Why is it against the Geneva Conventions to blind the Enemy?
466748
IIRC, it's not the Geneva convention (which deals with the treatment of Prisoners Of War, as my precedessor has written, also with protection of non-combat personnel, treating the wounded, and protecting cultural assets, among other things).\n\nIn Hague convention there's a passage that prohibits "weapons that produce unnecessary suffering". This was interpreted in many ways. The most common opinion is that weapons that maim aren't allowed.\n\nIt's perfectly okay with the rules if the enemy is maimed as a side effect of your attempt to kill him on the spot, but weapons that are intended to cripple only are considered a big no-no.\n\nAs for blinding - IIRC, flash-bang grenades are okay, for they cause only temporary blindness. It is the weapons that cause permanent blindness that are opposed (they are, AFAIK, based on laser, used to burn victim's retina).\n\nWhile it's a matter of personal judgement whether it's more humanitarian to kill someone on the spot, or render him crippled for life, my call is that I, personally, would prefer to be dead than blind. Not that I'd be likely to have any choice, anyway...
919456
Hi, Triumph.  Every big brother has a tendency to poke his ugly nose into the affairs of the younger ones.  US is no exception.  Till the commencement of Second World War, the US was a non-interfering country and it was busy in the development of its own people.  When it became a super power, it started to think that it has got a right to inerfere in the affairs of other countries as if it is the protector of the entire globe.  This attitude of superiority complex has become the major hindrance for the international peace because some other countries also want to follow the same principle.
606980
YES!  We need to bases to avoid honoring the Geneva convention.   We also need to have more ex-CIA (American KGB) agents operate small private intergation companies, too. This way when we get caught ripping someone fingernails off or gouging their eyes out, no one can hold us responsible!  We can blame in on "free enterprise" and some "straw security company" who isn't bound by the rules and regulation of the Geneva convention.\n\nThe trick is to make everyone else play by the rules so we can cheat and win!
1164564
Tolnac1.....Actually the Geneva Convention does not apply to any of these prisoners because they do not represent any country we have an agreement with.  They are simply terrorists and have no rights afforded to them by any country.  We are not fighting Iraqi's....PS the true reason we are in Iraq is to set up one Democracy in the middle east and let the Domino effect take over.  Capitalism and Democracy will be viewed by all the other Arabs and they will revolt to get what Iraq now has...free elections
199072
well, if the people werent so outspoken against ridding the world of a bad influence and a troublemaking nation, and voted their tax dollars to military operations, yes, it could be quite easy. even easier if the US were to break from the UN and disregard any Geneva Convention violations. the Geneva Convention and the UN only work for the countries who participate, all others fully intend to settle conflicts in their own manner
931912
the u.s thinks the world is blind, they can brain wash thier own ppl but not the rest of the world, nature will decide judgement day
509489
The leadership in this country should be held responsible for any atrocity's of war. They hold others responsible. I have maintained for a long time that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be taken to the Hague and tried for these crimes against Humanity. Just because it is the U.S. doing it does not make it right. Who would have thought we would torture prisoners of war. Not before now. The Geneva convention had a purpose and we should adhere to it whether anybody else does or not. By stooping to the level of our enemy's we have allowed them to win.
166425
Unlike the hypocrites running the US now, I believe in following international law and following consistent standards of conduct even when it's inconvenient or unpopular.  A violation of international law is equally reprehensible whether it is committed by the US, Nazi Germany, Egypt, or Iran.  That used to be considered a "conservative" view, but conservatism has given way to radicalism, and radicals can justify anything they want to because they're so morally smug and self-righteous.  \n\nI don't think the Geneva Conventions for POW's apply fully to Al-Qaida suspects because those laws were written for conventional warfare, but a civilized nation would not assume a license for abuse and would instead be pressing for new international law to cover new situations, just like Congress writes new laws for new situations like the Internet.
1007418
Your are so right!\nThis is a WAR and we can not hold back.\nWe need to operate within the confines of the Geneva Convention, yes.  But we have so far and there is no reason to think that will change.\nThe simple fact is, as simple as it sounds, either fight them there or fight them here.\nWho would not prefer there!\nNo living American remembers but during the War of 1812 we were invaded.  The White House was burned, many Americans died here on their home soil.\nLet us do what we must to prevent the same happening again!
752621
It is the Russian Military. They have an illegal system based on systematic and routine mulilation and torture of recruits. It is called "The Rule of Grandfathers" and is administered by corporals and sergeants in charge of recruits. About a year ago there was a big scandal in Russia about one recruit who was so badly beaten he had to have his lower body amputated, complete with his genitals. He is blind in one eye, cannot speak and is paralysed down one side. This is quite frequent in the Russian military. You think we have it tough?
1028645
I certainly agree. I doubt a constitution would work effectively in Britain *my home* but im glad to see Americas constitution is still keeping back the more radical tendancies of power. The Geneva convention should be so ingrained into every country in the world that its impossible to break, its such a shame the world wont work like that\n\nNetjnr - The geneva conventions states that all prisoners involved in war are treated fairly with a proper military or civilian tribunal. Bush has given neither to the detainees at Gitmo. He breached the Convention by refusing fair trials to all the men, and not allowign Haebus Corpus
78682
The principle here is not that they are able to kill people but for what reason. The execution of a known felon who has him/herself murdered countless lives has forfeited his/her right to live under the eyes of the law. If he/she were to be set free and thus cause more deaths on the population it is justified to take his life for the general good. They are against violence, random and senseless violence that is. Sanctioned killings whereby a person has commited crimes deemed irreconcievable in the eyes of the community is not a crime nor hyprocracy but justified and necessary. As for war it depends on the reason, to the defence of life and country it is a noble cause, for an outster of a regime not friendly to a country that is selfcentered hyprocracy for a nation that cherishes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
969831
The Constitution only has a few basic principals that are no-brainers.  It does not specifically preclude the "evil" governmental activity you indicate.  But thank God that it does prohbit British and Hessian soldiers from demanding to stay at my house.
1026792
The people in Guantanamo were taken from the battle field therefore they aren't protected by the constitution (they aren't American citizens)  The are not a part of an organized state sponsored military therefore they are not protected under the Geneva Convention.  Military tribunal is the only correct answer.  The Supreme Court is wrong and the decision should be overturned by congress.
1080107
Because to do that would be a violation of the United Nations charter.  Also if you just go around killing the innocent with the guilty, you are no better then the terrorist who bombs.
760390
Yes they should!...When American POW's were being abused by the North Vietnamese, The USA made a big thing about it and they were right to do so.\n\nWhy should the USA be excluded in following The Geneva Convention?\n\nIf The USA refuses to follow The Geneva Convention Treaty, it might as well be tossed because no other Country will follow it either...then all POW's including Americans will be screwed!
1033574
I expect its because morally we should uphold the treaties we sign. The treatment of those at Guantanamo is questionalbe at best but we as a country have generally tried to find loopholes in our agreements to gain better advantage. The courts have always in the past been reluctant to apply our agreements as law here so that we can more easily make use of these loopholes. Perhaps this is a sign that things are changing.