The Geneva Conventions comprise four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (193945), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The Geneva Conventions extensively defined the basic, wartime rights of prisoners (civil and military); established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries.[SUP][1][/SUP] Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper the use of weapons of war which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925). Source - Wikipedia. Should America nullify these treaties, in order to be able to use whatever means are needed to extract information from a prisoner of war? - - - Updated - - - The Poll question is the same as the post title. but I cannot edit the poll question.
There doesn't seem to be any interest by anyone in the government to use any but the allowed and approved means and methods for interrogation of Prisoners of War. Of course, we don't have any right now so it's a moot point. But I don't see a situation in which we would want to pull out all the stops on legitimate POW's.
It's actually questionable whether the GC's even qualify as treaties in the sense contemplated by the Framers and Ratifiers. If we're at war with another signatory, which nevertheless ignores the GC3 in practice, some would hold that the supremacy clause binds our military to it regardless, even though that signatory has voided the agreement between itself and the US; so our only remaining obligation would be to the remaining signatories, when clearly it's none of their business. Of course none of this applies to our conflicts with AQ, ISIS or the like, since GC3 offers no protection to such combatants.
Why, so America's illegal torture could be justified? I don't see any signature on the third geneva convention
