Should the United States withdraw from the Geneva Convention?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should the United States withdraw from the Geneva Convention?

Posted: 5/11/2004 2:47:48 PM EDT

Should the United States drop this fiction and formally withdraw from the Geneva Convention?

The United States Military has never faced a enemy who has obeyed it. Not the Nazis, not the Japanese, not the NKPA or PLA, not the VC or NVA. Attempts to force our troops to obey this one sided farce have only resulted in more atrocities and political embarrasment to the US.

Why do we set ourselves up like this? To appear as hypocrites when our soldiers, who are only human, finally succumb to the pressure? Not to mention the limits it puts on inteligance gathering.

Lets end the farce. Make it clear that we are renoucing our signature to the document and make our own laws for our own troops and make those conditional upon the enemy also obeying the rules. Just like the use of nuclear or other unconventional weapons, one violation by them and we unleash everything.

Posted: 5/11/2004 2:52:57 PM EDT

[#1]

In a word.............YES!

Posted: 5/11/2004 2:53:29 PM EDT

[#2]

Vote #2 for YES!

Posted: 5/11/2004 2:55:22 PM EDT

[#3]

If we fight a war without it, then we face being taken to an international court.

Europe is already pissed that Bush wont join the International Court of Justice or whatever its called.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:00:33 PM EDT

[#4]

Take us to International Court?

Who is going to serve us the summons?

The fucking Chinese?

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:01:32 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
If we fight a war without it, then we face being taken to an international court.

Europe is already pissed that Bush wont join the International Court of Justice or whatever its called.

Gee, where the VC, the Japanese, or the Germans ever taken to an international court for the way they treated our POWs? NO!

They can only take us to an international court if we let them.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:02:33 PM EDT

[#6]

Yes, Please.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:03:01 PM EDT

[#7]

I dont think we are signatories anyway. We just follow it anyway but I dont think we signed.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:05:10 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If we fight a war without it, then we face being taken to an international court.

Europe is already pissed that Bush wont join the International Court of Justice or whatever its called.

Gee, where the VC, the Japanese, or the Germans ever taken to an international court for the way they treated our POWs? NO!

They can only take us to an international court if we let them.

Somewhat agree with you.

Germans did go to Nuremburg (a few at least). In fact, I think a guy in the USA was arrested a few weeks or months ago for being a death camp guard.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:08:48 PM EDT

[#9]

We should withdrawl from anything foreign related... GC, UN, NATO ect ect ect...

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:09:00 PM EDT

[#10]

Be taken to the international court and what? To have the authority of the court to stand would imply that there is "fear" of the power of the people. What people does the international court serve? A bunch of Frenchmen and some people from 3rd world shitholes? Fuck'em, I say. Leave the Geneva Convention. War, when it becomes necessary, is a brutal and horrid thing. A few lines of words on paper and a convention will never change that fact.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:27:02 PM EDT

[#11]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who has given this some thought, & not suprised ArmdLbrl brought it up (good posts, a perceptive dude.) The World would obviously have kittens, but who gives a fuck at this point . I'm sure all here, like myself, are about friggin' puke sick of turning on our TV's and watching Americans decapitated by these miserable scum-lapping shitbag subhuman filth.

Withdraw from the G.C., Halt all funding for the corrupt, impotent U.N. and start declaring appeaser-diplomats persona non grata & put them on the first plane home, beginning with the French and going down the list from there.

And lastly, can we TAKE THE DAMN GLOVES OFF ALREADY?

I'm talking Dresden here, folks. I'm talking 3 shifts, 7 days a week at the iron bomb factories. Fallujah should have been LEVELED MONTHS ago. Dammit, we rebuilt Tokyo, we can rebuild these places when these assholes are burned out of them. I want B52 ground crews dropping from exhaustion. Screw public opinion. Pandering to the brain dead left is what brought us to this ridiculous impasse to begin with.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:30:02 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I dont think we are signatories anyway. We just follow it anyway but I dont think we signed.

Bingo. We follow it voluntarily. We never actually signed it so legally do not have to abide by it. There really is nothing the UN could do about it if we decided against it. That said, it could have an impact on how captured Americans would be treated. In this war against terror, I do not think it matters. The Muslims are going to make you wish you were never born if they actually take you as a POW.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:41:28 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont think we are signatories anyway. We just follow it anyway but I dont think we signed.

Bingo. We follow it voluntarily. We never actually signed it so legally do not have to abide by it. There really is nothing the UN could do about it if we decided against it. That said, it could have an impact on how captured Americans would be treated. In this war against terror, I do not think it matters. The Muslims are going to make you wish you were never born if they actually take you as a POW.

POW is the wrong word for that pour guy that had his head cut off. He was there to help and rebuild and the fuckers killed him. WTF?! He was a hostage.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:43:48 PM EDT

[#14]

it could have an impact on how captured Americans would be treated.

Yeah, they might, well, who knows? Maybe start beheading Americans on international TV!

Hope it doesn't come to that!

Kill the scum, from long range, rendering retaliation impossible.

Posted: 5/11/2004 3:59:49 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
<snip>
it could have an impact on how captured Americans would be treated.
<snip>

What, like beheading or being burnt to death and hung off a bridge?

Posted: 5/11/2004 5:00:05 PM EDT

[#16]

yeap...aren't we really the only ones who remotely stick to it...aside from like Canada?

Posted: 5/11/2004 5:03:45 PM EDT

[#17]

I also believe that we never signed the convention?

Posted: 5/11/2004 5:05:08 PM EDT

[#18]

withdraw or revise it

Posted: 5/11/2004 5:05:48 PM EDT

[#19]

If we never signed it, WHY are US soldiers being prosecuted for violating them?

Posted: 5/11/2004 5:52:55 PM EDT

[#20]

No... because it will give the appearance that we want to reduce ourselves to he level of terrorists. We should certainly ammed some of the shit in it to apply to the changing methods in current warfare. They simply don't apply in the same the way the did in conventional warfare.

We should however pull out of the UN and raze the HQ in NYC or make it into a giant homeless shelter.

Posted: 5/11/2004 5:55:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Right about now I believe that America should withdraw from the entire WORLD!!

Tell em all to FUCK OFF!...

Posted: 5/12/2004 4:56:01 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I also believe that we never signed the convention?

I think we signed the geneva convention. I think you are thinking of the hague accords (the one outlawing hollowpoint ammo in wartime) which we did not sign. www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

Posted: 5/12/2004 4:59:07 PM EDT

[#23]

is it possible you are thinking about the leauge of nations? which we set up but never became a part of?

i think roosevelt was responsible for that one.

however i do think we are part of the geneva convention.

Posted: 5/12/2004 5:05:43 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
If we never signed it, WHY are US soldiers being prosecuted for violating them?

They are being prosecuted under the UCMJ. Not the Geneva convention. That would be a trial at the Hague for war crimes.

Posted: 5/12/2004 5:21:15 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont think we are signatories anyway. We just follow it anyway but I dont think we signed.

Bingo. We follow it voluntarily. We never actually signed it so legally do not have to abide by it. There really is nothing the UN could do about it if we decided against it. That said, it could have an impact on how captured Americans would be treated. In this war against terror, I do not think it matters. The Muslims are going to make you wish you were never born if they actually take you as a POW.

We signed the original Geneva Convention of 1949. The add on protocols of 1977 were not signed by us as well as a few other countries.

Posted: 5/12/2004 5:26:41 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If we fight a war without it, then we face being taken to an international court.

Europe is already pissed that Bush wont join the International Court of Justice or whatever its called.

Gee, where the VC, the Japanese, or the Germans ever taken to an international court for the way they treated our POWs? NO!

They can only take us to an international court if we let them.

Actually some Germans were taken to court over their treatment of POW's at the International Military Tribunal commonly refered to as the Nuremberg Trials.

Posted: 5/12/2004 5:49:42 PM EDT

[#27]

HELL YES!

Too much BSing about adhering to laws which the enemy would never follow, and will only use against us.

On that note, Have all of our troops use a .223 bullet which borrows design from 5.45x39, but instead of an airspace, fill it with pig lard. Also, anyone participating in Anti-American behavior will get shot, no ifs ands or buts- we see you cheering within 5 blocks of a burned American corpse, kiss your sorry ass goodbye.

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:23:16 PM EDT

[#28]

The fisrt part of the GC was wrote before 1900, to protect wonded solders and IIRC the portion of the GC that pertains to the treatment of POWs was drafted in 1927-9. It was drafted with the regards to two or more countries at war with eachother. Coutries that could communicate thus rendering the GC somwhat useful. Its not that way now. THe people we are fighting now have allegence only to a book of babble, and the misleading words of a few madmen. People that are of that state of mind need to be delt with in a fashion that they understand. Clean cloths, warm food and nice beds are not the answer. Butt naked in chains and hung by wrists for days on end is getting closer.

CH

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:28:16 PM EDT

[#29]

FYI
www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html

Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.

When questioned — in the prisoner's native language — prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.

Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.

Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:35:05 PM EDT

[#30]

I dunno...

Who are the delegates?

Is there a golf scramble?

Oh, that convention. Yeah, let's get out. Good now that's settled.

Next, let's get out of the U.N while we're at it.

Boy, that was easy.

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:39:13 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I also believe that we never signed the convention?

I think we signed the geneva convention. I think you are thinking of the hague accords (the one outlawing hollowpoint ammo in wartime) which we did not sign. www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

WTF? But would a HP round make the 5.56 a much more lethal round?

Ben

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:45:37 PM EDT

[#32]

Several Japanese were tried by US military courts for their treatment of US POWs during WWII.

The US is a signatory to the Geneva conventions of 1949, which systemitized a lot about the treatment of POWs and civilians. Most of the detainees aren't being held under Geneva because they're illegal combatants, as with the people at Gitmo. Withdrawing from the convention wouldn't get us much, since we'd basically treat them the same way anyway.

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:46:08 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I also believe that we never signed the convention?

I think we signed the geneva convention. I think you are thinking of the hague accords (the one outlawing hollowpoint ammo in wartime) which we did not sign. www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

WTF? But would a HP round make the 5.56 a much more lethal round?

Ben

I dunno. But the .308 with a 165 gr Boattail Hollowpoint Gamekings from Sierra would definately be more lethal.

Posted: 5/12/2004 6:49:45 PM EDT

[#34]

Daayyuuum. I wonder if it would be possible to put a tiny air pocket inside the nose of the 5.56 round to make it yaw more on impact, since the 5.45 has it and doesn't seem to be illegal. I wonder what the Geneva Convention says about that.

Ben

Posted: 5/12/2004 7:48:07 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
HELL YES!

Too much BSing about adhering to laws which the enemy would never follow, and will only use against us.

On that note, Have all of our troops use a .223 bullet which borrows design from 5.45x39, but instead of an airspace, fill it with pig lard. Also, anyone participating in Anti-American behavior will get shot, no ifs ands or buts- we see you cheering within 5 blocks of a burned American corpse, kiss your sorry ass goodbye.

No if we were going to get rid of the Hague convention too then it would finally be time to get rid of the M16 and go to a cartridge that could fire a high explosive projectile. Maybe a .40cal/10mm cartridge like a rimless .40/70 Sharps Straight. This HE round would not be a grenade, fragmentation would be nil. It would be a penetrating explosive bullet that would solve the "man stopping" problem by blowing six inch holes in people through a quarter to a half ounce of plastic explosive that would detonate after penetrating six to eight inches. Think Aliens. Such a round is the only thing that will silence the "stopping power" controversy. And it would not work against our men, because our bullet proof vests, with a few improvements, would cause it to explode prematurely.

Posted: 5/12/2004 7:58:06 PM EDT

[#36]

I think a good ole .45-70 with a 405 gr hard cast lead bullet would solve any manstopping problems too. Maybe we screwed up in the cartridge hunt a long time ago. I heard they had trouble stopping people in Korea with a .30-06.

Posted: 5/12/2004 8:05:50 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I think a good ole .45-70 with a 405 gr hard cast lead bullet would solve any manstopping problems too. Maybe we screwed up in the cartridge hunt a long time ago. I heard they had trouble stopping people in Korea with a .30-06.

A late friend of mine was one of Chesty Pullers Marines in Korea, he swore by his M1 Garand. He said they killed so many Chinese that they piled up like cordwood. He didn't have a high opinion on the M1 carbine, nice and light but no punch. The 30-06 would often go through several Chinese in the human wave attacks too. He also had high opinions on the M1919 and M2 (pretty obvious)!

Posted: 5/12/2004 8:11:55 PM EDT

[#38]

Not only YES,but it needs to be rewritten.

Posted: 5/12/2004 9:16:05 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Gee, where the VC, the Japanese, or the Germans ever taken to an international court for the way they treated our POWs? NO!

Er the Germans were.

Posted: 5/13/2004 12:23:00 AM EDT

[#40]

Before anyone talks about "withdrawing from the Geneva Convention," you must first understand what the Convention covers. What it covers is the treatment of POWs that are members of the military of a signatory state.

Guerrilla fighters aren't covered.
Journalists aren't covered.
Aid workers aren't covered.
Civilian defense contractors aren't covered.
Militant religious extremists who are not members of state-sanctioned militaries aren't covered.

This war is NOT a fight between the US military and the Iraqi military. The Iraqi government does not endorse or condone the actions of the people fighting against us.

We, the US military, CHOOSE to treat most of our prisoners as POWs, but we do that only to maintain high moral standards for ourselves, to make us look good on the world stage. We are not legally obligated to do so, and not doing so would in no way be a violation of the Geneva Convention, of which we are a signatory.

-Troy

Posted: 5/13/2004 12:30:47 AM EDT

[#41]

yes...it's time to move on...we should also pull out of the UN... It's Paux Americana..we set the rules...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should the United States withdraw from the Geneva Convention?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us