<p>I know I am not a parent or adult, but I usually come here for political information. I will be chairing the committee on the Geneva Convention at my MUN and would like to hear the opinions of people around the globe as to whether it should be changed or not, or just general stances about the protocols. I am doing this because I would like a large scope of opinions on the policy.
Thank you all that reply :).</p>
<p>Also, if you can say where you’re from, or where you are, that will help in forming general statements about it.</p>
<p>You’re asking for one hell of a can of worms to be opened up. You have to realize that there are a lot of Americans; ALL PARTIES; that despise the United Nations. As arrogant as it seems, the United States has helped more countries in the world than anyone else. We’ve helped militarily; economically; health care; human rights; etc… Almost always, we are the ones paying the bill. Yet, countries still want to hold us to trade deficits and other debts. We’ve forgiven war debts and other debts around the world, yet the UN and many other countries won’t support us when we ask for it.</p>
<p>There are many excellent countries in the world that has the USA’s respect. England, Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Australia, just to name a few. There are plenty. Yet, there are also plenty of countries that have lost the USA’s respect because of their desire and belief in wealth re-distribution and that the United States should continue to foot the bill for many of the world’s problems because we are the most prosperous. </p>
<p>If you believe in the United Federation of Planets and similar things, then the United Nations is fine. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that believe that we do way more than our fair share in helping the world and that much of the world owes us. Many only see our military presence in the middle east. They don’t see all the health care, human rights, economic aid, etc… that we provide around the world. Then to have the UN try and impose laws, rules, policies, etc… on us. Voted on and expressed by countries that only want more from us. I don’t think so. Personally, I wish the UN was totally abolished.</p>
<p>You wanted an opinion; there’s one. Believe it or not, I am not alone in that opinion nor is it a very MINOR opinion. As far as the geneva convention goes, it is fine the way it is. It’s useless most of the time however. The vietcong didn’t live by the rules. Sadam and Osama don’t live and play by the rules. What good are they then? Just that we and most civilized countries have some form of ethics and values. Terrorists don’t. And, because they are terrorists and not military who play by rules, then the geneva convention shouldn’t apply to them either. Good luck in your research and studies.</p>
<p>Christcorp just hit a double and stole third base. Dadguy is still up to bat with one strike and one ball (one for one- he didn’t contribute but he posted anyway).</p>
No, not really. That’s why Bolton was thrown out like the dog he is.</p>
<p>
For every good thing I can name about ten bad. For starter’s let’s start with overthrowing democratic governments and replacing them with autocrats. Allende and Mossadegh for an appetizer.</p>
<p>
THE UN is supposed to allow all nations to give their opinions, not to be rubber-stamp the superpower.</p>
<p>Thats an interesting point of view for America,
Of course, they would want the rules to stay as they are because of their efforts in the Middle East</p>
<p>But Also, which other countries would have a strong opinion about the policies (both for and against?). And what would those opinions be.</p>
<p>I am guessing many Middle Eastern Countries have an opinion, although most governments aren’t outright terrorist. Which country could possible have a negative opinion?</p>
<p>I think a lot of questions concerning the geneva convention have to do with what is happening in the middle east. Agree or not, there is a difference. As someone who spent 21 years in the military, I respected the Military of many different nations. Even during the cold war, while I spent time in the company of Russian soldiers, I respected them. I may not have agreed with them in politics, but I respected them.</p>
<p>I don’t however respect terrorists. Terrorists are cowards. I personally don’t believe that the Geneva convention rules should apply in the treatment of them. They aren’t soldiers. They don’t fight their cause with honor. They show no respect for civilians. (Not collateral damage, but their DIRECT attack of civilians). So why should they have such protection from a country who is trying to stop such actions?</p>
<p>We still live by the principle of the geneva convention because of our morals and values. Our value for life and human rights. And when dealing with soldiers, we should be held to those policies and standards. But when it comes to terrorists, we or any country fighting such terrorists should have the right without criticism to deviate from such rules as necessary to stop such terrorism. Military battles have been traditionally fought between military s. Civilian casualties were usually unfortunate affects of the war but are generally unintended. Terrorist attacks on the other hand isn’t against the military. It’s against anyone; including children, women, civilians, etc… The main reason we still have a presence in the war in the middle east; why Israel still has their problems; and why much of this is going on; is because 1 side is trying to fight by a set of rules and the other side isn’t. As long as that is the case the war won’t end. Other wars had surrenders and victors because of a mutual respect. After WWII Germany and Japan didn’t become slave of the rest of the world. There was respect on both sides. There will never be respect for terrorists.</p>
<p>I consider most protocols nice but, practically, useless. That’s just me though. If every country doesn’t sign or obey them, it renders them basically void in my opinion. I think we should stick by the Geneva Convention. If we always make exceptions for others, what happens when we’re the exception that is abused by the loophole?</p>
<p>Then again, what defines someone who is a threat? I completely agree about the terrorists, but how about those few, like in Guantanamo bay, that remain unknown, that are there on CIA intelligence alone (non-governmental agency)? Are we sometimes using the ambiguities here and there to support our motives, or is there something we don’t know?</p>
<p>We, and most countries, do take the high ground; generally speaking. The majority of the time the “opposition” whether they be militants or terrorists, are treated with the geneva convention articles as a baseline. Even though terrorists probably didn’t follow the same rules in their offensive nature. Many captors in vietnam, korea, as well as victims of terrorist attacks around the world haven’t been so lucky in how they were treated. But we do generally hold the high ground. That is our nature and our weakness when it comes to terrorists. I do believe however that in a true “Military” environment, the geneva convention, or whatever agreed upon set of “rules” should be followed. However; against terrorists, those rules should be allowed to be bent, twisted, etc… for a cause. I.e. If certain forms of torture can determine where the terrorists have planted bombs in a city, then by all means.</p>
<p>I think if your HS Mock-UN team should debate an issue with the Geneva Convention, and based on your focus on the treatment of those captured in the Middle East (movement to Gitmo, lack of trial, etc.), you need to look at the Convention’s definition of “legal” versus “non-legal” combatants. </p>
<p>The GC makes distinct distinctions about how a goverment’s legal combatants are identified and the protections they are then afforded. The enemy faced in Afghanistan (and currently in Iraq)? By GV rules, these persons were non-legal combatatants, and thus were not afforded GC protections, to include the connventions on treatment of prisoners of war.</p>
<p>This is the crux of the Bush arguement on the US’s right to treat them as criminals versus legal combatatants. Easy and politically correct now adays to disagree with the policy (i personally think water-boarding is torture, but half of the stuff we as a nation are accused of (phychological interragation techniques such as lack of sleep, yelling at them, load noises, good cop / bad cop stuff, etc.) are no worse than the typical fraternity rush), but it comes down to how are we to treat this new threat: as legal soldiers or as criminals. </p>
<p>There needs to be debate instead of immediately sayying: they’re all soldiers. Does the teen-age boy who straps on a vest of explosives and attempts to walk into a busy market a soldier, or is he a criminal? His intent is not to fight against soldiers in the field, but to directly and indiscriminately attack civilians, which is exactly what the GCs were trying to prevent. </p>
<p>Not trying to take a stand on what is right vs. what is wrong, just trying to provide you a platform to focus your debate…</p>
<p>Terrorists are unlawful combatants. IMO they should be treated as criminals. We should treat them the same way we would treat any mass-murderer in the US.</p>
<p>Militia’s pose a different set of issues. They often follow at least some of the GC protocalls (which makes the issue a bit less clear-cut). Many times, they still fall into the “unlawful combatant” category, so are technically not guaranteed GC protections as POWs. If they try to fight honorably, as soldiers would, I think they should be afforded treatment as POWs.</p>
<p>***I am not the policy maker or a legal scholar, so this is just my opinion.</p>