Should the Geneva Conventions be updated, and how does that process even work?

2016-12-23T11:52:54-05:00

To conduct operations congruent with “the laws and customs of war,” combatants must display a non-removable symbol that is distinctive from afar and openly carry their weapons.

Should the Geneva Conventions be updated, since freedom's enemies today generally don't care about any of this stuff? How does that process even work?

Response by PO2 Robert M. made Dec 23 at 2016 12:00 PM

2016-12-23T12:00:50-05:00

Yes, IMHO, terrorists are not and should not be protected by the Geneva Convention.
I do not know if they are or are not; but I do not believe when you execute human beings in front of video cameras, you should NOT be afforded any RIGHTS!!!!
They ( I believe ) do not "identify" themselves as enemy combatants, due to the fact they wear civilian clothing while they carry out terrorist attacks. In my opinion, that should be considered an act of spying and be punished as such.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2016 12:03 PM

2016-12-23T12:03:53-05:00

Trying to fight these cats while following the Laws of War and the Geneva Convention is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. It'll give you something to do, but won't be too effective. But yes, the Convention should be updated on how to handle these cats and it starts with countries WANTING to sit down at The Hague and (hopefully) agree on the editing needed.

Response by SPC Kevin Ford made Dec 23 at 2016 12:10 PM

2016-12-23T12:10:55-05:00

That's an interesting question in unconventional warfare. Since the Geneva Convention applies to conflicts between nation states it could be argued it doesn't really apply to organizations like Isis. Additionally if they are not wearing a uniform and in many cases carrying weapons openly, they don't qualify for POW status. The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that we are operating in a host country.

I think the basis of the question is, should the international community come together and formally agree on how to deal with people like this? The Geneva Convention is just a collection of countries getting together to agree on conduct. The process for modifying it? Do the same, get everyone to agree to a particular conduct and sign up for it. This can be the challenging bit though. For example, while the POTUS conducts foreign policy, such a change is a treaty which would have to be ratified by congress. So event if the POTUS signs us up for changes to the Geneva Convention, Congress could say "We don't think so." It can be done, but it's a matter of getting all the relevant governments to agree on the provisions and sign up for it.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2016 1:03 PM

2016-12-23T13:03:49-05:00

It is something that should absolutely be looked at. Modern enemies know that ROE is dictated by Geneva and part of that relies on the enemy wearing a uniform. Hard to enact ROE on enemies that do not wear a uniform.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2016 1:59 PM

2016-12-23T13:59:30-05:00

A note thankfully the one in the picture here has reportedly been killed. Tarkhan Batirashvili (who branded himself Omar al-Shishani or Omar the Chechen) was the face of IS propaganda campaign. That said, the Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms. All political organizations are not recognized as governments nor have they ratified the terms of the Geneva convention.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2016 3:24 PM

2016-12-23T15:24:37-05:00

People who spontaneously take up arms to resist an invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war are privileged combatants. While it's true that many do not respect the laws and customs of war, without evidence sufficient to convict someone of violating the laws of war... they should be treated as legal combatants.

Response by Cpl Joshua Caldwell made Dec 23 at 2016 4:18 PM

2016-12-23T16:18:59-05:00

The Geneva convention doesnt apply to them for some reason we (the western powers) universally apply the geneva convention to every shit bag we find on a battlefield. Terrorists have no status under it. They can be shot pretty much at any time

Response by SGT William Howell made Dec 23 at 2016 4:37 PM

2016-12-23T16:37:32-05:00

I think that the convention should only apply if both sides follow it. If one side does not then it should be game the fuck on! Every person captured should be executed as soon as they are IDed as an enemy.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Dec 23 at 2016 6:48 PM

2016-12-23T18:48:13-05:00

It would be a waste of time. The signatory nations haven't changed their view of warfare or the treatment of combatants or captured personnel. ISIS and their kind are not a nation, let alone a signatory nation. They have no reason to care about the Geneva Convention.

Response by SFC Dennis A. made Dec 24 at 2016 7:55 AM

2016-12-24T07:55:48-05:00

The Geneva Convention is kind of like the lock on a door, it keeps honest people honest. Terrorist groups don't care about anyone but their own groups, they definitely do not care about the Geneva Convention. It would be a waste of time.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Dec 24 at 2016 1:42 PM

2016-12-24T13:42:40-05:00

We haven't fought a war with anybody who signed the Geneva Convention in 50 years. What does it matter?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2016 8:19 AM

2016-12-25T08:19:19-05:00

CPT Aaron Kletzing - I would keep the convention intact as it is unless there is some major change that may be helpful. To have some minimal standards for civilized warfare with nation states like Russia, China, etc - including clear identification of the combatants - and clear identification of the noncombattants (like dustoff) - together with some reasonable standards for treatment of prisoners - among nation states is a worthy endeavor. That said, while maintaining reasonable standards may be helpful in dealing with nation states - where operational effectiveness is compromised by the modus operandi of nintraditional combatants - maybe we should adapt the rules as needed to counter them. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Dec 25 at 2016 11:10 AM

2016-12-25T11:10:53-05:00

The Geneva Conventions are a bunch of crap that absolutely no one pays any attention to but the US and our allies. We have never fought an enemy that obeys them and never will. Their main function is to make it harder for us to win while giving protection to our enemies.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Dec 27 at 2016 10:26 AM

2016-12-27T10:26:39-05:00

Yes,but not because of red beard up there,I believe he's dead.Anyways,yes it should be changed or amended to keep up with advances in technology,and tactics.But not for red beard,I believe he's Russian.The convention was designed to bring Civility and Mercy to the table something red beard and his merry band of terrorists seek to change.Dont drink the red kool-aid.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2016 11:18 AM

2016-12-27T11:18:47-05:00

Both the Geneva and Hague Conventions, while well intended to try and make warfare more "civilized" are the product of well intended diplomats who think that a game invented by the Marque de Sade should be played using the rules of the Marque de Queensbury.
Both conventions need to be looked at and redrawn to account, not only for past abuses, but to take into account of the modern non-linear, full spectrum battlefield that has non-state supported actors waging war against established nations and persons.
Will it make it more civilized? Probably not as there will always be those who seek to hide behind it's protections while violating its tenants as compliance, shows respect for all of mankind, humanity and peace.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Dec 27 at 2016 12:00 PM

2016-12-27T12:00:39-05:00

Excellent question. The concept was traditionally in war fare there were winners and losers so after, WWII where there was unconditional surrender by the belligerents, war crimes trials could get underway. Today we fight phantoms who do not subscribe to and routinely violate the Laws of warfare, yet we provide them those protections because we want them to provide to protections to any of our combatants who are captured. So far there has only been that idiot Bergdahl, yet they treated him as well as they could given their limited means. Today, fighting Daesh, a criminal organization, we respond by deciding who needs to get killed then we kill them, so we've abrogated the needs for a "war crimes" tribunals -- there simply isn't any living leadership to try in a court. In the meanwhile, the Rwanda genocide is now 22 years gone by and the International Criminal Courts in the Hague is moving out at a glacial pace, with some defendants have simply died waiting for trial. My point is, the "system" is an old model and isn't working very well anymore.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2016 12:11 PM

2016-12-27T12:11:54-05:00

It's war! Following the convention I feel is to say a Country does not want war and will abide by these rules to protect humanity. However it is war and if a country knows where their enemy draws the line, then they have an upper hand. Even if two countries are known to follow the conventions at what point does a country decided the win is more important and decides to go against the convention.

Response by SFC Ernest Thurston made Dec 27 at 2016 4:19 PM

2016-12-27T16:19:56-05:00

I think it should be scrapped. The only people that still play by the rules are mostly NATO members or other combatants from WWII. The rest of the would only abides by the rules when it benefits them, like hiding in a mosque with missiles or putting a insurgent battalion in a hospital and then getting CNN to put it on the news when the hospital gets shot up.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Dec 27 at 2016 10:33 PM

2016-12-27T22:33:09-05:00

Those people are conidered "Franc Tierers" and subject to summery execution!

Response by Sheila Soto made Dec 28 at 2016 5:07 AM

2016-12-28T05:07:45-05:00

Absolutely! The Terrorists should not B Protected by the Geneva Convention, which I, As A Civilian once saw as A minimal Protection or Honor, if U will in War. I Care & Support Our Deployed, All Branches, Ranks & Wars 4 OVER 15+ Yrs. They R frustrated they must go by the GC. while the terrorists, slaughter our Warriors. I just read an article Re. Drone Pilots, having severe Mental Issues while watching A Target Torture our Warriors. Sorry, This is Raw: Pulling out nails, using drills on various parts of the body! Their release is Firing that 3 sec. to Action Drone! Where is the GV there? It must B rewritten in these Day & Times! Our Troops must B able to Fight without their hands behind there back! Sorry 4 the truthful descriptions. Don't even get me started that our Vehicles R not properly built to protect our Troops from IED's What's Up with this???? We have time & ingenuity to Do Better! No, still WW Come home missing limbs! I know & C the massive destruction to their Body's That Should NEVER have Happened!!!!!