Geneva Convention - answer needed please

Grapeape

[grapeape]

Can anyone tell me what the punishments are for breaking the Geneva conventions are.

If someone breaks the rules what the heck is going to happen. Are the guilty persons going to be invaded? They are already at war!!!!

Where is the link for the signatories as well if anyone has them.

[grapeape]

Why does the MSM bring it up when they know that the enemy is using the rules of decent society against us.

Thanks for your help.

[Tenacious 1]

Last time I checked, the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction with regards to international treaties, laws, etc. The Supreme Court actually has no jurisdiction with regards to the executive branch authority to make war. This check/balance is the responsibility of Congress.

The court is out of line.

[edpc]

Terms and conditions are always dictated by the victors. If an enemy violates terms of treaties, they can be held accountable financially or criminally. Japanese officers were tried for war crimes at the conclusion of WWII for mistreatment and execution of POWs. It's only going to be enforced if:

1) The country recognizes the rule of law, as we and other Western nations do. Calley was put on trial for May Lai.

2) The enemy is defeated. None of our current potential adversaries (Iran, N. Korea, China, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations) are going to police themselves. Only through their defeat would violators be punished.

[Semper Vigilantis]

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Scroll to PART VI - EXECUTION OF THE CONVENTION, SECTION I - GENERAL PROVISIONS for punishment of breaking the rules.

[silverleaf]

The mainstream press knows zilch about the "Geneva Convention"... most of them probably think it's some internationalalized uber human rights document.

Armed forces (in uniform or identifiable insignia) of nations who haven't SIGNED it are not bound by it, nor are they protected by it.

"Al Qaeda" who has no national affiliation, no uniform or insignia of a national military force, no ID card .... who lurks in civilian clothing shielded by women and children and targets civilian targets at will ... is not covered by the Geneva Convention.

However, we, the humane power that we are (*note to press: scoff and snicker at this comment), decided early in this unprecedented type of warfare to afford basic decency to everyone, even the psychopathic murderers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html

[wolfcreek]

The court is out of line.


The members of the court who voted for this, cited International law. We were warned of this and now it's happened.

[grapeape]

After reading this section I am now certain that this document is completely useless...

If someone breaks the rule then they may go to court.

[grapeape]

"...If I were in charge of this war we would show no quarter to the enemy. We must raise the Black Flag sir. The current leadership in Richmond is too timid to see .... We must turn to the Bible. It is full of such wars. Only the the black flag will bring a swift end to this war..." Stonewall Jackson

[Tenacious 1]

I think military leaders should call a press conference. They should read this press release;

"In light of the latest US Supreme Court ruling and by order of the Cammander in Chief, the all branches of the US military will immediately engage the following policy regarding prisoners of war and/or enemy combatants.

NO PRISONERS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE BATTLE FIELD. ALL ENEMIES ARE TO BE QUESTIONED JUDGED AND EXECUTED ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

Until fruther notice all current prisoners of war will be returned to a predesignated battlefield in the country they were aprehended.

Thank you for your time. We will now take questions...."

Reporter: " What will you do with enemies who surrender to our troops?"

Answer: "There will be no prisoners taken."

Reporter: "What if they are unarmed or are women?"

Answer: "There will be no prisoners taken."

....................

[grapeape]

Our enemies have painted themselves into quite a corner haven't they.

[scrabblehack]

I beg to differ. Treaties actually signed by the USA are the only sort of international law which SCOTUS can rely upon. But treaties can be declared unconstitutional.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2).

[scrabblehack]

I assume the "Protecting Power(s)" is the nation to which the prisoner owes allegiance, while the Detaining Power is the one holding the prisoner.

Hmmm...who actually brought the suit? Surely it wasn't the Protecting Power?

[Gvl_M3]

I'm bumping this because you didn't get an answer, and I have the same question.

Does anyone have a list of who signed & agrees to the Geneva Convention?

[JulieRNR21]

Have you tried a search engine for that info you seek?

[Gvl_M3]

"Have you tried a search engine for that info you seek?"

Yep. Spent the last 20-30 minutes looking. Went to the U.N. site, google, FR.

Maybe I'm using the wrong terms.

[JulieRNR21]

I tried also with no luck.

Just found websites in which Arab & Muslim states complained that Israel had violated the 'conventions'.

Apparently the Fourth Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949 but I couldn't learn the signers.