Geneva Convention Breached In Iraq?

Several times throughout the Iraq war, charges against the U.S. have been levied that
coalition forces are repeatedly violating the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention are established laws to limit the barbarism in war, and to curtail atrocites and have fair treatment of POW's.

A copy of the Geneva Convention and its laws can be read at:

193.194.138.190...
.............................................................................................................................................

Some examples of the violations against the Geneva Convention that are alledged against
U.S. forces are as follows..

1. Allowing the country to be looted, and not maintaining the social order in order to stablize the region.

2. Allowing captured POW's to be tortured or sent to other nation-states, such as Pakistan, to be interogated through cruel and unsual means.

3. Degrading or humiliating treatment, such as allowing prisoners to be filmed or shown on television being subjegated.

4. Allowing the war to be conducted by mercenaries, (i.e.- hired soldiers not in the service of the U.S. government, but private companies) of which the U.S. puportedly
has 10,000 of, slightly more than British soldiers.

Some breaches of the Geneva Convention done by Iraqi soldiers are:

1. Interviewing POW's on television.

2. Using human shields/hostages




How can U.S. soliders be protected in the field if established standards of law are not upheld in the theatre of operations? Should the U.S. abide by the Geneva Conventions or is it outdated to combat terrorism? As a leader in the world for democracy, can the U.S. afford not to uphold the strongest standard of human rights during combat? Why or why not?



[Edited on 10-12-2003 by darkwraith]

[Edited on 10-12-2003 by darkwraith]

The US government is only concerned with other government's compliance of Geneva Convention.

Who can hold the US liable? What can they do?
The only ones that can do anything are American public, but they do not, as a whole, believe anything is wrong.

Or worse, believe it's justified because their just terrorist

Actually, the US isn't bound by every article of the Geneva Convention. There have been five such conventions (1887, 1907, 1929 - the one that detailed treatment of POWs, 1949 - which revised the previous one, and 1977). The US has signed each of these , but has only ratified the first four, not the one in 1977. Technically, the US isn't bound by the 77 convention, but we still expect other nations to abide by it.

And besides, whenever we want to circumvent international law we can just make up some word like "enemy combatant" - which has no legal meaning and use it to justify whatever crazy crap we want.

no war follows the Geneva Convention exactly

Originally posted by darkwraith
Several times throughout the Iraq war, charges against the U.S. have been levied that
coalition forces are repeatedly violating the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention are established laws to limit the barbarism in war, and to curtail atrocites and have fair treatment of POW's.

A copy of the Geneva Convention and its laws can be read at:

193.194.138.190...
.............................................................................................................................................

Some examples of the violations against the Geneva Convention that are alledged against
U.S. forces are as follows..

1. Allowing the country to be looted, and not maintaining the social order in order to stablize the region. I think this is almost impossible to do 100%. Its correct in terms of moral issues, it is incorrect in terms of ability to implement. Just seems like a small part of what needs to be done.

2. Allowing captured POW's to be tortured or sent to other nation-states, such as Pakistan, to be interogated through cruel and unsual means.Like someone stated, "illegal combatent" applies here in which these are not military forces. No uniforms, no direct orders from someone above them. Most carrie out missions on their own conscience.

3. Degrading or humiliating treatment, such as allowing prisoners to be filmed or shown on television being subjegated.This is not happening directly by the country for propaganda purposes. This is done by independant media sources that the military has no control of.

4. Allowing the war to be conducted by mercenaries, (i.e.- hired soldiers not in the service of the U.S. government, but private companies) of which the U.S. puportedly
has 10,000 of, slightly more than British soldiers.
Are you referring to Kurds, or dometically born citizens revolting against their own governments. I think you need to define what you mean here. Kurds ahve every right to enter an alliance with a foriegn force because they are not mercenaries, instead they are liberators of their own country. Entering an alliance with a foreign force also allows us to help supply the force with needs that would be given to any one of our alliances. Such as money to support operations.

Some breaches of the Geneva Convention done by Iraqi soldiers are:

1. Interviewing POW's on television.
Obviously battered and uniformed soldiers.

2. Using human shields/hostages
HAHAHAHA, I remeber those peace guys that were gonna stand in Baghdad as human shields. They left ina heartbeat.




How can U.S. soliders be protected in the field if established standards of law are not upheld in the theatre of operations?
Im assuming you mean that enemy combatents arent being unlawful. The only thing you can do is setup a police force and do baically what we are doing. We need to get Iraqi's more involved in the security of their own nation. I think that is really the only way to "Eventually" fight this kind of war.

Should the U.S. abide by the Geneva Conventions or is it outdated to combat terrorism?
Well this all depends....If the enemy force is not abiding by the Conventions then why must we? I think the answer is that America acts as a moral authority on these types of issues and concedes that all actions taken by soldiers meet requirements set forth by the GC. There will always be soldiers who step outside of boundaries that arent exactly represented by the majority.

As a leader in the world for democracy, can the U.S. afford not to uphold the strongest standard of human rights during combat? Why or why not?
War isnt pretty and there is alot that people dont see. The fact of the matter is that America has to uphold to these laws to mantain credibility in the World. If the leader of the free world does not follow laws set forth by a democratic institution than it is basically undermining(sp) what we stand for as a Nation.



[Edited on 10-12-2003 by darkwraith]

[Edited on 10-12-2003 by darkwraith]

[Edited on 11-12-2003 by Dreamz]

I always thought the idea of having rules for war is hilarious.

If I have to defend myself, # rules. As sick and insane what goes on in Iraq with the POWs, it is the initial argument of "THE US shouldn't even #ing be there" then there wouldn't be any of this crazy stuff happening now.