Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE U. S. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION
Geneva Convention ^ | entry into force 21 October 1950 | Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of

Posted on 09/24/2006 7:14:59 AM PDT by PWDirector

To my American Friends,

The Judge that ruled that the US is bound by the Geneva Convention is wrong, and should be removed from the Bench for such an outrageous misinterpretation. Read the Geneva Convention here: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

For the US to be bound by the Convention, a number of circumstances must be present, including: (A Party is a Country that signed up as a party to the Geneva Convention)

"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, fulfill 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."

The terrorists that we are at war with do not comply with No. 1, and do not comply with (b), (c), or (d) of No. 2. Therefore, the U. S. is not obligated to follow the Convention relative to those terrorists.

The Convention also states that:

"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."

It is clear that the terrorists have not accepted and applied the provisions of the Convention due to the beheading, dragging our soldiers through the streets, homicide bombings, and torture of our soldiers. Therefore the U. S. is not bound by the Convention relative to terrorists.

If that crazy, stupid, America-hating, liberal Judge’s ruling that the U. S. is bound by the Geneva Convention is to be upheld, then the U. S. can execute the terrorists as spies.

I humbly pray that God would protect the U. S. from the Liberals.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: genevaconvention
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Doug2464
Perhaps they've deduced that certain battles are best fought at a time and place of their choosing. Such as, after the elections so there won't be another stick for the media whores of the traitorous left to use for patriot bashing.

There are always political considerations that must be taken into account for every facet of life. Life is political and politics are life. Continued survival of all cultures is accomplished by political maneuvering and deals with a devil of sorts.

21 posted on 09/24/2006 8:56:06 AM PDT by Thumper1960 (Politicians are like diapers. They need changed often, and for the same reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PWDirector
The Geneva Convention is for nation states engaged in war, not for terrorist groups. Go ahead and shoot them in the knees, ala Jack Bauer.

Regards, Ivan

22 posted on 09/24/2006 8:57:12 AM PDT by MadIvan (I aim to misbehave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doug2464

I stand corrected. My other objections remain intact though.


23 posted on 09/24/2006 9:09:52 AM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
"The Judge that ruled that the US is bound by the Geneva Convention is wrong, ........"

The Geneva Convention is a treaty not a law. What jurisdiction over the US compliance to a treaty does the judicial branch have?

The U.S. is bound by the Geneva Convention, not because a Judge says so, but because Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America says so.

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,.....

The original debating point of this thread is flawed. See Post 8.

The issue is not whether or not the U.S. is bound by the Geneva Convention. It is.

The issue is that the Geneva Convention itself excludes terrorists from having any belligerent rights under the Geneva Convention.

24 posted on 09/24/2006 9:16:56 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PWDirector

It does make things a bit difficult when you're the only one playing by the rules.


25 posted on 09/24/2006 9:27:30 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PWDirector

Someone ask McCain and his Senate Al-Queda Caucus what the Geneva Convention says about the 2 U.S. soldiers who were burned alive and dragged through the streets last week. McCain, Collins, Graham and Warner are traitors to this nation. Period.


26 posted on 09/24/2006 9:45:16 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
So this court took jurisdiction absent the complaint of a party to the Geneva Convention and granted the protection of the "Convention" to stateless non-signatories?
27 posted on 09/24/2006 10:23:59 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Those that do not heed the warnings of history....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
So this court took jurisdiction absent the complaint of a party to the Geneva Convention and granted the protection of the "Convention" to stateless non-signatories?

The original issue which you quoted and addressed was :

"The Judge that ruled that the US is bound by the Geneva Convention is wrong, ........"

That is not an issue to be decided by a Judge. That issue is directly addressed by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The separate issue of "stateless non-signatories" is irrelevant since Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically extends POW rights to "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".

In other words, you do not need to be a member of the armed forces of a signatory nation to be granted POW rights under the Geneva Convention.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention only requires that the combatant be a member of a group "belonging to a Party to the conflict".

As a "party to the conflict", the combatant himself or his representative has standing to bring an issue of noncompliance of the Geneva Convention himself without the need to secure the intercession of a signatory nation.

Such a combatant, however, does have to fulfill 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.

The Judge is in error in his decision not because these combatants are stateless or because "the U.S. is not bound by the Geneva Convention" but because these combatants fail the requirements set forth by the Geneva that they do not impersonate civilians, that they carry arms openly and that they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

28 posted on 09/24/2006 11:55:43 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson