Replies

Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

I see a convention for the treatment of wounded on the battlefield, billbears. So where are the parts outlining the imprisonment or death part, billbears? Where is the part about plunder or taking from civilian populations or attaching defenseless citizens. So if your claim is still that DiLusional actually ready the Geneva Convention of 1864 then the only other explanation was that he was willfully and deliberately lying about what they contained. Not an unreasonable conclusion given Tommy's track record. I suppose it would be useless to point out that the United States was not a signatory in 1863. The confederacy, of course, was not a signatory because they were not a soverign state.

"The confederacy, of course, was not a signatory because they were not a soverign state."

That, of course, is only your opinion. What defines a sovereign state? Could it possibly be that state's determination to be so? You seem to have found a higher power dwelling somewhere, perhaps in your imagination. You are implicit in advocating tyranny here NS. The definition of freedom is the ability to "throw off the shackles of government" - remember?

I refer you to Article 10 of the '63 conference

that in time of war the belligerent nations should proclaim the neutrality of ambulances and military hospitals, and that neutrality should likewise be recognized, fully and absolutely, in respect of official medical personnel, voluntary medical personnel, inhabitants of the country who go to the relief of the wounded, and the wounded themselves;

Are inhabitants combatants? According to Sherman they may have been, but here I read they were to be treated as neutral