The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are international treaties that contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war. They protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war). .
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are part of international humanitarian law – a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals.
They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches"; those responsible for breaches must be punished. The Geneva Conventions have been acceded to by 194 States and enjoy universal acceptance.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: Complete by Sunday 4-26 for full credit.
Has the "War on Terror" made the Geneva Accords regarding rights of civilians impractical or are they still necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
I don't think that we can call the outlines of the convention impractical. While they are necessary steps for securing rights of defenseless individuals, the basic principals of the convention are still being broken everyday, in and out of the war on terror. Governments including our own are committing atrocities involving prisoners and interrogation and in some extreme cases where the government is unstable or compromised with radical leadership, worse. While it is my hope that as a global society we can strive to correct such wrong doings, it is not at all possible.
No, the "War on Terror" has only heightened the need of the Geneva Accords regarding the rights of civilians. Although foreign civilians are often a part of the threat in suicide bombings, all civilians are the targets of these and all other terror attacks. Therefore, a much greater percentile of civilians are the victims, not the aggressor, and must still be protected. While the many civilians may be in danger because of those few aggressors, completely obliterating the protection of civilians during war under the Geneva Accords would put civilians worldwide in a much greater, immediate, and lasting danger as acceptable casualties of warfare. That tragedy can never be allowed to happen again.
The "War on Terror" has not made the protocols of the Geneva Conventions impractical, instead the war has in my opinion ignored the rules. We are fighting against an organization of people, however we have no idea where they reside. Based on leads that may or may not be correct, we kick down doors, invade innocent homes with weapons and in many other ways impede on the rights of civilians.
The accords are in every way still necessary. In some ways, they are more necessary than they were previously. We cannot shove them aside, because even is some civilians, wounded and sick people may be guilty, there are still those who are not.
Jeff Keating
Period: 8
The rights regarding Civilians of the Geneva Accords have not been altered and for that matter should not be altered based upon the warfare in the middle east. It is true that many of the suicide bombers are in fact civilians, but they also associate with Al Queda. This justifies the use of violence against such individuals. As for the incorporation of civilians into the protection of their own country; it is just standard action. If a country is incapable of protecting its own people, there may be a need/justification for military support. Otherwise there is no need for a such a presence. The Middle East's military and police were in fact incapable of supporting their own people in the earlier portion of the war which is why the U.S took action to train the individuals to deal with such ordeals such as insurgents and Al Qeda. If it was not for those factors not only would all civilians in the middle east, but the majority of those countries would have long since turned into vigilante wastelands where Al Qeda and terrorism held the civilians under a rule of terror and fear. If there was no threat against the safety of the civilians; then there would be no justification for the involvement of civilians there is currently.
The war on terror has made the rules made by the Geneva convention even more necessary because if they are not upheld, innocent people could be unlawfully punished for doing nothing. These laws are necessary to prevent unlawful activity comitted by the U.S. army and or its allies. Even though the U.S. is dealing with terrorists, it should make sure it upholds these laws to retain its honor and dignity.
I believe that the "War on Terror" has definitely made the line between who is protected and who isn't very murky since in Iraq and Afghanistan there have been many roadside bombings caused by civilians. Some times, these innocent looking civilians end up hurting or killing soldiers fighting in the war. I don't think that this style of fighting has made the Geneva Conventions impractical but it definitely needs some revision to include situations like the one in the Middle East. The "War on Terror" is a totally different war from past wars, with all the new technology, and so it needs to be approached in a new and different manner. There needs to be a way to distinguish between civilians so that a soldier will know if he/she might be in harm's way by a person who seems harmless at first sight.
Calvin Song
Class 8
For this "war on terror" the conventions are rather impractical. Our enemies hide and meld with the civilians because they know that soldiers can't touch them. Then when soldiers aren't around, they attack. This is like how the Vietnam war went against the Viet-kong, and what happened? We lost. Horribly. That's because a lot of the time, our troops couldn't even tell enemy from civilian.
I think the war has caused some stressed on these rights. You do not know who is a terrorist and this could cause you to hurt people that shouldn't be touched. I think they do their best to find the people that they have suspision that they are terrorist. This could cause innocent people to be hurt.
The "war on terror" has not made the Geneva convention impractical. Civilians should be protected during times of war and so should the wounded. Even if some of the civilians may be the enemy, not all of them are and not all civilians can be treated as hostile.
Evan Kennedy
Class 2
Katie Fragoso per 2
While the rights of civilians had been temporarily taken away during war such as in the civil war, it was only to a certain degree. It did not mean that they were no longer protected; the citizens simply did not have as many rights which would distract the fighting. Overall, rights should never be taken away. We live by an ideal of being innocent until proven guilty, so the Geneva convention is important to insure that although people may seem guilty, they should not be cruelly tortured as they could easily be innocent. This should still apply to this "War on terror," because it is very hard to distinguish the terrorists from citizens as they do not have formal army identification. therefore, civilian houses should not be terrorized and bombed unless there is hard evidence. There are always exceptions, however the rights should still be applied.
I think that the War on Terror has made the Geneva Accords regarding rights of civilians impractical. In special circumstances where generally everywhere is hostile I think that it's impractical to be able to protect civilians, medics, chaplains etc. I think it more necessary to be sharp and treat everything as a threat. In this type of environment I find it impossible to fully disregard anything as safe. Anything questionable should be handled. For example, you cannot pass by a hospital building just because its a hospital. If something is going on. It's fair to take action even it involves hurting civilians. However, in the most effective manner should "grave breaches" ever occur. Safety of civilians should be a priority but not over our safety.
-Aquib 2
i have mixed feelings about the implementation of the Geneva convention rules. on one hand, while it may be hard to govern many of the rules in the war on terror, i think there still needs to be guidelines of war in order to limit at least some of the potential violence. on the other hand, it can be said that due to the protection of civilians, the US has been unable to apply the proper amount of force to the terrorists that may be necessary to end the war once and for all (that is what helped solidify our victory over japan in WW2). taking a more ruthless approach and abandoning the Geneva convention rules may in fact lead to less bloodshed in the long run. it is difficult to say whether or not the rules have become impractical in the war on terror.
The Geneva Accords are valuable assets to anyone located in or nearby warring countries.They prevent the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. It's a sort of guarantee that makes people feel safe and confident. This is a good idea, but it advertises a fallacious message, that there is a proper way to kill other people. Unfortunately, war is an inaccurate monster, in which we may not regulate every single soldier. Collateral damage is therefore unavoidable, and the accords are therefore ineffective. Unless, there is purposely mass killings of innocents, these codes are only going to hinder our progress, especially in the war on terror. A war in which most enemies are not soldiers but civilians themselves, what are we to do? It's a dirty war we're fighting, not against a country but an ideal. In order to blow away terrorism we must crush there will with the very terror they so happily bestow upon us. Stop ourselves with the unfortunate accidents of a few, and it may cost us the lives of many.
The Geneva Accords are still necessary for "The War on Terror" because it protects innocent people. Although every soldier might not follow the guidelines of the treaty, for the most part it is necessary and should be kept in place as it stands.
being that the war on terror is fought in places where people live and work, i feel that the Geneva Accords are extermely neccassary. people are all around the fighting therefor placing them in and around the war. these citizens should feel as safe as possible and if attacked or harmed then the person should be punished. there is no reason that citizens, medics, and the injured should be protected as much as possible which is way the accords are in place.
I think that certain aspects of the Geneva Conventions, like the protection of innocent civilians, should be maintained and are still necessary. However, I do believe that when fighting terrorists certain parts are impractical and should be ignored to ensure homeland security. For example prisoners of war should not be treated the same as normal prisoners of war because the goal of terrorists is to kill us whereas the goal of non-terrorist enemies is to obtain something like more land, they will only try to kill you if you interfere with their goal, however a terrorists only goal is to kill you therefore it is crucial to get as much information out of every terrorist we capture even if torture is necessary, our security may depend on it.
Jason Howell
Class 8
Kate Bowen
Class 2
The Geneva Accords is still necessary in today's society because this conventions protects US. citizens/soldiers and other countrys citizens. It should not be legal to capture a prisoner in war and be able to torture them, that is not ethical. We need to treat prisoners fairly even if they are fighting against the US. Because our soldiers could just as well be capture, and the soldiers who capture them will think our reasons for war are wrong as well. The Geneva Conventions is vital in today's world.
I find the Geneva Accords impractical in today's society. The Geneva Accords should protect everyone who is a citizen in Geneva, whether if they are fighting in the military or just a civilian. I find it significant for the Accords to protect anyone who does not partake in a "grave breach".
I do not believe that the war on terror has made the rights regarding the Geneva Convention impractical by any means. If anything, the war on terror has strengthened the need for these rights. Despite the fact that many civilians are the enemy, like suicide bombers, for example, there are many innocent civilians who must be protected. Although it could be argued that there are many cases in which these rights should NOT be used, I believe there are too many innocent civilians for these rights to be disregarded.
The "War on terror" has made the Geneva accords more important then ever. They protect the civilians from the effects of war. if we did not have the Geneva Convention innocent people would be dragged into something they were not apart of. Although it is sometimes hard to distinguish civilians from enemies the Geneva helps prevent innocent people from being attacked.
Because of the ongoing war in the middle east the Geneva Accords have become more necessary than ever. People who are not fighting in the war deserve to be safe from it. This is not always followed and should be more enforced, now more than ever. There may be civilians that aren't perfectly innocent of the "grave breaches" but you can't generalize them everyone there because there are those who are innocent.
margot isaacs
period 2
The Geneva Accords cannot be totally disregarded because there are some aspects of it that work. I think that there should be some sort of compromise, such as revising them instead of getting rid of them all together. These accords are put in place for the civilians and it protects them. If these rights were not in place many of them would have died unjustly or could in the future.
I think the Geneva Accords are still necessary because cilivans are being hurt everyday during the war. People are breaking into homes and bothering innocent families. This is clearly violating the rules of the Geneva Accords and I think that they need to be taken more seriously. It's not fair that these people need to suffer when we are invading their territory. The Geneva Accords need to be enforced to save the innocent, which is exactly what we aren't doing now.
Laetitia de Brantes
They are of course still practical as all rules are going to be broken. How well they are enforced is really what matters. No matter how much the Geneva accords are tested, outlines prevent them from being pushed too far. Every laws have leeways, but calling them impractical is in itself impractical. Although civilians themselves are causing the deaths of many, it is civilians as a whole we must protect. We can never have 'acceptable' casualties.
The War on Terror has only highlighted that we still need the Geneva Accords. If these rules are forgotten about or simply ignored then civilan death rates will just soar. Ignoring the Geneva Accords is not the answer and is not impractical. We are fighting this war to protect citizens.
The "War on Terror" has made the Geneva Accords regarding rights of civilians necessary. In bombings, innocent civilians can be wounded or killed. I think it is important that these people are protected. I don't think the Geneva Accords are at all impractical. They could help save many lives, which means they are necessary.
Karen Narayanan
Class 8
I think that despite the circumstances, the Geneva Accords are still practical. Protecting innocents is crucial at times of war. If I were a civilian injured in war I would want the Genva Accords to apply to me. I believe that the Geneva Accords should be maintained to keep war organized and civil.
Molly N. Class 2
The rights of civilians under the Geneva Conventions should still be maintained. "The War on Terror" should make the 194 states realize that although some countries do not believe in the Geneva Convention and their protocols, we should not retaliate and drop to their levels. We have gone into Iraq and surrounding countries to maintain civilian peace and eliminate the enemies. If we were to go against the Geneva Conventions and their protocols in Iraq, many innocent people would have died and that is not what the objective of this convention was for. The Geneva Accords are still necessary and all countries in the world should be involved because lives are too valuable to be lost.
In my opinion i believe that the war on terror is not something that would make the Geneva Accords unneccesary, but extremly neccesary. For example,people who are not involved in war or need to be protected could be threatend due to suicde bombers or random acts of violence.These laws are needed for people who are put into situations were they have a high risk of being killed, and by inforcing these laws it can help protect millions of lives.- Chris Caulfield
The Geneva Accords have been broken again and again. In every war they have been ignored or stretched to the point where they become moot. They should not be forgotten, but instead, we should be working harder to uphold them. Innocent people die every day, and a lot of those deaths could have been prevented. The majority of civilians don't even know what the war is about.
Taegan
Period 2
The Geneva Conventions still need to be in effect today because of what is going on in wars all over the world. In Iraq innocent people are being killed for no reason at all. In Darfur, a massive genocide is taking place and none of those people have never done anything wrong. The rules under the Geneva Convention need to be enforced, especially to help innocent people.
Jacey Mattegat, class 2
to fight the war on terror successfully we would have to consider the conventions impractical. the type of war these terrorists fight is guerrilla tactics and ruthless devotion based from a religious jihad. our enemy is ruthless, and we must match him. they will stop at nothing, and they show no regard for the conventions, we must answer their style of brutal tactics with our own. these people want to hurt us, and not just our soldiers. they want to hurt us, our mothers, our fathers, our children, us. they dont look at faces, they believe that every dead american will get them 100 virgins in paradise, they are taught to kill us with fanatacism to please their religion. there god rewards those who destroy infidels, against this foe no measure taken could ever be too much. this war will be fought on every level possible, regardless of old conventions.
annie garrett
War has never followed the rules, in our country it is illegal to murder, yet when we go to war everything changes. Why would anyone expect soldiers to follow any rules? The War on Terror has not made the Geneva Accords impractical, because they never were. The Geneva Accords are wishful thinking for the poor civilians who get caught in the cross fire. Of course there are countries who have men that live and die by those rules, however the people we need to be worried about like the suicide bombers do not live or die with dignity or any sense of justice. Thus, simple words on paper can not keep crazies from going on a killing spree. This doesn't mean there should not be a correct code of conduct for war, because if no one is willing to set there is no standard few will make the right choice on their own.Sadly not too many people will do the right thing unless it is the law, and even then they go against the law and do something unintelligent and immoral by killing innocent people.
The war on terror has not made the Geneva convention impractical. I feel this way because no matter the circumstances; whether youre wounded or a regular civilian caught up in the war, you have the right to be protected. Not all civilians are guilty of being "a threat." There are still the select amount who are just as innocent as anyone else, and they certainly dont deserve to be treated with disrespect or as if they are "terrorists"
The "war on terror" has not made the Geneva convention impractical, in my opinion it has made it even more neccessary. We are figthing a war against terrorists and although these people are not always "the governemnt" we do not have a right to go and attack civilians. It is our responsibility to leave the civilians alone and focus only on the people who are a threat to our country. Governments should make a commitment to abide by the Geneva Accords in a state of war and protect the civilians.
Annie Fletcher Per 2
i dont think that the outlines of the convention are impractical. THey are necessary to secure the rights of citizens. This convention can sway foreign leaders into correcting what they did wrong.
I believe that the "War on Terror" made the Geneva Accords regarding rights of civilians made them impractical. It is hard to make sure that everyone is following these rules therefore there are certain circumstances that the Geneva is there to enforce safety among the innocent. This definitely should still apply to the “war on terror” because it is hard to distinguish who are terrorists and who are innocent in this type of war. We should be extra cautious and make sure that they are not killing suspicious terrorist when really they were innocent by standers. Everyone rights should be protected and unless there is hard evidence then people should be left alone.
Stephanie Jarvis
History 2
The "War on Terror" has only made the Geneva Accords more necessary. The lifes of the civillains are still important cause there is still many suicide bombings. The war doesnt take into account the civillains lifes and it needs to be put first.
Without these universal guidelines War would have no limit. In many cases such as Hiroshima, innocent civilians were killed. Our first retaliation to 911, innocent civilians were killed. I believe the "War On Terror" brings the need for the Geneva Accords even more. Although I feel America applies this rule within our states, I think after the many innocent killed during the "War On Terror", America should reevaluate and strengthen the rules of the Geneva Accords.
The Geneva Accords-Rights of civilians are still necessary because they protect people that are not fighting. Without these rules of war there would be much more civilian casualties. These rules are important because the War in Iraq is mostly fought in town filled with civilians.
i do not think that the war on terror has made the Geneva convention impractical. i think that the wounded and people in the war should be protected under all circumstances. Not all of the citizens are enemies. it is not fair to just group everyone in that category. what about those civilians who are innocent?
taylor Smith
class 2
The War on Terror has proved that the Geneva Accords are still necesary today. Each day in Afganistan many cililivans and medics perish because of the war that is going on. Without these rights, civilians would have no protection, although it is hard to say that in a war zone civilians are going to be looked out for and not killed. If there is a war going on, there isn't organization only killing. Also since the war is on terror, there are often suicide car bombings. This shows how some sides have no care for the well being of civilians. However, these acts are stil needed to keep down the killing of civilians and medics as much as possible. After all, killing a medic or civilian is one of the most dishonerable things a soldier can do. Cameron Gehrman Class 2
The war on terror has only made it more necessary to have the outlines of the convention. The war on terror has affected the civilians of middle eastern countries more thatn anyone. We need to protect these poor people, and the only way to do that is with the outlines of the convention.
i do not think that these codes of war should be put in. sure i do think it is very important to protect the lives of our inocent however there are simple no rules for war. you do what you have to do. "never fight like a gentalmen, casue gentalmen dont fight." we cant put rules or "guidelines" to something as complex and serious as war.
Post a Comment