Confronting the 21st century foe

[Mr.Flint]

A very interesting article was posted today in the Toronto Star, and imho it raises some serious questions about the laws of war (and other parts of the geneva conventions)

Confronting the 21st century foe
Apr. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM
LYNDA HURST

Britain's Defence Minister John Reid probably knew he would be pounced on, accused of parroting Washington's aggressive stance in the post 9/11 world or, worse, pandering to it.
But this week in London, he stood up and said the unsayable: It may be time to re-examine the Geneva Conventions and international laws governing the conduct of war, its perpetrators and its victims.

ive opted to post only a quote of article, since its contains some info facts that im too lazy to separate in order to post:laughing:
but please take the time to read it and share your opinion about it.

[Kanaric]

Nobody pays attention to the laws of war, its only a tool used to punish the losers.

[the Black Prince]

i totally agree

the laws of war are but another weapon, or shield, in the arsenal of war. we cannot fight a 21st century war, a war of guided missiles, smart bombs and sub machine guns in the hands of netcentric troops, within the framework of a 20th century legal code, in the same we could not fight it with the 20th century weapons.


laws, be they national or international, civil or criminal, must adapt and chnage to meet current social norms. laws in force today may have been unthinkable 50 years ago, and vice versa. this applies as much to our laws on racial hatred as it does to our laws on terror, POWs war crimes etc etc

we are fighting a war, but this is not a war between nations, this is not a war between 2 great states with the battlefield of continents laid out before armies in the field. this is a war of the person in a jacket, in a city with a suitcase of semtex, a waistcoast filled with dynamite, the glass phial and deadly virus'. these enemies cannot be taken out by the 82nd airborne, nor the HMS Warspite, these are the enemies that are taken down by the undercover operative and a silenced nine milimetre semi automatic.

this is the world we live in today. the enemy we face today doesn't care about not killing civilians, or nuclear non proliferation, it doesn't care about the niceties of war. the enemy we face is one whose very idea is to throw every rule out the window, and then follow it up by mass killing as many of our citizens as they possibly can.

if our laws do not allow us to fight this enemy, supported as he may be by rogue states and terrorist regimes, then those laws are bad laws, worthless laws, pointless laws. laws that no longer have any relevance, and in the same way that we ignore olden day statutes that allow for the killing of a welshmqan in chester with a bow, or preventing anyone but the employees or person of the duke of westminster driving sheep across westminster bridge, so we too must ignore, or update those international laws from a prior age so that they may continue to be relevant in the modern world.

ultimately, the geneva convention is all very well, but a states first objective is to protect and serve its citizens, a governments purpose to look after and guard its citizens, and see to their welfare, and with the exception of human rights applied to all people regardless of nationhood (because we are in fact a civilised and humane society) any rule or international code that prevents my government doing everything in its power to protect me is one i would demand they ignore, or call for them to make relevant once more

[David Deas]

The law did not come between us and our objective until we decided to launch a full scale millitary invasion into Iraq for no Goddamned reason and exile its governement. There was no international law barring the United States from marching into Afghanistan and arresting Bin Laden.

[Tom Paine]

Seemingly the reason the laws need changing is so we aren't breaking them. The Geneva Convention does nothing to stop us doing what needs to be done in this grand farce we call the war on terror fighting for freedom et al, unless we really do need to torture to win it, in which case haven't we already given up those ideals we were originally fighting for and beome our own worst enemies?

[Carach]

laws of war are merely an escape hole a terrorist can use when captured.

[Tom Paine]

So the laws of war protect from torture and are thus bad? They force us to follow our civilised laws and are thus bad? What kind of morality and logic applies that?

[Carach]

So the laws of war protect from torture and are thus bad? They force us to follow our civilised laws and are thus bad? What kind of morality and logic applies that?

terrorists, other bad nations (namely the islamic middle east) use torture, execute, so on so forth..

terrorists pruposefully target and attack civilians, kidnap them, behead them, generally break all the rules going.

they however claim to be under the geneva convention so cant really be touched without breaking the law.

this is why i dislike it, and human rights (in some ways), because there aremany loop holes where mass exploitation occurs.

[Tom Paine]

Like I say, should we sacrafice our ideals to defeat those who do not share them despite the fact that this puts us on a level with those who do not share them?

[Carach]

Like I say, should we sacrafice our ideals to defeat those who do not share them despite the fact that this puts us on a level with those who do not share them?

i dont care what they do in their own countries, but we are talking about the war laws.

and war laws are global.

[Ahiga]

Like I say, should we sacrafice our ideals to defeat those who do not share them despite the fact that this puts us on a level with those who do not share them?

To be honest, does it really matter that we can brag 'we're of a higher level than they are', if we're the losers?

It seems as though chemical and then Nuclear weapons were a detterent weapon. The only thing which stopped the Germans or allies from using them in WW2 was the thought that their opponent would unleash an even greater amount of it.

Let's use that example - If the Germans used Sarin, why should the Allies not? Yes, they'd have the higher moral ground, but it would mean zilch if they lost the war, which might happen if they faced a foe using chemical weapons when the only weapon against it was gas masks. Or another being if the Americans nuked the Soviets - why should the soviets not nuke american cities? For the moral highground of having better ideals?

So for the real life comparison - The terrorists use beheading and torture. Now, unlike chemical/nuclear weapons, it isn't giving them any greater stride towards victory, but assume it was. Would you still want us to stick to our ideals and moralities if it meant we would suffer much more casualities, or even suffer defeat?

Not really an arguement or case of logic -for- torture or beheadings or breaking the laws of war in the present, but something to at least dwell on. Would you stick to your morals and higher ideals even if it meant defeat, even if it meant a worse fate for those in your ranks and those back home?

*Fifty bucks says some arsewipe glances at my post and flames me to high hell thinking 'Omg you barbarian you support terrorist acts by America!1!1!' without having read that I specifically say it's not an arguement or logic for torture or breaking laws of warfare*


We should rewrite the laws for 21th century warfare but do so after America is out of Iraq and Afganistan. The reason being that at the present, America would look for laws to benefit our situation there, and other countries would look for laws specific to punish them in that situation. Better to find a period of relative peace so that we can look at war in the 21th century and the moralities for it - not the war in XYZ and how to make it easier/harder for those fighting it, and be biased in the choices.

[Custor]

Reid is a moron of the highest level. Sooner that pompous retard and the Blair the teeth troll depart from government the better.

Status of detained terrorists - we have managed to arrest charge and imprison terrorists, those planning terrorist actions and terrorist supporters for several decades.
Reid now finds himself in the situation of wanting to imprison people without charge. The pesky courts and lack of evidence is a real pain in the arse. To prove that someone has commited, intends to commit, knows about, supports, plans, is thinking about, has a vague inkling, has spoken to a bloke in a pub who once read a news paper about terrorism 'link' is a real problem for him. Do away with courts and let someone in the know, I don't know like Reid for instance, decide who should be put in jail.

1st Strike - he who wins decides the whether 1st strike is allowed. They're not crapping themselves as the moronic Reid goes on yet another "forget WMD, it's democracy, erm terrorism, erm 9/11 we love the USA" diversion. When the other guy is too small to fight back hitting him hard first saves all that nonsense about a justification. Goebbels was the man to ask about 1st strike. Reidie is pickign up tips from him.

Military interventon for humanitarian reasons - Argentian posters buy 2 blankets give one to the Falkland islanders and invade again. It's ok if your killing people - sorry liberating people and are 'nice'.


In summary - Reid is a class A1 arse.

[David Deas]

We have these laws out of respect for the sacrifice of our soldiers. Anybody who has never fought shouldn't even get to have an opinion.

[Farnan]

We have these laws out of respect for the sacrifice of our soldiers. Anybody who has never fought shouldn't even get to have an opinion.

As the server is based in the United States, we are all granted the Freedom of Speech, thus allowing everyone to voice their opinions.

[RusskiSoldat]

It seems as though chemical and then Nuclear weapons were a detterent weapon. The only thing which stopped the Germans or allies from using them in WW2 was the thought that their opponent would unleash an even greater amount of it.

The thing that stopped the Germans and Allies from using them was that neither had any until the end of WWII, when they were in fact used.

I say keep the laws, but add a clause that voids them in any conflict where one side violates them.
If the terrorists are willing to fight by Geneva rules, we should do the same.
If they're not, why the hell should we?

And these laws were made with soldiers in mind, a lot of it is about dissallowed technology and bullet types which cause far more pain than others.
Again, this started out as a mutual agreement, if one side does not fullfill the requirements, it's void.
And I fail to see the advantage of moral high ground over physical high ground.

[Ahiga]

The thing that stopped the Germans and Allies from using them was that neither had any until the end of WWII, when they were in fact used.

I say keep the laws, but add a clause that voids them in any conflict where one side violates them.
If the terrorists are willing to fight by Geneva rules, we should do the same.
If they're not, why the hell should we?

And these laws were made with soldiers in mind, a lot of it is about dissallowed technology and bullet types which cause far more pain than others.
Again, this started out as a mutual agreement, if one side does not fullfill the requirements, it's void.
And I fail to see the advantage of moral high ground over physical high ground.

I didn't know they were used in the later half of WW2, but didn't the Germans have the gas to use in the concentration camps?

[Last Roman]

As the server is based in the United States, we are all granted the Freedom of Speech, thus allowing everyone to voice their opinions.

I dont think he literally meant it.


anyway, the laws of war should only apply to those who are willing to follow them (ie, not al-qaeda). It may be a harsh stance, but it is one that (IMO) is the best option.

[David Deas]

I dont think he literally meant it.


anyway, the laws of war should only apply to those who are willing to follow them (ie, not al-qaeda). It may be a harsh stance, but it is one that (IMO) is the best option.

There already is a clause that says 'only until the other country breaks the agreement first.' If you get mustard gassed or atomic bombed, its not illegal to retaliate.

[RusskiSoldat]

I missed the chemical part.
Neither the Germans nor the Allies used them because they were unfeasible in military action.
Yes, they were used in concentration camps, but that in no way pertains to the military as it is civilian massacres.

[Ahlerich]

I missed the chemical part.
Neither the Germans nor the Allies used them because they were unfeasible in military action.
Yes, they were used in concentration camps, but that in no way pertains to the military as it is civilian massacres.

thats wrong..mustard gas was used in ww1..churchill made sure if germany invades england that poison gas is ready to use to stop an invasion.
not using poison gas was a decision that everybody agreed on. poison gas warfare is dirty as learned in ww1. every party knew if they use it the enemy will use it too..so they didnt

so who wants t legal to torture prisoners? who wants it common to jail ppl that are not proven guilty or cant be proven guilty? who wants to possibly torture and imprison innocent?

war on terror...where the hell is the terror? the is the huge 9/11 a london with way fewer victims and i recall a little explosion in madrid ir spain a few years ago? because of these 3 happenings in 5 years you want to reduce human rights and war laws who were achieved through hard struggles in the past to make life better for everyone.
i wonder if any of the guys who support this would still support it after beeing imprisoned accidentaly and tortured for no reason