4 ms·

Forget the constitution, ex/soldiers should know better than to dismiss the Geneva convention offhandedly like this, it isn’t a good look for a military without

Forget the constitution, ex/soldiers should know better than to dismiss the Geneva convention offhandedly like this, it isn’t a good look for a military without a stellar reputation as is.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
The US military has spent the past fifteen years saying the Geneva convention in these conflicts. I disagree, but it's not an insane position.
saas_co_de 9y ago
The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for.
- syshum 9y ago
  >The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions are a set of ethical standards that should apply to all persons, regardless of the legal application >The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. Any person that is of good moral and ethical character would apply them to all persons. >The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Has there been a trial convicting the person of Treason under US Law? I guess no only to you not believe in basic human rights, you also subscribe to the moronic ideology of "guilty until proven innocent" where the government only has to assert treason, not actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers >Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for. I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on. Ethical and moral people believe that the Geneva Accords should apply to all persons at all times regardless of declarations of war or any other factors. This moronic idea that you should abuse, torture, or treat inhumanly a person simply because they are a "non-state" actor has no place in the modern world, it is an excuse to defend barbarism, barbarism we should be looking to expunge from the world not justify
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    > I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. If everyone in the military decided how to exercise lethal force on the basis of their own personal morality as opposed to what their civilian government has decided the law is that would be complete chaos. Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. The military is doing its duty under the law to obey the directives of civilian authority. If you disagree with the law, then by all means object, but object to those who are responsible for making the law. The alternative is that the military decides the law for itself, which would be a military dictatorship, and I don't think you would advocate for that.
    - syshum 9y ago
      >That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. Well I have to go Godwin on that... So you hold the soldiers that put then Jews in the oven blameless for their unethical and immoral actions because "they were just following orders" That defense never worked in Nuremberg. The idea that unethical actions should simply be dismissed because you were ordered by someone that claims higher authority to commit an unethical action is absurd to me. >That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. The comment we are all replying to is not "someone in the military" but someone that has been discharged from the military and is continuing to support this unethical position. >the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. They may have decided they are legal, that is all. Legal and ethical are very very different >Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government Nope, I can blame everyone involved. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense IMO
      - saas_co_de 9y ago
        > That defense never worked in Nuremberg. In the Nuremberg trials only a handful of high political and military officials were charged and convicted. The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged. Many mid-level Nazi officials who were certainly complicit were not charged at all and went on to form the post-war government. History is not as black-and-white or pleasant as you seem to believe it is. > Nope, I can blame everyone involved. In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this.
- parenthephobia 9y ago
  > The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. They also cover treatment of civilians, medical units, and infrastructure. Amongst other things. > The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty Yes, they do. The protections are not as extensive, but the conventions also cover any armed conflict within the territory of a contracting party, such as the Syrian Arab Republic. They also cover occupation of a contracting party's territory, whether armed or not. > The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. The conventions don't make any exception for traitors. They certainly don't allow Syria to take an ISIS fighter prisoner and avoid their convention responsibilities by handing him over to the US.
  - Noos 9y ago
    The point of the conventions is sort of a mutual aid that encourages nations to abide by rules of war. It is not a right in any real sense, nor does it mean one side must always act ethically to the other side which ignores and flouts it. Essentially its a gentleman's agreement, and is as binding as one of those. Once one side breaks it, I don't think treating them like they haven't is proper.
    - saas_co_de 9y ago
      right. the only enforcement mechanism for international law is war (economic or military). So to enforce the laws of war requires more war, which limits their practical effect.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    > The conventions don't make any exception for traitors Yes, but the basis of the conventions is treaties between states. Only a state that was party to that treaty would have standing to claim that the treaty had been violated. Since a traitor would be a citizen of the state who would theoretically be violating the treaty then no other state would have standing to assert a violation.
- nasredin 9y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong. Isn't he an "unlawful enemy combatant" (does not wear an uniform and carry arms openly, so Geneva does not apply) and not a "traitor"? OT. There's a famous Vietnam photo of a South Vietnamese executing a man in civilian clothes who is actually a North Vietnamese spy. IIRC that was completely legal.

Forget the constitution, ex/soldiers should know better than to dismiss the Geneva convention offhandedly like this, it isn’t a good look for a military without a stellar reputation as is.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

The US military has spent the past fifteen years saying the Geneva convention in these conflicts. I disagree, but it's not an insane position.

saas_co_de 9y ago

The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for.

syshum 9y ago
>The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. The Geneva Conventions are a set of ethical standards that should apply to all persons, regardless of the legal application >The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty. Any person that is of good moral and ethical character would apply them to all persons. >The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. Has there been a trial convicting the person of Treason under US Law? I guess no only to you not believe in basic human rights, you also subscribe to the moronic ideology of "guilty until proven innocent" where the government only has to assert treason, not actually prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers >Perhaps military people know more about the Geneva Conventions than you give them credit for. I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on. Ethical and moral people believe that the Geneva Accords should apply to all persons at all times regardless of declarations of war or any other factors. This moronic idea that you should abuse, torture, or treat inhumanly a person simply because they are a "non-state" actor has no place in the modern world, it is an excuse to defend barbarism, barbarism we should be looking to expunge from the world not justify
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. If everyone in the military decided how to exercise lethal force on the basis of their own personal morality as opposed to what their civilian government has decided the law is that would be complete chaos. Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. The military is doing its duty under the law to obey the directives of civilian authority. If you disagree with the law, then by all means object, but object to those who are responsible for making the law. The alternative is that the military decides the law for itself, which would be a military dictatorship, and I don't think you would advocate for that.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. Well I have to go Godwin on that... So you hold the soldiers that put then Jews in the oven blameless for their unethical and immoral actions because "they were just following orders" That defense never worked in Nuremberg. The idea that unethical actions should simply be dismissed because you were ordered by someone that claims higher authority to commit an unethical action is absurd to me. >That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. The comment we are all replying to is not "someone in the military" but someone that has been discharged from the military and is continuing to support this unethical position. >the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. They may have decided they are legal, that is all. Legal and ethical are very very different >Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government Nope, I can blame everyone involved. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense IMO
    - saas_co_de 9y ago
      > That defense never worked in Nuremberg. In the Nuremberg trials only a handful of high political and military officials were charged and convicted. The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged. Many mid-level Nazi officials who were certainly complicit were not charged at all and went on to form the post-war government. History is not as black-and-white or pleasant as you seem to believe it is. > Nope, I can blame everyone involved. In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this.
parenthephobia 9y ago
> The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. They also cover treatment of civilians, medical units, and infrastructure. Amongst other things. > The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty Yes, they do. The protections are not as extensive, but the conventions also cover any armed conflict within the territory of a contracting party, such as the Syrian Arab Republic. They also cover occupation of a contracting party's territory, whether armed or not. > The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. The conventions don't make any exception for traitors. They certainly don't allow Syria to take an ISIS fighter prisoner and avoid their convention responsibilities by handing him over to the US.
- Noos 9y ago
  The point of the conventions is sort of a mutual aid that encourages nations to abide by rules of war. It is not a right in any real sense, nor does it mean one side must always act ethically to the other side which ignores and flouts it. Essentially its a gentleman's agreement, and is as binding as one of those. Once one side breaks it, I don't think treating them like they haven't is proper.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    right. the only enforcement mechanism for international law is war (economic or military). So to enforce the laws of war requires more war, which limits their practical effect.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > The conventions don't make any exception for traitors Yes, but the basis of the conventions is treaties between states. Only a state that was party to that treaty would have standing to claim that the treaty had been violated. Since a traitor would be a citizen of the state who would theoretically be violating the treaty then no other state would have standing to assert a violation.
nasredin 9y ago
Correct me if I am wrong. Isn't he an "unlawful enemy combatant" (does not wear an uniform and carry arms openly, so Geneva does not apply) and not a "traitor"? OT. There's a famous Vietnam photo of a South Vietnamese executing a man in civilian clothes who is actually a North Vietnamese spy. IIRC that was completely legal.