Who's then is going to bring the Syrian government,accountable to the Hague,violating all of the above???
Conrad73: The Third Geneva Convention defines prisoners of war(Fighters) to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the 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.
The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers who are otherwise rendered incapable of fighting. The first convention was initiated by the International Committee for Relief to the Wounded (which became the International Committee for the Red Cross and Red Crescent). This convention produced a treaty designed to protect wounded and sick soldiers during wartime. The Swiss government agreed to hold the conventions in Geneva, and a few years later, a similar agreement to protect shipwrecked soldiers was produced. In 1949, after World War II, two new conventions were added to the original two, and all four were ratified by a number of countries. The 1949 versions of the conventions, along with two additional protocols, are in force today.
Convention I: This convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture and assault upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.
Convention II: This agreement extended the protections mentioned in the first convention to shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, including special protections afforded to hospital ships.
Convention III: One of the treaties created during the 1949 convention, this defined a prisoner of war and accorded prisoners of war proper and humane treatment as specified by the first convention.Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank and serial number to a captor.Nations party to the convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs.
Convention IV: Under this convention, civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first convention to sick and wounded soldiers. Furthermore, additional regulations regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced. Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc. It also specifies the right of internees and those who commit acts of sabotage. Finally, it discusses how occupiers are to treat an occupied populace.
Protocol I: In this additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the signing nations agreed to further restrictions on the treatment of "protected persons" according to the original conventions. Furthermore, clarification of the terms used in the conventions was introduced. Finally, new rules regarding the treatment of the deceased, cultural artifacts and dangerous targets (such as dams and nuclear installations) were produced.
Protocol II: In this protocol, the fundamentals of "humane treatment" were further clarified. Additionally, the rights of interned persons were specifically enumerated, providing protections for those charged with crimes during wartime. It also identified new protections and rights of civilian populations.
The U.S. has ratified the four conventions but has not ratified the two protocols.
Disputes arising under the conventions or protocols additional to them are settled by courts of the member nations (Article 49 of Convention I) or by international tribunals.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent has a special role given by the Geneva Conventions, whereby it handles, and is granted access to, the wounded, sick and POWs.
Don't think any country at war or in conflict is sticking to the above at the moment!
chris27292729: Who's then is going to bring the Syrian government,accountable to the Hague,violating all of the above???
Totally other Conventions applies there! You try to add Apples and Grapes? What I quoted applies to War! Insurgencies are a whole different Ballgame,and other International Laws apply! And stop fishing! Actually only one Article addresses Insurgencies in the Geneva Convention,since the Convention regulates mainly the Conflicts between States!
54xmax: Probably yes Thou when it comes to Europe, I wouldn't mind living in Ireland, Britain, France, Austria, Germany - Bavaria, Sweden or Norway. Even Slovakia, and Poland would be nice. But over seas - - - - not really
Your choice but have you ever been here which is irrelevant for all your rant about my government and I agree to SOME extent is still FREE of oppression, suppression & brutality to own people unlike some other governments.
drbombay: Your choice but have you ever been here which is irrelevant for all your rant about my government and I agree to SOME extent is still FREE of oppression, suppression & brutality to own people unlike some other governments.
I got relatives living in your country - - - - they are moving back to Europe - - - -
drbombay: Your choice but have you ever been here which is irrelevant for all your rant about my government and I agree to SOME extent is still FREE of oppression, suppression & brutality to own people unlike some other governments.
So in the Syrian uprising we have patriotic demonstrators,in one hand,and patriotic supporters of the regime in the other.- Which one of the 2 is more patriotic??? In the Libyan case,we have patriotic rebels in one hand (rebels called by Alberta),and patriotic Qaddafi soldiers,in the other. Am also a patriot too,which one of the 2 examples is worth fighting for,or which side of the 2 examples i must take,to claim, am a REAL patriot??
Albertaghost: So then why do you equate them to patriots and freedom fighters then?
Albertaghost: And of those who are that are like you I would wonder what keeps them there if they are not proud of their country and have little to keep them there.
So, why are you there? Why though? It has no redeeming qualities as far as you are concerned though. Ten years ago it lost them and lost them so bad that you are not proud to be American. Not proud of it's hsitory, the sacrifices, the freedoms, the good it has done for the world. If somehow, you expect in the next few years that it will become what you want it to be I would say jokingly good luck, you are living in a fantasy when you could be a member of a nation that you feel more akin to and just immigrate and be proud instantly upon arrival.
Just another example of you attempting to put words in my mouth - that I didn't say..........
Besides, I have decided to come live with you in Canada.....where there's free gov medical ......
gleneagle: Ive met people in life who would regard themselves as Patriotic. But the older I get I see it means different things to different people. What does it mean to you and how has that belief impacted on your life? Your thoughts!!
Total brain washing. We are a country chosen by god and everyone else is beneath us. You should give your life for god and country. Be a patriot.
Basically what you have is the government taking a normal human instinct to protect one's family and friends and extrapolating that instinct to fight for the goals of the leaders of the country or the church, etc.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the 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.