Noel, why does this only apply to the US and not to Al Qai'da members? AL QAI'DA VIOLATES THE GENEVA CONVENTION EVERY DAY!!!
2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the (a) violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;
(b) collective punishments;
(c) taking of hostages;
(d) acts of terrorism;
(e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form or indecent assault;
(f) slavery and the slave trade in all their forms;
(g) pillage;
(h) threats to commit any or the foregoing acts.
Also, here's another example for you... After WWI, most of the warring powers voted for the Geneva Protocol of 1925 to restrict their use of chemical weapons to retaliation only.
Yet most of these countries, including Germany and the US, maintained stockpiles of such chemicals. It has been suggested that Hitler's personal experience in WWI, as well as the strong expectation of an Allied relatiation, were reasons for why Germany didn't use (or widely use) chemical weapons against Allied forces.
But what if he had? What if Hitler had used chemical weapons against the US??
Then what you're telling us all here is that, DESPITE HIS VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THAT TREATY, the US would not be morally right in retaliating. That Hitler could gas our troops to his heart's content and we'd never retaliate or use the same methods.
That we have to live by some higher self-imposed moral standard that has something to do with our "values" and "honor"..
Now ask yourself how we would have treated German soldiers, had we discovered their military was torturing and executing US soldiers MERELY for being American, or civilians for allegedly being "collaborators"?? Do you think we would have treated them well, or would there have been retaliation? (in fact, I think there were instances of this, but I don't have the time to search for the info)..
What you, and the rest of the NUTCASES on this thread who constantly quote the GC, REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE is that Al Qai'da beleives the GC isn't worth the paper its written on..
In fact, they probably wipe their @sses with your beloved GC.
Treaties are NEVER UNILATERAL. They MUST, AT LEAST BE BI-LATERAL!!
If one party is refusing to abide by that treaty, the other side would be FOOLISH to restrain themselves.
Treaties exist TO ASSURE MUTUAL RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER'S SOLDIERS, AND TO CREATE SOME FORM OF MUTUAL STANDARD IN THE CONDUCT OF WAR.
THEY DO NOT EXIST IN ORDER TO GIVE ONE SIDE AN ADVANTAGE OVER ITS ENEMY.
Let Al Qai'da agree, AND DEMONSTRATE, that they are willing to abide and uphold the GC, and I'll change all of my opinions about how we should treat their illegal combatants.
Until then, just save your breath, your time, and your ridiculous dysfunctional logic.
Hawk
|
