Abou the Geneva Convention ....

[Rosco T.]

someone educate me.. (I know I probably could dig a while, but probably an answer quicker here)

Did the US adhering to Geneva Convention require any 'formal' recognition?

A treaty?
Approval by the House and Senate?

If so, then the question is..

WHO GAVE BUSHCO THE AUTHORITY TO DISCARD IT?

Does this unilateral action open Shrubya up to the 'war crimes' option?

[Mattforclark]

1. The Geneva convention automatically applies to all armed conflicts

You don't even have to sign the treaty, and it still applies, legally, at least in theory.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The Geneva COnvention of 1949, which supercedes the

1927 protocol, was ratified by the US Senate (as required by law). At that moment this internatioal law became the law of the land, as all treaties the US enters into

One common misconception is that countries that have not signed it are still bound by it, they are not. We signed it, so did the Iraqis

Hence this wanton violation by BushCo rises to the level of a War Crime, using the precedent of the Nuremberg COnvention, War Crimes and Crimes Against Peace

And yes this is a very short answer, it is far more complex than this

[Mattforclark]

4. Really?

"One common misconception is that countries that have not signed it are still bound by it"

What about Guerrilla groups?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Here is where it gets tricky

if they are recognized as a bona fide combatant by at least one foreign power, then they can be protected if they pledge to follow the conventions. They just need to pledge it

Thius is why having any guerrilla group given ANY kind of recognition by a foreign power is always a tricky thing and usually not recognized by the internal government...

See for example the FSLN, they were recognized among others, by Cuba and the USSR, but for years the Zomoza governent refused to recognize them as a valid combatant... and that led to war atrocities... as the Somosistas felt they had a free hand...

But the Somoza army was bound by the conventions since they actually signed the protocols...

Oh and silly me, if one of the two combatants has signed it, they are bound by it even if the enemy has not and will not abide by them, For examples of this see WW II and the US which signed it, and the Empire of Japan which never did. Or a more recent example, Vietnam, where we were techically bound, but North Vietnam was not, as they did not sign it

[Direckshun]

3. Brief into to the GC:

In case this is all new to you, Rosco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions