4 ms·

> The right and human thing to do is following the Geneva Convention. What legal precedent do you have that these alleged acts violate international law, norms

> The right and human thing to do is following the Geneva Convention. What legal precedent do you have that these alleged acts violate international law, norms or customs? I am very familiar with jus ad bellum, jus in bello, war crimes under the Rome Statute and ICC case law, but I am unfamiliar with any legal precedent/case law in support of a position that Russian POWs are being mistreated in violation of any international laws. Assuming you could find some case law on point, I doubt you will, I believe it was Russia themselves who told the United Nations and the UN Security Council that this wasn’t a war but a “special operation.” I’m not exactly sure how Russia would seek application of the laws of war by the international community while simultaneously telling the international community this is not war.

chmod775 5y ago
I couldn't care less what Russia says it's doing. I care about not mistreating prisoners, POWs or not. Figuring out legalities is something that happens over years after the fact. During the actual war, you'll have to keep your arguments short, preferably steering towards moral right - few have time for legalities. The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum, and regardless of whether some country agreed to be bound by it, few would disagree with the lines it draws.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs. If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, no one is going to entertain someone who makes this argument on the basis of moral superiority when they don’t seem to understand the law nor the history from which the law was derived. Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    > It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs. "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity." Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two? If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that. > If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, No. I am trying to say that they should be treated better than what they are treated like right now. I am not arguing for anyone being tried for war crimes at some later date. Once the harm is done, that's for others to figure out. I'd rather no harm was done in the first place. My argument isn't "look they're breaking the Geneva Convention", my argument is "what they're doing sucks, even the Geneva Convention has something to say about it". If that came across differently at some point, my bad. > Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same. You might want to try that in a place that cares about these things. I heard people typically put their credentials on their Twitter bio, so maybe that place is a better fit? My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention. In fact it says the same thing when I look it up in other languages I speak.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity." >Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two? No mental gymnastics required. The writers of this weren’t thinking of youtube or even newspapers, this is about parading your prisoners through the streets and exposing them to hostile crowds. And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.
- rosndo 5y ago
  > POWs or not. > The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Geneva Convention is not at all a bare minimum, it provides POWs with far more rights than what are usually afforded to regular prisoners.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    > it provides POWs with far more rights than what are usually afforded to regular prisoners. True in some places, not in others.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      True in almost all places.

chmod775 5y ago

I couldn't care less what Russia says it's doing. I care about not mistreating prisoners, POWs or not. Figuring out legalities is something that happens over years after the fact. During the actual war, you'll have to keep your arguments short, preferably steering towards moral right - few have time for legalities. The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum, and regardless of whether some country agreed to be bound by it, few would disagree with the lines it draws.

throwawaycities 5y ago
> The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs. If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, no one is going to entertain someone who makes this argument on the basis of moral superiority when they don’t seem to understand the law nor the history from which the law was derived. Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
- chmod775 5y ago
  > It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs. "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity." Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two? If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that. > If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, No. I am trying to say that they should be treated better than what they are treated like right now. I am not arguing for anyone being tried for war crimes at some later date. Once the harm is done, that's for others to figure out. I'd rather no harm was done in the first place. My argument isn't "look they're breaking the Geneva Convention", my argument is "what they're doing sucks, even the Geneva Convention has something to say about it". If that came across differently at some point, my bad. > Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same. You might want to try that in a place that cares about these things. I heard people typically put their credentials on their Twitter bio, so maybe that place is a better fit? My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention. In fact it says the same thing when I look it up in other languages I speak.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity." >Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two? No mental gymnastics required. The writers of this weren’t thinking of youtube or even newspapers, this is about parading your prisoners through the streets and exposing them to hostile crowds. And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.
rosndo 5y ago
> POWs or not. > The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Geneva Convention is not at all a bare minimum, it provides POWs with far more rights than what are usually afforded to regular prisoners.
- chmod775 5y ago
  > it provides POWs with far more rights than what are usually afforded to regular prisoners. True in some places, not in others.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    True in almost all places.