Geneva convention!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Jenny_Dabber, Apr 4, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes!

  2. No!

    0 vote(s)
  3. It could do with a tweak here and there

    0 vote(s)
  4. Not bothered

    0 vote(s)
  5. Its fine as it is!

    0 vote(s)
  1. Well, what do you all make of this? I think the expression could be 'sh*t hitting the fan', well its bound to raise a few heads!

    story here
  2. I see nothing wrong with the suggestion. I suspect there is quite a lot that could do with tidying up in this area to make International Law on the general subject of war clearer and reflect life today. Laws change as societies develop and change themselves. Things that were legal in the Uk 100 years ago are illegal today and vice versa and the same applies in most countries so why should there not be a review on the law regarding war.

    Mr Reid has his views and I suspect that others will have theirs. After all these changes will have to reach a consensus before they are accepted so it is not as if he will get his way, perhaps the community will go further who knows, and I suspect if the review starts it will last longer than his carreer as Minister of Defence.


    edit to improve spelling p
  3. Quote "Mr Reid declined to say whether he had come round to the US view that detainees at Guantánamo bay should not be allowed the protection of the conventions or the courts. Similarly, he would not say if he thought Britain should support the US practice of extraordinary rendition, the transferring of prisoners to secret camps where they risk being tortured. However, he said, it was not "sufficient just to say [Guantánamo] is wrong"."
    I have in my posession a copy of form WO Code No. 13662 titled "Geneva Prisoner of War Convention 1949" this was issued to me in 1982 during the Falklands when I was on a hospital ship.
    Para 2 of this states "Members of the regular armed forces are not the only persons entitled on capture to be treated as prisoners of war. Members of Militia, volunteer corps, civilians holding military identy cards, seamen holding identy cards issued by their governments and under certain conditions members of resistance movements in occupied territories are also entitled to be so treated.
    In cases of doubt a captured person must be given the benefit of the doubt and treated initially as a prisoner of war"
    This I believe applies only in the case of if war has been declared. So if war has not been declared does the Geneva Convention apply? I am NOT saying prisoners can be tortured just that are not covered by the Geneva Convention
    Plse feel free to comment and point out any errors in my understanding of this. I realise that this only applies to a "small" part of the full article quoted
  4. Good ,dum dums are legal??
  5. The point about fighting an enemy that does not adhere to the Geneva convention is valid in my opinion. If the enemy wants to play Jungle Rules then we need to allow our men and women to get down and dirty and beat them at their own game.
  6. Of course the law needs changing, what to do when dealing with an enemy that actualy welcomes death as a victory? That is why our red friends had so much trouble in Afghanistan.

    I know the yanks have been a bit fruity with their POW's, Lyndi England springs to mind, but a bit of humiliation cannot be compared to beheadings and buggery. Ask some 91 desert storm vets.

    I am not a bible thumper but the fight fire with fire analogy rings true here, if you can't fight on a level field, you might as well stay in the rear.

    Same thing applies to our police, it is way overdue for them to start dishing out the discipline again without being hauled up in front of discipline and complaints, if the oik gobs in your face you crack his dome.
    Tell me I am wrong???
  7. This worries me a bit. Firstly there's the moral issue. Of course it makes things hard for us if we have to fight an enemy that is using a different set of rules. But if we sink to their level then why are we fighting at all? If all we're bringing is a regime with no respect for human rights, well they had one of those before, there was no need for us to bother.

    Secondly there are the practical considerations.
    The report talks about changes to the treatment of prisoners. Does it really make our job easier or victory more likely if we treat prisoners badly? I don't think so, in fact on the occasions where we or the americans have been caught doing so it's made things harder for us as we lose the support of the local population.
    It also talks about broadening the circumstances when we can mount a pre-emptive strike. Why on earth do we need that change? Most people's reaction to the war in Iraq was not "We need more wars like that, preferably on an even flimsier basis next time"

    I've got to admit that I've never been at the sharp end. Perhaps there are situations where the geneva convention stops you from doing something which would a) make your life much easier and b) help the campaign long term. I can't think of anything though.
  8. I still don't see how the Yanks can justify their actions at Guantamano Bay. How can they be above the law and deny a prisoner a fair trial rather that a Kangaroo Court. But the the Septics have always thought they were a law unto themselves until they get into trouble then they want everyone else to come to their rescue

    Oh I forgot, "Yes we will give then a fair trial and then we'll take them out a shoot them"
  9. Lets level the playing field and play by our enemies’ rules (or lack of). And while we are at it lets amend the rules on drug taking in sport. The honest competitor is being hamstrung by those who cheat so why prevent them from using drugs?

    The fight on terror is not an act of war but a civil endeavour. If the politicians want to draft up new laws then fine, but what is the point when our ally, the US, despite initially signing up to the ICC treaty under Bill Clinton withdrew its signature in 2002. It seems that nobody wants to play by any rules if it does not suit them.
  10. Simple question really, if this changes would the armed force’s JSPs change to?
  11. JSP's were always a waste of paper anyway. The best advice was always to make sure that if you put someone down, make sure they were not in a position to compain about it...... ever.
    Let's do it to them before they do it to us. Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.
  12. From the article it doesn't sound like JSPs would change, it sounds more like bigger picture stuff ie should we be there in the first place, should prisoners have access to a justice system and if so who's. That kind of thing.
  13. Let's face it, Guantanamo is just another example of the Yanks doing better than they axpected without having a scooby as to what to do next. The whole of the most recent Iraq situation is due to exactly the same thing, just Uncle Sam and his poodles wading in without a backup plan. War's easy when you have all the weapons, it's the peace that'll catch you out.
  14. In the past, and not too distant past at that many countries have found it sensible to detain terror suspects without trial. In general these detainees have been nationals of the country involved as the terrorism has been home grown. We now find that at least some terrorism is very international and the old rules don't work so well. The US Govt has convinced itself that what it is doing is not illegal, but of course not every one agrees.

    To me it seems sensible that we do re-visit international law in this area to try to get a consensus on how these things should be handled. Remeber most countries have suffered from terrorists and cross border terrorism so may not be against some re-writing of thee rules. This should not be seen as a process to justify Guantanamo rather a process to find mutually agreeable ways of dealing with the problem.

  15. Indeed, internment it was called and whatever you might think about the rights and wrongs of it. It didn't solve the problem. Even in the cases where the people locked up thoroughly deserved it.
    You might imagine that the harder you come down on people the sooner they'll give up but human psychology doesn't work like that. If you give people the feeling that they are fighting the good fight against a cruel and unjust oppressor, they will fight forever.

    We should resist the erosion of people's rights, not because it's the right thing to do (though it is) but because it doesn't help..
  16. I am all for protecting rights, especially my right not to be blown up or otherwise hurt by a terrorist. Yes we got rid of internmeent, by replacing it with non jury trials. Ohter countries have not done this. That is why I see there being some good sense in trying to find some international consensus on how the problem is dealt with.

  17. The problem with terrorism is that there is no blanket solution. Each one has its own historical causes and ideologies so to attempt to have a blanket policy to combat terrorism on an international basis would be a waste of time and money.

    An example of how terrorism can be fought effectively is the co-operation between Spain and France to control ETA. What is needed is for closer ties between affected states to use their civil laws and political influence against those that threaten them. I cannot imagine the UN or any other such body as a useful policing force against terrorism, their only use could be for arbitration.
  18. This is not about the UN 'fighting terrorism' but about the framework of international law that should be used. It is about whether the Geneva Conventions need to be changed to reflect the world as it is now rather than as it was in the late 1940s.

  19. Of course it's about fighting terrorism. Who else is there to fight?

    In fact the article even says:
  20. Lingyai.....when are you back offshore again?

Share This Page