Well, terrorist and partsian are two different things.

And yes, I do think that the geneva convention is antiquated and useless.

I do remember a case in which the ACLU wanted to stop American Law Enforcement from using JHP ammo. They said it was because it was against the geneva convention. Well, they got told to shut up. Why, because the United States of America never signed the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Well, terrorist and partsian are two different things.

And yes, I do think that the geneva convention is antiquated and useless.

en....I have to disagree with that, I think by signing this convention, the nation proclaims to the rest that she is a civilized society, which will not commit to barbaric act like torturing, masscaring and humiliating prisoners or slaughtering civlians.

and U.S did sign Geneva convention.

I think the IDEA of the Geneva Conention is an excellent one. However, the convention is now incredibly antiquated and useless. Because it is so useless it can be mainipulated by any reader to push their own agenda.

Round peg of 22nd century warfare fitting into a doccument as old as the American Civil War.

No one truely obeys the Geneva convention anymore, they merely put up a facade of compliance while surreptitiously violating it.

You think America wouldn't torture top-level al-quaida leaders for information? You don't think suicide bombings against civilians are against the spirit of the Geneva convention? You think China is committed to being the poster child for the Geneva Convention and human rights? You really think your country would do so different if you where face to face with annihilation?

Rules of war have to be agreed upon by all members to be effective, otherwise they're useless just like the Geneva Convention.

I agree with you on this one that Geneva Convention in principal certainly represents the value of wut we stand for, but some technical parts of the convention are outdated and need significant revisions.

The Geneva convention all sounds very nice but when you come across people you know that have been tortured to death, then you get hold some the people that have done that to your friends, are you telling me that you are going to be nice to them. Come on folks get real.

I think nations should sit down and agree on rules of war before the war is begun or shortly thereafter. That way both parties have specifically agreed to what is off limmits and if they can't come to an agreement on something... then it isn't like the other party can't use it too.

I think a country like Iraq or Iran would be a lot quicker to not torture prisoners if countries like America and Brittain say "well, if you don't want to negotiate the rules of war we always have these nice nukes over here and well god d*mnit people like to see things explode!"

Interesting question... I believe this came up with my cousin, who is a police officer in Houston. He doesn't have to abide by the firearms and ammunition, as I recall, but as for treatment as a combatant, I can check with him.

Back on topic: from my understanding, LEO's and other public safety personnel are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they are not formally military personnel. No, they're not complete civilians (police officers in the US are "sworn officers" after all), but they're not military.

However, if a police department is somehow brought under the control of the military (either through a memorandum of understanding or through legislation), then that's a different story.

As far as Iraq goes, insurgents and terrorists aren't exactly considered military personnel. If you look at the first Gulf War, the US treated Iraqi POW's directly in accordance with Geneva Convention because they surrendered (or were captured) while a part of a legitimate army. How they/we are treating captured insurgents and terrorists and whether they fall under the Geneva Convention should really be another thread.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I think nations should sit down and agree on rules of war before the war is begun or shortly thereafter. That way both parties have specifically agreed to what is off limmits and if they can't come to an agreement on something... then it isn't like the other party can't use it too.

I think a country like Iraq or Iran would be a lot quicker to not torture prisoners if countries like America and Brittain say "well, if you don't want to negotiate the rules of war we always have these nice nukes over here and well god d*mnit people like to see things explode!"

One problem. Those Iraqi's have been under a tyranical governemnt that used death, tourture, and itmidation to control it's people so thats all they know. What is it with people? War is what it is, the killing of fellow man. No matter how you try to regulate it, or try to make rules about it's still war and the killing of our fellow man.

Besides, what makes you think they would abide by the rules anyway? Look at Veitnam, they chucked the rules and where out to win. Another thing, who's go to punish or repremand the countries in breech of the agreement, are you going to go to war with them agian? You can't hold a war tribunial, look at Nurmberg 90% of those procecuted where let free after a few years, or the setences shortened.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

Besides, what makes you think they would abide by the rules anyway? Look at Veitnam, they chucked the rules and where out to win. Another thing, who's go to punish or repremand the countries in breech of the agreement, are you going to go to war with them agian?

The only way to regulate the "rules of war" is that if one person breaks their end of the agreement, then you are free to break yours. I.e. if in a fictional conflict Itally starts torturing French POWs then France nukes an Itallian millitary base in response because Itally violated the agreement they signed at the beginning of the war.

It would only take once before "conventions" and "treaties" where taken seriously instead of the one-hand-tied-being-the-back mentallity modern warfare takes to them.

War should have some rules lest we extinct ourselves in nuclear holocaust... but without enforcement the "rules" are at best useless, at worst a force of evil.

The reason we have to deal with such question as "how does the geneva convention deal with police" is because we try to fit the square peg of modern warfare into the round hole of a convention created origionally 200 years ago. The real answer is that whoever wins gets to decide whether to slaughter every policeman as an enemy of the state and therefore an enemy combatant or spare them. Either way, the Geneva convention is merely decided by the consensus of the powers that be.