In light of the recent SCOTUS ruling as well as the reality of modern warfare, it is my opinion that the Geneva Convention is inadequate for how present and future wars will be fought. Now i am not taking the position that it should be changed for the purposes of making it easier for say the Bush Administration to conduct the war on terror, but rather that the guidelines are more clear for all nations. So this inevitably leads to our questions.

Questions for Debate:

1) Do you think that it is time to either expand on or completely replace the Geneva Conventions?

2) Do you think that having an international discussion on the topic would be beneficial in and of itself or would it create tension over competing ideologies?

3) What things would you like to see added to the Geneva Convention (or new treaty)?

1) Do you think that it is time to either expand on or completely replace the Geneva Conventions?
I'm not sure about completely replace or completely abolish. Many do not follow the conventions because they didn't sign them (e.g., al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbullah). If you don't sign it, your people don't get the benefits of it.


2) Do you think that having an international discussion on the topic would be beneficial in and of itself or would it create tension over competing ideologies?

Uncertain, seems the only people following the conventions are those countries that would do it even if no conventions existed.

3) What things would you like to see added to the Geneva Convention (or new treaty)?

I would like to see the advantage of the rule breakers eliminated by relieving the other party from obligations under the conventions. You torture my people and I have to wear white gloves when holding the Quran.

I have heard that the Geneva Conventions have become the topic of controversial debate in the US.
I would like to ask you, leder, in what ways do you think is the Geneva Convention not appropriate for modern time warfare? Since we are about to discuss a set of treaties, it would be very helpful to see what articles are insuffient or outdated, and which exact problems have arisen that call for the need to negotiate a new treaty (or add articles).

Founders Intent:

International Treaties like this one are only signed by sovereign states. Political Parties or Terrorist Organisations are not signatories, because the do not qualify as such. That however does not legitimize the non-application of the Geneva convention to individuals that belong to such a group.

Third Geneva Convention, Article 13:
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."
"...Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity"
From that logic, the Geneva Convention should be applied to Gitmo, since the subject under arrest there are Prisoners of War in the proclaimed "War against Terrorism", right?


Well, one party is the world leading nation, the a light for freedom, for democracy and human rights and the other one is a terrorist organization. Don't you think it is right that both don't treat prisoners as animals?

1) Do you think that it is time to either expand on or completely replace the Geneva Conventions?

I don't think either is necessary. I don't see how arguments against the Geneva Conventions are any more founded than arguments against the US Constitution. Arguably, the Constitution is more outdated than the GC.

2) Do you think that having an international discussion on the topic would be beneficial in and of itself or would it create tension over competing ideologies?

I can't think of anything in the GC that needs changing. Perhaps you could cite something you feel needs amending? I've noticed that whenever this subject comes up, misconceptions seem to abound. For instance, there is nothing written in the Geneva conventions that requires "white gloves" or special respect for the Koran, or any other book, for that matter. Link.

Furthermore, the definition of POW is clearly stated and violations make some combatants exempt from Geneva protections. This includes those guilty of perfidy and mercenaries. Sevac, I'd say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is better suited towards your argument than the GC.

No, they should not be treated according to the Conventions. Only soldiers of convention signers should be treated according to the conventions. An agreement is an agreement, and is also a contract. We have no such contract with terrorist groups or non-state entities.

Well heck, why stop there? Why not pay people with no soul a lot of money to lop the heads off terrorists and spread the video all over the internets? Why not fly some very large unmanned aircraft into their mosques? Why not denounce all Islamists the same way they do us?

We don't do that because we are better than them. We shouldn't need the Geneva Conventions to instruct us not to torture prisoners.

And why do people support discarding the Geneva conventions and support violating the Constitution for a threat that statistically, doesn't exist?

Since Al Qaida first attacked us in 1993, they've managed to kill 0.00001% of our population. Some war, huh? As tragic as those deaths are, that hardly is a threat. Our borders are wide open and only 5% of shipments coming into our ports is searched. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING we can do under these conditions to stop a terrorist attack. The simple truth is, Muslims just can't assimilate into our society like they can overseas. The proof is the abysmal (thankfully) lack of success they've had in hurting us.

Yet some of you are ready to discard some of the things that make us who we are.

In the same time period I've described, 172,000 people have been killed because of violent crime. Maybe we should throw out criminal rights as well?

You can go overboard if you like, but this thread is about the Geneva Conventions. I think we should be a lot tougher on the terrorists, absolutely. The US military is hardly working up a sweat over this War on Terror. If you don't think we've been playing nice so far, you are unaware of just how horrible we can be if we were to roll out some of our unused weapons (and I don't mean nukes). You don't really believe the US is in full throttle all out war like WWII do you? These terrorist prisoners are not entitled to treatment under the Geneva Conventions, but we are being nice anyway. I think these whimpering organizations that cry foul if a soldier toughes a Quran with his bare hand need to be kicked out of Gitmo. That's where I'm coming from.