4 ms·

> The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does no

> 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.
  - chmod775 5y ago
    > 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. You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it? As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? This is not something the Geneva convention is supposed to protect soldiers from. > In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. Their families are also not protected by the Geneva convention. I think it’s a bit hilarious to expect protections beyond the Geneva convention while fighting a war of aggression.
- 5y ago

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.
- chmod775 5y ago
  > 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. You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it? As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? This is not something the Geneva convention is supposed to protect soldiers from. > In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. Their families are also not protected by the Geneva convention. I think it’s a bit hilarious to expect protections beyond the Geneva convention while fighting a war of aggression.
5y ago