[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
Please. You said:
How the &*@! go you interpret that as a "blanket condemnation of the grandchildren of people who hurt your and my grandparents insensitive and insulting to you, them, and me, someone in ‘your group.’ "?
We can always feel irrational hatred towards particular groups. We don’t have control over how we feel; we have control over how we act. And none of the acts Susannan has described are ouside the bounds of her rights. It may not be very mature of her, but everyone has the right to be immature.
I don’t know what you mean.
No, I didn’t accuse you of playing race games. I accused you of completely ignoring what I was saying, and instead creating ridiculous strawmen against which you can rant and rave in righteous fury. Which you would have known if you had actually paid attention to my post, instead of continuing your penchant for tilting at imaginary giants. And I wasn’t “playing the race card”, I was trying to make a legitimate point that the liberal establishment makes greater allowances for non-white people. When Arabs murder Westerners, a morally ambiguous partition that happened half a century ago is offered as an excuse, but when a white person does no more than refuse to buy certain cars, a war of pure aggression prosecuted in a brutal and inhuman manner is simply not enough to justify it. Simply because a statement involves race, that does not mean it’s “playing the race card”.
I don’t think that “hate” is an appropiate description of Susannan’s feelings. It’s not like she’s going around beating up Japanese people.
You appear to be confused as to what my statement is. Although oddly enough, I can actually see where your confusion came, as opposed to most of your claims regarding my position, which as far as I can see come out of nowhere.
So if a non-signatory gets into a war with a signatory, it is obligated to follow the Convention?
I don;t see how it misses that point. Whether the conduct was prohibited by other treaties/standards has nothing to do with whether it was prohibeted by the Convention.
Well, yes, as I understand it. The whole point of the Geneva Convention is that those who signed up are showing their moral colours to the world. They’re saying even in times of war there are certain moral standards that must be upheld. Moreover, intrinsically the statement is a humanitarian one and, as such, whichever humans involved must be treated equitably.
How far this can actually happen at individual soldier level is probably another matter altogether.
Sorry - I just re-read your line and realised it can be read both ways. I was explaining that the signatory is obligated to follow the convention. The non-signatory of course, is not (because they’ve not signed up!). It is therefore up to the signatory to maintain the moral high ground as stated above - which is crucial in terms of worldwide propaganda (a la the ‘war on terrorism’ really).
Non sequitur. Of course a country that has not signed a document is not bound by it. A country that has signed it is bound by it, however, whether it the country it is fighting has signed it or not. The non-signatory would itself still be bound against mistreatment of POWs by other conventions it had signed and prevailing international law.
It misses the point because even if Germany were not bound to treat Soviet prisoners humanely by Geneva, it would still be bound to do so by other conventions. The Hague spelled out that prisoners were to be treated humanely, Geneva just spelled out specific details. German treatment of Soviet POWs was anything but humane. ~5/6 of the Soviet prisoners taken by Germany died in captivity, mostly through starvation and neglect.
Assuming that as country X, you are not a signatory of the Hague conventions, you plan on going to war with your neighbors and in the process murdering, mistreating, neglecting, or using as slave labor prisoners of war… the answer is still no. You as the leader of country X and the officers and men who carried out the misdeeds can still be brought before an international court (assuming you lose). The defendants at Nuremberg were charged with four counts:
The common plan or conspiracy;
Crimes against peace
War crimes and
Crimes against humanity
Of these only count 3 had a substantial precedent, namely the Hague and Geneva, though count 4 extended this to systemic crimes against civilians. Counts 1 and 2 were not defined as crimes anywhere at the time they were committed, leading to criticism that it was victor’s justice.
Darn…I was hoping the Prisoner’s Dilemna would fit there.
So, then, in reality, signing the Geneva Convention or not is irrelevant, because every country has to abide by it (or face war crimes trials if they lose), whether they sign or not.
Sorry. “They did it first.” and “We aren’t doing anything they didn’t do.” are not valid defenses if one wishes to claim to be morally superior. (And, as it happens, while Germany made civilians the targets of indiscriminate bombing, the Allies made civilians the targets of deliberate bombing, so a “We aren’t doing anything they didn’t do” defense fails in the way that it would fail on a playground where a kid struck with a fist retaliated by striking back with a concrete block.)
Sort of and sort of not. Geneva lays out a lot of specifics – for example Article 8 states in part
A non-signatory nation wouldn’t be liable for not allowing POWs it holds to correspond with his or her family as soon as possible, assuming that this isn’t specifically required by for example the Hague, though this would be an odd charge to bring. Serious mistreatment or murder of prisoners is prohibited not just by Geneva, but by the Hague and other international conventions as well. Even if a nation were not a signatory of any international laws (and I’m not sure that such a nation actually exists), murdering prisoners through direct action or criminal neglect is still murder and punishable accordingly. That and the victors get to write the rules some what, as evidenced to some extent by the Nuremburg, Tokyo, and other associated war crimes trials.
Dissonance: non sequitor? Not at all. You said: “It can involve 2: a belligerent who is a signatory and a belligerent who is not. The conditions nonetheless apply as they would between two signatory nations.”
What does “the conditions nonethelss apply as they would between two signatory nations” mean if not that both nations are bound by the conditions?
A statement that I was discussing the applicability of the Geneva Convention, and not the propiety of the acts, misses the point that Germany was bound by other conventions? I think you are confusing “missing” with “consciously and explicitly putting aside”
tomndebb
Would you like to qualify that statement? Or do you really think that the Allies can claim no moral superiority on the basis that the war was started by the Axis? Is shooting someone in agression truly no worse than shooting someone defensively?
I’ve come in at the back of this thread so I might have missed some other person who may have already pointed this out. The Japanese had 800 years of warfare indoctrination. In their martial tradition all who surrendered were executed. From Japan’s fuedal period (about 1100 AD) to WWII the code of military conduct was to treat the injured and fallen foe with hospitality afforded a brethren warrior. To surrender without being wounded in battle was considered cowardly at best and utterly despised at worst.
Anyone who surrendered was considered a coward and thus not worthy of life. Typically, execution was done by lopping off the cowards head and putting it on the tip of a pike as a warning to others (both soldiers of the clan and their enemies) that to surrender they would suffer the same fate.
We weren’t talking about who started the war but crimes commited during war. If the commiting of crimes by one party is an excuse for the other party to commit the same crimes.
Coventry, Warsaw, Rotterdam and London are often used as an excuse that the Germans started the terror bombing so they only got what they deserved. Besides the fact that this argument is not completely true ( Coventry wasn’t just a quaint little village but a very important industrial city in the war production. Warsaw and Rotterdam were strategic bombardements and ‘the Blitz’ on London started only after Britain had bombed Berlin) the question is should you stick to the treaties, even if the other party isn’t (or not even a signatory)?
I find it extremely rude to do this. The point has been mentioned and addressed. If you don’t have time to read the thread then better stay out of it. This is a place for exchange and interaction, not for drive by posts.
Why don’t you take this to email? What makes you think this is of any interest to those of us following this thread?
