I'm tired of Rumsfield saying Iraq is violating the Geneva Convention. These animals know nothing about protocol. He may be saying this to try to beat some sense into the lefties, to try and get across the message that the U.S. are, believe it or not, the good guys, and that we play by the rules. It'll fall on deaf ears, for the most part, but maybe some people will wake up. It wouldn't surprise me if many lefties don't even know what the hell the Geneva Convention is, much less that Iraq is grossly disregarding it.
Now that it's been brought up, I assume Iraq is NOT a signing party of the Geneva Accords. Does that mean that they are not bound by it? In other words, is their violation of the accords simply bad P.R., or is it 'prosecutable'?
If they didn't sign it, I assume they can't technically be prosecuted for not following it. But they can't expect their soldiers to receive any help from international agencies if they are captured. The USSR never signed the Geneva Convention either, and Solzenitzen (sp) said the Russian POWs never got Red Cross packages in WWII because of that. Of course, the US will treat the Iraqi POWs humanely because we are moral people. God will wreak vengeance on our behalf instead, I pray.
Iraq
is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, as any member state of the UN is required to be. Therefore, any actions the regime takes on EPOWs
would be prosecuteable...
the infowarrior