Will America or George Bush suffer for Geneva Convention violations?
354178
In a just world, yes.  But you'd have a larger question if you considered our world just.\n\nGood question~~
88267
Not quite so, here we think that the general international policy of the United States for the past century is criminal, no matter who the president. Bush just happens to be worse than the rest. Look at it this way, he has robbed from his own people with his tax reforms. So, he is not only war criminal (like most US presidents) he is also a regular criminal-- thief :) cocaine abuser and many other things you and I will never know about.\nSpain
680282
There is a principle by all opressive rulers (such as ours) it goes- the crimes they do matter, the crimes we do are ignored.  Some people call this a double-standard, but in fact it is a single standard used by all opressive regimes.  So regardless of whether or on Osama (who, by the way didn't even know 9-11 happened, he indirectly funded it supposedly) is as murderous as Bush... of course on every level of measurement Bush is worse, but in the US we cannot be objective and are forces to give in to blind flag-waving patriotism and think that we are innocents when in fact we are the most aggresive, out of control state on the globe.
8846
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."\n\nSo, according to the Fourth Amendment, no.  Considering Bush, illegality is no surprise.  This administration already detains "enemy combatants" indefinitely, tortures prisoners, uses Stalinist gulags in Eastern Europe, and leaks classified information on our own agents as a means of petty personal revenge.
422352
You are right. USA must be careful.
478985
The United States must abide by laws that govern such things as international trade and human rights.  The United States, as is with every other nation, is not required to abide by the edicts passed by the United Nations.  \n\nIf they elect not to abide by a law that it feels is unfair or against the United States' interests they can refuse to uphold that law.  The consequences could include cooled relationships with other countries, embargos and even U N sanctioned war.
890477
i think the u.s would object to anyone being brought to trail on that matter.the guilty don't like the truth comeing out!!
909865
I will be happier. Definitely. Safer? No. Because of the Bush legacy it will take a long time to show the world that Americans are good people again. Bush's war mongering has caused hatred all over the world and formed a new breed of Anti-American terrorists. Any new president, Republican or Democrat, will have to have unbelievable diplomatic skills to undo what Bush has done.
899318
Sadly they cant.\n\nThe second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. \n\n***It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.***\n\nAccording to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty ***unless the document has also been ratified by that nation*** (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. ***The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977***.
164644
Torture is never ok.  Numerous treaties have been signed to this effect.  Where this becomes a grey area is the recent trend of "redefining" words in politics.  Arguably this was started with Clinton arguing semantics when on trial during his presidency (amazing when you consider what he was accused of vs. what is currently happening in government), but this has been taken to new levels by current politicians.  Bills are routinely given names that are opposite to thier effects, and as for torture - they made a point to redefine that to just permanent debilitating injury.  No mention of psychological or even temporary debilitating injuries.  I believe the final wording stated the definition of torture would be defined in a classified military document (that can be changed).\n\nConsider also that Cheney actively campaigned for not cutting off the option of torture up until the newest law was signed.  The UN is still not allowed to see prisoners at our Guantanimo Bay camp (where many are still held without charges for years).  And, Bush has refused to sign the war crimes treaty that would allow the UN to investigate torture / mass murders / genocides committed by Americans.\n\nDoes torture still happen?  With some of the games that are played with this issue one can only wonder.
830141
Smart point!  The calamity will be in the usa.  I delivered UN supplies to africa for several years and we DO not want it here.  Angelina's bleeding heart will cost us. Gun Manufactures start extra shifts and open 24 hour gun shopsFor every one of "them" that survive , you will see the US Government relocating them - and guess where to?  You will have generations of heatherns,  thieves, rapists, violent tribe-ists running the inner cities of america.
607014
Where did you hear that garbage?  Cuba and Iran are probably the only places Bush would be unwelcome.  And it's spelled "warrant"\n\nHEY SUSAN K:  "prying into our lives?"  What the heck does that mean?  If you're referring to the Patriot Act, we happen to be in a state of war, (whether you like it or not) and after 9/11 don't you WANT the government to take a closer look at suspicious people in this country?  I would hope so--If you are a law abiding American, you should have nothing to worry about.  If you are a fundamentalist Muslim here on a "work visa" you better watch your step!  Did you forget millions of fanatic Muslims want America DEAD?  I suppose you'd rather have Kerry and sit down for tea....sheeesh!  Get a pair!
996981
The US government's foreign policy dictates that democracy be spread around the world.  The World Court did try and hold the US for war crimes.  The US told the world court to 'stick it'.  I believe it was Colin Powell they wanted to try.\n\nIf you don't like democracy.  Good for you.  Just stay out of the US.  Thank you.
992665
Stand by, they're on their way, Should be interesting how they'll rationalize, minimize, deny, and blame in defense of their criminal leader. Bush and his criminal administration should be put on trial for their crimes against America and humanity.
127689
well...anything that we do increase out human rights is going to make chan nervous and go to war with one of 2 places....\n1-tiwan\n2-U.S.\neither way it will end up dragging us in...and it will go nuclear...so i guess we just sit back and hope bush doesnt do anyhting stupid?\n~Brendon
719686
Civilian casualties are a fact of war yes, but there is recorded video footage of American and, I am truly ashamed to say, British soilders and officers killing civilians in cold blood.  There have been many photos and videos leaked to the press and shown on the internet of soilders harassing and even torturing innocent civilians before, in some of the worst cases, killing them.\n\nThis is obviously against the code of war and the Geneva Convention and so yes, those found to be responsible for these actions must be charged accordingly, and even more so as they are representative of their respective countries.
169098
partly, yes. Cuba, as you know is a commie country who hates America (or at least Fidel Castro does). I think bush is too paranoid...