Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

More specifically.....

Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-06-19
In Reply to: Terrorists are not covered under - Trigger Happy

Who does the Geneva Convention apply to?



The Geneva Convention (s) is a negotiated agreement between signer nations who have voluntarily agreed to abide by and therefore be protected by the terms of this agreement. Voluntary signer nations should expect to benefit from these protections, so long as they abide by these protections themselves. Non-signer nations have NOT agreed to abide by these terms and are therefore, not protected by these terms. It is that simple.


 


Combatants from signer nations are obligated under this agreement to meet certain conditions in order to be protected by this agreement. Specifically, protected combatants are defined as follows…


 



  • members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict,
  • members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command,
  • are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population,
  • carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war

 


Combatants do not have to meet one of these conditions in order to receive protection under the Geneva Convention (s), they must meet ALL of them. The Convention (s) goes on to state clearly, “However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections.”


 


International terrorists do NOT meet any of the conditions stated in the Geneva Convention in order to gain protection as a known enemy combatant. They do NOT serve in any organized armed force serving any particular nation. They do NOT have any well-defined chain of command or control. They go out of their way to be indistinguishable from the civilian population and have gone so far as to disguise themselves as medical, police and press personnel. They do NOT carry arms openly or obey any set of laws. They distinguish between military and civilian targets only to the degree that they prefer attacking unarmed defenseless civilian targets as opposed to military targets. As such, they are NOT covered by the language or terms of the Geneva Convention (s).




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

The monitor specifically requested

you stay on your own board.  Your lack of respect isn't surprising.


The solution is simple.  Go back to your freezer.  Don't let the door hit ya.


Didn't specifically do either in my posts...

Not sure whose posts you are referring to.


Could you clarify these rules in case I do decide to refer to this country or the president in any future posts, as well anyone else posting on the liberal board?   Apparently demeaning past presidents is A-OK if the conservative board is any indication.


No, he specifically said Bush and the governor of Mississippi. nm

i wasn't referring to the baby specifically
nice sarcasm, and yes they are, but I wasn't referring to all babies, cause i wasn't watching all babies on TV
I never meant where he bought his house specifically, but...
if I could afford a really nice ranch with an amazing barn, you can bet your behind I would be there, as I am sure you all would buy your dream house, as well, regardless of what you are saying here. I don't really buy into the whole "I would continue to live just where I do" frap. At least I am honest. And, no, money can't buy happiness, but I don't bet that it hurts to have a nice house either. What is it that you find so offensive about living in a nice neighborhood?
Reagon wasn't specifically talking about

Barrack Obama.....however, what he did say can be applied to what Obama wants.


Bigger government gives government control over us.  Government is supposed to work for us....not control us.  Obama wants bigger government. He wants a government that has more control over us.


Taking guns away from US citizens will leave them defenseless.  Obama wants to take away our guns.


Dictators take away weapons from their people so they have nothing to fight back with....therefore leaving the dictators to do what they wish.  I do not know if Obama will in fact turn into a dictator, but I don't want him to my guns to find that out either.