(OT) 4th Geneva Convention

[George Z. Bush]

Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from people
who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva Convention,
enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:

"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

[Perry]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from people
>who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva Convention,
>enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
>
>"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
>occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
>the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
>provisions:
>
>(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
>forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
>sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
>treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
>religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
>
>To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
>in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
>(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
>cruel treatment and torture;
>(b) taking of hostages;
>(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
>treatment;
>(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
>judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
>guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
>
>
you left out one important part, not to publish pictures of the
captured. But since Iraq has not signed on to the Geneva accords what
difference does it make, Personally I'm sick in tired of the
anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Perry" > wrote in message
...
>
> you left out one important part, not to publish pictures of the
> captured. But since Iraq has not signed on to the Geneva accords what
> difference does it make,
>

In his opening paragraph the OP stated; "here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention, enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq
subscribed:" So is Iraq a signatory nation or not?

[John Hart]

"Perry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
people
> >who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention,
> >enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
> >
> >"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
> >occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
> >the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> >provisions:
> >
> >(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed
> >forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
> >sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
> >treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race,
colour,
> >religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
> >
> >To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and
> >in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> >(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
> >cruel treatment and torture;
> >(b) taking of hostages;
> >(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading
> >treatment;
> >(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
> >judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
> >guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
> >
> >
> you left out one important part, not to publish pictures of the
> captured. But since Iraq has not signed on to the Geneva accords what
> difference does it make, Personally I'm sick in tired of the
> anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
> raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.

Because the news media is heel-bent on toppling the US, as it has been since
the Korean War.

[[email protected]]

>difference does it make, Personally I'm sick in tired of the
>anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
>raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.

We saw some of that on this newsgroup as well . It was only by a few
individuals though.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
people
> who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention,
> enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
>
> "Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
> occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
> the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> provisions:

Note the "not of an international character" bit...unless the US annexed
Iraq prior to the start of the war, this article would appear to be of
questionable applicability.

You might want to also include Article 4 in your "lesson".

Brooks

>
> (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
> forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
> sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
> treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
> religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
>
> To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
> in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
> cruel treatment and torture;
> (b) taking of hostages;
> (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading
> treatment;
> (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
> judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
> guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
>
>
>

[Lucius Domitius Aurelianus]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from people
>who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva Convention,
>enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
>
>"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
>occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to
>the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
>provisions:
>
>(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
>forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
>sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
>treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
>religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
>
>To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
>in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
>(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
>cruel treatment and torture;
>(b) taking of hostages;
>(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
>treatment;
>(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
>judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
>guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
>
>

Thanks. Saves me a search.




--

It's good to be the King.

[John Harris]

Of course this means that ONLY the United States should observe the rules.
It is OK for the Terrorists (who by the way are not signators to the Geneva
Convention) to demand the one-sided protection of that Treaty while
disallowing it to those they murder, take hostage, torture, etc. Under such
circumstances the Geneva Convention is NOT applicable..only the word of God
as given to Christians is. Islam requires the death of all infidels without
mercy, pity, or second thoughts. It is their Satanic Religion given by the
Angel of the Devil...Mohammed..that has so distorted the minds and thinking
of the Arabs. The Convention
requires BOTH parties to observe the terms. Besides, the war in IRAQ is
only being carried to terrorists...not the law abiding Iraqi people who
loath the terrorists as much as we do.

[George Z. Bush]

"Lucius Domitius Aurelianus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
people
> >who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention,
> >enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
> >
> >"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
> >occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party
to
> >the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> >provisions:
> >
> >(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
> >forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
> >sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances
be
> >treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
> >religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
> >
> >To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
> >in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> >(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
> >cruel treatment and torture;
> >(b) taking of hostages;
> >(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
> >treatment;
> >(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
> >judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
> >guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
> >
> >
>
> Thanks. Saves me a search.

You're welcome.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"John Harris" > wrote in message
...
> Of course this means that ONLY the United States should observe the rules.
> It is OK for the Terrorists (who by the way are not signators to the Geneva
> Convention) to demand the one-sided protection of that Treaty while
> disallowing it to those they murder, take hostage, torture, etc.

Actually, the Convention itself says that those who do not subscribe to the
Convention are3 not entitled to seek protection under it.

>.....Under such circumstances the Geneva Convention is NOT applicable..

Actually, the Convention is applicable to those who subscribed to it. Nowhere
does it say that if one party to the armed conflict or whatever you want to call
it fails to subscribe to the terms of the Convention that the other party is
excused from complying with its terms.

>.....only the word of God as given to Christians is. Islam requires the death
of all
> infidels without mercy, pity, or second thoughts. It is their Satanic
Religion given by the
> Angel of the Devil...Mohammed..that has so distorted the minds and thinking
> of the Arabs.

I'd prefer to leave the word of God out of the discussion, since the Convention
applies to all of its signatories, including even those who worship other Gods
or those who worship none.

> .....The Convention requires BOTH parties to observe the terms. Besides, the
war in IRAQ is
> only being carried to terrorists...not the law abiding Iraqi people who
> loath the terrorists as much as we do.
>
>

[meport]

But WE DID sign the Convention. Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
If you get what you want, what's to stop you
from asking for more?

"Perry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
people
> >who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
Convention,
> >enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
> >
> >"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
> >occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
> >the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> >provisions:
> >
> >(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed
> >forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
> >sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
> >treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race,
colour,
> >religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
> >
> >To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and
> >in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> >(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
> >cruel treatment and torture;
> >(b) taking of hostages;
> >(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading
> >treatment;
> >(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
> >judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
> >guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
> >
> >
> you left out one important part, not to publish pictures of the
> captured. But since Iraq has not signed on to the Geneva accords what
> difference does it make, Personally I'm sick in tired of the
> anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
> raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.

[George Z. Bush]

Some people obviously have a reading comprehension problem. So, saying that we
signed the Convention, as you done, won't be enough for them to be able to put
two and two together and come up with four. You have to specifically point out
that the nation that signed the Convention is bound by its provisions regardless
of what the other nation in the dispute has done. Thus, we are bound by its
provisions and Iraq (which also signed the Convention) is equally bound. The
fact that they may have violated the terms of the Convention, or even that
people fighting independently on their territory may have violated those terms
does NOT give us the right to ignore or otherwise violate them.

Once we sign, we're permanently bound and if we ignore those terms for whatever
reason, we tell the world that our word is no longer our bond and that they no
longer need to believe that we mean whatever we say. That's what we give up
when we break the terms of the Convention.

George Z.

"meport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> But WE DID sign the Convention. Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> --
> If you get what you want, what's to stop you
> from asking for more?
>
> "Perry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:17 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Just to eliminate some of the superfluous chit-chat on the subject from
> people
> > >who obviously haven't looked at it, here is a copy of the 4th Geneva
> Convention,
> > >enacted in August 1949, to which both the U. S. and Iraq subscribed:
> > >
> > >"Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
> > >occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
> Party to
> > >the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
> > >provisions:
> > >
> > >(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
> of armed
> > >forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
> > >sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
> circumstances be
> > >treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race,
> colour,
> > >religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
> > >
> > >To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
> time and
> > >in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
> > >(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
> mutilation,
> > >cruel treatment and torture;
> > >(b) taking of hostages;
> > >(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
> degrading
> > >treatment;
> > >(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
> previous
> > >judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
> judicial
> > >guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
> > >
> > >
> > you left out one important part, not to publish pictures of the
> > captured. But since Iraq has not signed on to the Geneva accords what
> > difference does it make, Personally I'm sick in tired of the
> > anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
> > raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.
>
>

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>Actually, the Convention is applicable to those who subscribed to it.
>Nowhere
>does it say that if one party to the armed conflict or whatever you want to
>call
>it fails to subscribe to the terms of the Convention that the other party is
>excused from complying with its terms.

Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did I
spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles, the
opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye for an
eye" rule.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>The
>fact that they may have violated the terms of the Convention, or even that
>people fighting independently on their territory may have violated those
>terms
>does NOT give us the right to ignore or otherwise violate them.

If they violate article X, (not Roman numeral 10, but X as in any article), we
are *permitted* by the convention to violate that same article as frequently as
it was violated by them. Its called the "Law of Reciprocity" and its pounded in
the head of aircrew to make the point that if you don't want your old high
school bombed, don't drop one on theirs.

>Once we sign, we're permanently bound and if we ignore those terms for
>whatever
>reason, we tell the world that our word is no longer our bond and that they
>no
>longer need to believe that we mean whatever we say.

You need to read a little more about these articles George.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Scott MacEachern]

On 12 May 2004 20:32:54 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did I
>spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles, the
>opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye for an
>eye" rule.

'Eye for an eye' (that is, reprisal) is prohibited by Article 33 of
Convention IV: " No protected person may be punished for an offence he
or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise
all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage
is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property
are prohibited."

It's even more explicitly codified in Protocol I Additional (and yes,
I know America's relationship to that protocol).

Scott

[Simon Robbins]

"Perry" > wrote in message
...
> Personally I'm sick in tired of the
> anti-American media here in the states and wonder why they didn't
> raise hell when our soldiers are mistreated by others.

The only anti-American media I've seen coming out of the States in the last
few days has been the evidence of the actions of those criminal soldiers.
You want to look for anti-Americanism try starting by those few there who
also wear the star-spangled banner and who have fueled enough
anti-Americanism to last half a century.

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> If they violate article X, (not Roman numeral 10, but X as in any
article), we
> are *permitted* by the convention to violate that same article as
frequently as
> it was violated by them. Its called the "Law of Reciprocity" and its
pounded in
> the head of aircrew to make the point that if you don't want your old high
> school bombed, don't drop one on theirs.

Should it simply be down to a rule of law that prevents us from doing those
kinds of things to people? If we claim to be the civilised, respectful
peoples that we do, should our morals be so easily cast aside with a "well
they started it" attitude?

Si

[Simon Robbins]

"John Harris" > wrote in message
...
> Of course this means that ONLY the United States should observe the rules.
> It is OK for the Terrorists (who by the way are not signators to the
Geneva
> Convention) to demand the one-sided protection of that Treaty while
> disallowing it to those they murder, take hostage, torture, etc. Under
such
> circumstances the Geneva Convention is NOT applicable..only the word of
God
> as given to Christians is. Islam requires the death of all infidels
without
> mercy, pity, or second thoughts. It is their Satanic Religion given by
the
> Angel of the Devil...Mohammed..that has so distorted the minds and
thinking
> of the Arabs. The Convention
> requires BOTH parties to observe the terms. Besides, the war in IRAQ is
> only being carried to terrorists...not the law abiding Iraqi people who
> loath the terrorists as much as we do.

Fundamentalist Christians scare me almost as much as Islamic extremists.
Strange how un-Christian in their opinions many Christians can be.

Si

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>The
>>fact that they may have violated the terms of the Convention, or even that
>>people fighting independently on their territory may have violated those
>>terms
>>does NOT give us the right to ignore or otherwise violate them.
>
>If they violate article X, (not Roman numeral 10, but X as in any article), we
>are *permitted* by the convention to violate that same article as frequently as
>it was violated by them. Its called the "Law of Reciprocity" and its pounded in
>the head of aircrew to make the point that if you don't want your old high
>school bombed, don't drop one on theirs.

Reprisals are prohibited unless *explicitly* authorised. That's often a
deterrent: not many folk like signing their name to what may later be
called deliberate breaches of "international law". (Sad fact of life -
the first breach was by "unauthorised renegades who would have been
court-martialled if they hadn't conveniently died", the reprisal was "a
calculated deliberate war crime ordered by and with the full assent of
the chain of command")

Look at how history views Lidice or Oradour-sur-Glane for how well
"reprisals" work. For that matter, what happens if Mr Berg's murderers
formally claim their act was a "reprisal" for US breaches of the GCs? I
don't consider his murder lawful in any circumstances.

It's a damn sight easier to hold the high moral ground, than it is to
fight in the foggy valleys. It's much easier and more convincing to
simply say "we do not torture detainees" than to argue "shoving Cyalumes
up a prisoner's arse isn't *technically* torture so we're just
interrogating with extreme prejudice, what are you complaining about?".

(And it plays really badly when folk say "hey, this is routine back in
the US, we do this to each other all the time..." I tell you, I am
*never* turning my back on a US policeman or serviceman with a
lightstick again :) )


Meanwhile, *unauthorised* reprisals are war crimes pure and simple.

Yes, this sucks for signatory nations when fighting a foe who explicitly
rejects "the rules" and yet has a sizeable civilian population to hide
behind and have take casualties for retaliatory action (indeed, the Bad
Guys _hope_ for indiscriminate reprisals).

No, I don't have any easy answers beyond "don't wrestle with that tar
baby" which is now badly OBE.

>>Once we sign, we're permanently bound and if we ignore those terms for
>>whatever
>>reason, we tell the world that our word is no longer our bond and that they
>>no
>>longer need to believe that we mean whatever we say.
>
>You need to read a little more about these articles George.

Under what circumstance can an individual soldier / sailor / airman
decide that the GCs are no longer relevant?

If "any servicebeing" can't make that call, what's the minimum rank for
the decision to be made?

Does there need to be any audit trail or is anybody caught raping some
good-looking local or decapitating a kidnapped civilian entitled to
claim it as a 'lawful reprisal' for the enemy's violations of the GCs?



There are many bad and misguided reasons to be brutal in pursuing the
current scandal up the ranks as possible. There are, though, also two
*good* reasons.

One, for outside consumption as well as the home audience: make it clear
that this was not ordered policy but a mistake. I do not believe that
the President or his SecDef woke up one morning and decided "Gee,
wouldn't it be neat to make detainees in Iraq pretend to have gay sex
with each other?" Their error was a major fault of oversight and
omission, but the point at which laissez-faire turned into malice needs
to be found and fixed to deter recurrence. Below that point you have
intent, above it you have negligence. Both need fixing, but there *is* a
large difference.


Two, for internal use: "Understand your Orders". If you run a detention
centre, then guards arranging prisoners in naked pyramids or adorning
them with electrical wiring and ladies' underwear is either approved
policy to be proud of and with signed orders for it... or a major
disciplinary offence to be dealt with promptly.

While I don't accept "only obeying orders!" as a defence, I'm willing to
consider it as mitigation if the orders *appeared* credible and lawful
(back to the 'legal reprisal' part): especially if, as has been
advanced, this sort of treatment is routine in the US (prisons, military
recruit training and college fraternities are the examples cited so far
where this would apparently be routine and unexceptional behaviour -
makes me glad I'm law-abiding, past easy drafting age and beyond campus
study).


To quote a Michael Crichton translation of a Japanese saying - "Fix the
problem, not the blame".

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[BUFDRVR]

Scott MacEachern wrote:

>No protected person may be punished for an offence he
>or she has not personally committed.

The Law of Reciprocity is not considered as a punishment per se and as such
does not fit Article 33.

>Reprisals against protected persons and their property
>are prohibited.

I'll have to find the Law of Reciprocity, because this statement runs counter
to its intent. The intent of the Law of Reciprocity is that if nation X bombs
religious sites in nation y than nation y is *legally* allowed to bomb nation
X's religious sites on a 1 for 1 basis.

I'll have do a Google and find the article dealing with reciprocity.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Simon Robbins Wrote:

>Should it simply be down to a rule of law that prevents us from doing those
>kinds of things to people? If we claim to be the civilised, respectful
>peoples that we do, should our morals be so easily cast aside with a "well
>they started it" attitude?

The Law of reciprocity does not mandate those actions, simply allows them. I'm
not arguing for or against it. Personally, I'm in line with U.S. policy and
that is; regardless of illegal actions used against us, we will follow the
Geneva Convention. In other words, we'll never take advantage of the Law of
Reciprocity and as someone who may be called upon to execute a combat mission,
this comforts me. I'd hate to get shot down, wounded or killed bombing a school
for reprisal purposes.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Simon Robbins]

Actually, you may be able to answer a question for me, considering you seem
well versed in the GC:

Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're
fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those
captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants?

Regards,

Si

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott MacEachern" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 May 2004 20:32:54 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> >Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did
I
> >spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles,
the
> >opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye
for an
> >eye" rule.
>
> 'Eye for an eye' (that is, reprisal) is prohibited by Article 33 of
> Convention IV: " No protected person may be punished for an offence he
> or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise
> all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage
> is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property
> are prohibited."

BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if
it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever
article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel
giving up that protected status themselves.

Brooks

>
> It's even more explicitly codified in Protocol I Additional (and yes,
> I know America's relationship to that protocol).
>
> Scott

[BUFDRVR]

>Reprisals are prohibited unless *explicitly* authorised.

I believe the Law of Reciprocity does this.

>It's a damn sight easier to hold the high moral ground, than it is to
>fight in the foggy valleys.

I agree.

>It's much easier and more convincing to
>simply say "we do not torture detainees" than to argue "shoving Cyalumes
>up a prisoner's arse isn't *technically* torture so we're just
>interrogating with extreme prejudice, what are you complaining about?".

Uhh, I'm not making *any* kind of argument to support or defend the prisoner
abuses. I already said, if it were up to me, those guards would serve as
infantry in the hottest spots in Iraq until their court martial. What I'm
arguing (and how we even got on the subject I'll never know) is that there are
provisions in the Geneva Convention that permit the lawful violation of the
articles. I think this was brought up because someone said that under *no*
circumstances could a signatory violate any of the articles.

>Meanwhile, *unauthorised* reprisals are war crimes pure and simple.

Absolutely.

>Under what circumstance can an individual soldier / sailor / airman
>decide that the GCs are no longer relevant?

None that I know of and I'm not arguing that individuals have that right.

>If "any servicebeing" can't make that call, what's the minimum rank for
>the decision to be made?

You'll have to quote where I said that "any servicebeing" can decide to envoke
the Law of Reciprocity.

>There are many bad and misguided reasons to be brutal in pursuing the
>current scandal up the ranks as possible.

Uhh, where did I say otherwise?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Simon Robbins wrote:

>Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're
>fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when those
>captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants?

Not all those captured in Afghanistan were considered unlawful combatants. If
you were an Afghani with no ties to Al Queda you were not considered an
unlawful combatant. If you were an Afghani with ties to Al Queda, or a foreign
national (Saudi, Brit, American) you were an unlawful combatant. Same is true
in Iraq. Any Saudi national found conducting combat operations in Iraq is an
unlawful combatant. We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Jordons
(is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful combatants...however,
they are all *supposed* to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Simon Robbins wrote:
>
> >Now the war is "over", i.e. the Iraqi regime was defeated, and we're
> >fighting insurgents and "terrorists", why are GC rights accorded when
those
> >captured in Afghanistan were deemed Unlawful Combatants?
>
> Not all those captured in Afghanistan were considered unlawful combatants.
If
> you were an Afghani with no ties to Al Queda you were not considered an
> unlawful combatant. If you were an Afghani with ties to Al Queda, or a
foreign
> national (Saudi, Brit, American) you were an unlawful combatant. Same is
true
> in Iraq. Any Saudi national found conducting combat operations in Iraq is
an
> unlawful combatant. We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians,
Jordons
> (is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful
combatants...however,
> they are all *supposed* to be treated in accordance with the Geneva
Convention.

"Jordanians" is the word you were looking for.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>"Jordanians" is the word you were looking for.
>

Thanks.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Allen Lindsey]

It doesn't say Which GOD. Wise up. God is god is god. Religion has not
part of any of our anti-terrorist plans. Rid the world of all terrorists
and let "GOD" sort them all out according to his justice. I always say if I
don't punish you or punish you injustly that god will take care of it or me.


"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Harris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Of course this means that ONLY the United States should observe the
rules.
> > It is OK for the Terrorists (who by the way are not signators to the
Geneva
> > Convention) to demand the one-sided protection of that Treaty while
> > disallowing it to those they murder, take hostage, torture, etc.
>
> Actually, the Convention itself says that those who do not subscribe to
the
> Convention are3 not entitled to seek protection under it.
>
> >.....Under such circumstances the Geneva Convention is NOT applicable..
>
> Actually, the Convention is applicable to those who subscribed to it.
Nowhere
> does it say that if one party to the armed conflict or whatever you want
to call
> it fails to subscribe to the terms of the Convention that the other party
is
> excused from complying with its terms.
>
> >.....only the word of God as given to Christians is. Islam requires the
death
> of all
> > infidels without mercy, pity, or second thoughts. It is their Satanic
> Religion given by the
> > Angel of the Devil...Mohammed..that has so distorted the minds and
thinking
> > of the Arabs.
>
> I'd prefer to leave the word of God out of the discussion, since the
Convention
> applies to all of its signatories, including even those who worship other
Gods
> or those who worship none.
>
> > .....The Convention requires BOTH parties to observe the terms.
Besides, the
> war in IRAQ is
> > only being carried to terrorists...not the law abiding Iraqi people who
> > loath the terrorists as much as we do.
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott MacEachern]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...

> I'll have to find the Law of Reciprocity, because this statement runs counter
> to its intent. The intent of the Law of Reciprocity is that if nation X bombs
> religious sites in nation y than nation y is *legally* allowed to bomb nation
> X's religious sites on a 1 for 1 basis.

My understanding is that that article bans reprisals against
non-combatants (civilians, POWs and etc), although probably not
against combatants. I was thinking here of your 'you bomb our high
school, we bomb your high school' example. There's a good discussion
of some of these issues at the Crimes of War Project site... see
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/genevaConventions/gc-ratner.html

Scott

[Scott MacEachern]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if
> it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever
> article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel
> giving up that protected status themselves.

I was thinking of his high school example when I wrote. That article
does ban such reprisal against non-combatants, but probably not
against combatants.

Scott

[BUFDRVR]

Scott MacEachern Wrote:

>My understanding is that that article bans reprisals against
>non-combatants (civilians, POWs and etc), although probably not
>against combatants.

Well, every JAG that's ever briefed me used non-combatants as an example of the
Law. The school bombing example I wrote was one example given in the last Laws
of Armed Conflict class I had last June.

I haven't had a chance to look, but when I get a chance I'm going to google
"Law of Reciprocity".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[vincent p. norris]

>We've captured dozens of Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Jordons
>(is that right?) and they are all being held as unlawful combatants..

IIRC, quite a few Americans went to Spain in the late 1930s to fight
fascism. (Ironically, one WAS a "Jordan"-- the fictitious Robert
Jordan in_For Whom the Bell Tolls_.) ((:-))

Were they considered to be "illegal combatants"?

How about the Americans who flew for the RAF before December 7, 1941?

Just a question, not a criticism of your post.

vince norris

[BUFDRVR]

>IIRC, quite a few Americans went to Spain in the late 1930s to fight
>fascism. (Ironically, one WAS a "Jordan"-- the fictitious Robert
>Jordan in_For Whom the Bell Tolls_.) ((:-))
>
>Were they considered to be "illegal combatants"?

The Spanish Republicans formed a Spanish military unit called the Republican's
International Brigade. This brigade was made up Americans, French, British and
even Soviets (although the Russians sent entire military units, like Germany to
participate). They wore Spanish uniforms and were formally indoctrinated into
the Spanish military. This made them legal combatants.

>How about the Americans who flew for the RAF before December 7, 1941?

The Yanks in the RAF were legal combatants in the same way the Spanish
volunteers were. They wore RAF uniforms and were indoctrinated into the British
military. The only unlawful combatants from the U.S. I know of were the Flying
Tigers (American Volunteer Group). These pilots and ground crew were
mercenaries, who were not inducted into the Chinese military or even wore any
distinctive military uniform. They entered China posing as tourists with
passports listing their profession as teachers. They did not serve under a
Chinese officer, their chain of command ended with Clair Chennault whose only
ties to the Chinese military was a personal relationship with Chiang Kai-Shek
and his wife who was Chief of the Chinese Air Force (or what was left of it by
1940). Not that any of this mattered as the Japanese disregarded nearly every
article in the Geneva Accords and these guys were unlikely to be treated within
the protocals even if they were legal combatants.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"