities does not really stand up. what the terrorists are doing to their own people and the united states troops are atrocities. they must be crushed be it conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


The latter (i.e. the said Power, in this case the insurgents), have NOT accepted and applied the provisions thereof, and therefore DO NOT APPLY to the Convention. How hard is this to understand?

And that's just one I saw off the top of my head...

Sorry but enemy forces not identifying themselves as a unit and who kidnap, behead, and shoot innocent civilians diliberately, are NOT covered under the articles of the Geneva convention, and this should be a matter of common sense...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


The latter (i.e. the said Power, in this case the insurgents), have NOT accepted and applied the provisions thereof, and therefore DO NOT APPLY to the Convention. How hard is this to understand?

And that's just one I saw off the top of my head...

Sorry but enemy forces not identifying themselves as a unit and who kidnap, behead, and shoot innocent civilians diliberately, are NOT covered under the articles of the Geneva convention, and this should be a matter of common sense...


GAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRZOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

What about the guys at Gitmo who are political prisoners, not terrorists?

Doesn't that break the Geneva Convention???!?!??!??!?!!!?


ANNNNSSSSSSSSWWWWERRRRRRRR MMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEE



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Now we're off the topic of the original post (i.e. was showing the photos at the Iraqi prison a violation of the Geneva Convention? The answer is no.)

But what about Gitmo? Violation of the Convention?

No, it breaks international law though...but not the Geneva Convention.

I'm not thrilled with many of the alleged actions at Gitmo...and I have no doubt that several prisoners' rights there are being violated. If so, it may be a breaking of one or more international laws or human rights guidelines, but your label of breaking the Geneva Convention is not accurate imho...


[edit on 18-3-2005 by Gazrok]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join