And the point missed here is that the Geneva Conventions apply ONLY BETWEEN SIGNATORIES.
Which Al Qaeda is not. As illegal combatants literally nothing you do to them is illegal. You can reject surrenders, you can deny them mail and correspondence, you can bomb them in any place, you can use any sort of weaponry on them, you can torture them for information or just for fun if you want to, and any civilians in the area wherein they are doing battle have no protections either.
It's not a secret what you have to do to be treated like soldiers. Put on a fuckin uniform that has a fuckin flag on it, and fight like men instead of snakes.
Hegseth is correct here. Applying the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants is not legally required and is strategically retarded.
And that's not even getting into the whole problem whereby arab signatories of the Conventions have never followed them and thus are open to retaliation in kind. Arabs are barely better than animals and they only respect strength, treating them nicely just showed them that we weren't serious.
It was written to compile previous laws and rules of war together, many of which had existed for centuries. With the intent to minimize damage done to ourselves in disputes.
As with anything, inviting the lesser races into the fold was a damn fool decision based on the silly little lie of "equal".
It's a bit ironic to say that inviting the lesser races into the fold was foolish when everyone broke the laws of the Geneva and Hague conventions in WW1 and the Allied powers committed an outright genocide against the Germans in the aftermath of WW1 and in WW2.
The Geneva Conventions did not exist up to that point. They're post WW2.
That is not correct. There were several Geneva Conventions. 1949 was the final one.
These treaties (Geneva and Hague) regulated more than just banning certain weapons. They regulated how prisoners of war and shipwrecked sailors should be treated, how civilians should be protected and much more.
The UN, and the proliferation of the idea of treating countries that hadn't invented wiping their asses yet as equals, is still fuckin stupid.
I agree. But what I take issue with is this sort of arrogantly looking down on the 'lesser' races when the European world is still collectively committing suicide and has been doing so since at least WW1 but probably since the French revolution. The UN and globalism are part of that.
You can say that Arab signatories never followed the treaties but pretending that the European world is any better in that regard isn't just arrogant. It's objectively false. I don't think there has been a single 'clean' war (i.e. the participants actually tried to adhere to international law to the best of their abilities) fought by any of the former Allied powers since the end of WW2.
But what I take issue with is this sort of arrogantly looking down on the 'lesser' races when the European world is still collectively committing suicide
And what does that suicide look like? Because to me it looks like immigration from the lesser races en masse into our territory.
Yes, getting replaced by third world immigrants because your people has been brainwashed into drooling retards isn't exactly something to be proud of.
Yes, the average individual of European descent is significantly more capable than the average individual of the third world. But as we can clearly see that's not of much use if the average individual is a drooling retard or simply just a coward when it comes to social, historical and racial issues.
Which is why I'm of the opinion that arrogance is one of the most dangerous traits to have. Especially in our current times. Because being superior isn't worth anything if your people go extinct.
It's pretty clear after the end of the 20th century that the Geneva Conventions, much like other expressions of civilisation, were created in a European context for European peoples. Trying to apply a European standard of civilisation across the world has been disastrous.
And the problem I think, is what happens when the government gets their way and considers homegrown "terrorist" (which are often mentally ill people who have been strung along) as enemy combatants.
No, the US does not generally consider a homegrown terrorist a "lawful combatant," but the legal status of an "unlawful combatant" for a US citizen is legally complex and debated. Instead, homegrown terrorists are typically viewed as criminals who violate US law, and are prosecuted in civilian courts. The debate centers on the US government's past attempts to define certain terrorists as "unlawful enemy combatants," a designation that has been challenged in court, particularly for US citizens apprehended on US soil.
:shrugs:
Be easier to drone strike people like luigi for sure.
Geneva Conventions don't only apply between signatories- Common Article 3 applies to everyone, universally, no signature required.
Common Article 3 also applies do your own citizens but only in civil wars, rebellions, etc- it has to be sustained combat not gangs, lone terror attacks etc.
What I find far more hilarious is that Hegseth pretends the US government ever gave a fuck about the Geneva Convention. The only purpose of international law is to point fingers at your enemies while ignoring it when you want to achieve your goals. That's the case for all of the major international players.
The only purpose of international law is to point fingers at your enemies while ignoring it when you want to achieve your goals.
And, an important point...your weaker enemies. It's the basic nature of law, that it comes from the top down; only those already more powerful can enforce it. So international law is used as a tool by the strong/winners to enforce their will on the weak/losers.
OP literally writes for a shitlib rag unironically named Lawfare
Lawfare is a non-profit multimedia publication dedicated to “Hard National Security Choices.” We provide non-partisan, timely analysis of thorny legal and policy issues through our written, audio, and other content—all of which you can find here. We strive to achieve academic-level depth with magazine-level readability at the pace of news. We aim to improve the discourse on the law and policy of national security with a relentless focus on substantive issues that matter—in a fashion that is useful to policymakers and practitioners, but also accessible to anyone who wants to access it. Our areas of coverage range from national security law, threats to democracy, cybersecurity, executive powers, content moderation, domestic extremism, and foreign policy, among many others.
Lawfare comprises an in-house team of editors and correspondents, as well as an array of regular contributors ranging from current and former government officials to journalists, practicing lawyers, academics, and other experts. We also offer a Student Contributor program that aims to foster the next generation of national security professionals.
Lawfare also hosts a variety of podcasts offering different perspectives on national security, which you can find wherever you get your podcasts. In cooperation with Goat Rodeo, Lawfare produces The Lawfare Podcast, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare No Bull, and After Trump. Lawfare and Goat Rodeo also produce Lawfare Presents—an anthology of deep-dive narratives on the most important stories of the day, including The Aftermath, which looks at the government’s response to the Jan. 6 Capitol Attack. Past seasons of Lawfare Presents have covered the U.S. government’s promises to its Afghan partners (Allies), the Mueller Report (The Report), Trump's first impeachment (The Impeachment).
In addition to new articles published every weekday, we offer several special series, including the Foreign Policy Essay, Book Reviews, the Digital Social Contract paper series, and more. We also publish, summarize, and curate primary source documents that speak to key issues in national security, such as those relating to Jan. 6 and the Mueller investigation.
Notice how this "non-partisan" national security rag mentions Trump 1.0 & 2.0 umpteen times, but never Obama, Biden, Clinton or Kamala in their bio. Or even Bush I & II or Cheney for that matter.
That's for POW rights, not the entire GC. Al Qaeda has counted under Common Article 3 a few times- Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Syria and in Yemen.
Unpopular opinion: Fighting honerably is important even against savages. There is no moral victory in defeating an enemy if you become no better then him in doing so.
That being said, if its a matter of survival for your nation or race, do what you've got to do.
The universe does not have morals. It only cares for what exists and what does not. Survival of my tribe is the ultimate good. If my enemy is defeated, then good has been achieved.
Honor is a concept shared between true men and should be respected. If your opponents act without it, then they are not men but animals. And you should put them down like you would any dangerous animal.
That doesn't give you full authority to torture and be a monster just because, just like it doesn't when you kill a bear or the like, but it does give you full rein to do what is needed to control or remove the danger. Its not evil to steal the eggs of snakes or poison entire colonies of insects, nor would it be when dealing with men who've lowered themselves to that level.
The Geneva Convention AGREEMENTS need to be agreed to. If you will fight like rats, you shall die like them too. Fight with honor, and gain honor in turn.
Of course, they lose any straight-up fight 100% of the time, but they'll lose the covert one too, and with fewer protections in place for the losers.
I don't know what to think about this. It's common practice to finish off squirters, but this is the middle of the ocean so it's not like anyone is going to survive anyway. Maybe you could look at it as a mercy killing.
For one thing I've heard of (Haugue Convention, but same BS), we can't use hollowpoint or rifle grenades under 40mm because they "hurt too bad". Yes, that's what bullets tend to do
And the point missed here is that the Geneva Conventions apply ONLY BETWEEN SIGNATORIES.
Which Al Qaeda is not. As illegal combatants literally nothing you do to them is illegal. You can reject surrenders, you can deny them mail and correspondence, you can bomb them in any place, you can use any sort of weaponry on them, you can torture them for information or just for fun if you want to, and any civilians in the area wherein they are doing battle have no protections either.
It's not a secret what you have to do to be treated like soldiers. Put on a fuckin uniform that has a fuckin flag on it, and fight like men instead of snakes.
Hegseth is correct here. Applying the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants is not legally required and is strategically retarded.
And that's not even getting into the whole problem whereby arab signatories of the Conventions have never followed them and thus are open to retaliation in kind. Arabs are barely better than animals and they only respect strength, treating them nicely just showed them that we weren't serious.
The Geneva Convention was written by White men intended only for brother wars.
It was written to compile previous laws and rules of war together, many of which had existed for centuries. With the intent to minimize damage done to ourselves in disputes.
As with anything, inviting the lesser races into the fold was a damn fool decision based on the silly little lie of "equal".
It's a bit ironic to say that inviting the lesser races into the fold was foolish when everyone broke the laws of the Geneva and Hague conventions in WW1 and the Allied powers committed an outright genocide against the Germans in the aftermath of WW1 and in WW2.
Let's not whitewash this shit.
The Hague Conventions mostly only banned the use of poison grenades and exploding/mushrooming bullets.
The Geneva Conventions did not exist up to that point. They're post WW2.
And besides that...
The UN, and the proliferation of the idea of treating countries that hadn't invented wiping their asses yet as equals, is still fuckin stupid.
The idea of a "global community" is Babelist nonsense.
That is not correct. There were several Geneva Conventions. 1949 was the final one.
These treaties (Geneva and Hague) regulated more than just banning certain weapons. They regulated how prisoners of war and shipwrecked sailors should be treated, how civilians should be protected and much more.
I agree. But what I take issue with is this sort of arrogantly looking down on the 'lesser' races when the European world is still collectively committing suicide and has been doing so since at least WW1 but probably since the French revolution. The UN and globalism are part of that.
You can say that Arab signatories never followed the treaties but pretending that the European world is any better in that regard isn't just arrogant. It's objectively false. I don't think there has been a single 'clean' war (i.e. the participants actually tried to adhere to international law to the best of their abilities) fought by any of the former Allied powers since the end of WW2.
And what does that suicide look like? Because to me it looks like immigration from the lesser races en masse into our territory.
Yes, getting replaced by third world immigrants because your people has been brainwashed into drooling retards isn't exactly something to be proud of.
Yes, the average individual of European descent is significantly more capable than the average individual of the third world. But as we can clearly see that's not of much use if the average individual is a drooling retard or simply just a coward when it comes to social, historical and racial issues.
Which is why I'm of the opinion that arrogance is one of the most dangerous traits to have. Especially in our current times. Because being superior isn't worth anything if your people go extinct.
It's pretty clear after the end of the 20th century that the Geneva Conventions, much like other expressions of civilisation, were created in a European context for European peoples. Trying to apply a European standard of civilisation across the world has been disastrous.
That applies to anyone who isn't white or Japanese.
Untrue. Some of them are worse than animals. Jeets, for example.
The Geneva Conventions apply to everyone, it's international law and no group is excluded from them within the conventions themselves.
POW protections only apply to uniformed soldiers who carry arms openly.
Common Article 3 which bans murder, torture, mutilation etc applies to everyone- soldiers, rebels, terrorists, etc
You can argue, like Pete, that it shouldn't be like that- but it is.
And the problem I think, is what happens when the government gets their way and considers homegrown "terrorist" (which are often mentally ill people who have been strung along) as enemy combatants.
:shrugs:
Be easier to drone strike people like luigi for sure.
Not how that works. The Geneva Conventions apply between signatories.
They do not ban or govern anything you do to your own citizens.
Geneva Conventions don't only apply between signatories- Common Article 3 applies to everyone, universally, no signature required.
Common Article 3 also applies do your own citizens but only in civil wars, rebellions, etc- it has to be sustained combat not gangs, lone terror attacks etc.
Women evolved to have authority over children, which is why their answer to everything is scolding.
Problem is they're given authority over men these days and it's nothing short of a disaster.
What I find far more hilarious is that Hegseth pretends the US government ever gave a fuck about the Geneva Convention. The only purpose of international law is to point fingers at your enemies while ignoring it when you want to achieve your goals. That's the case for all of the major international players.
And, an important point...your weaker enemies. It's the basic nature of law, that it comes from the top down; only those already more powerful can enforce it. So international law is used as a tool by the strong/winners to enforce their will on the weak/losers.
Exactly, it's a tool to bludgeon others with, not one to obey yourself.
OP literally writes for a shitlib rag unironically named Lawfare
Notice how this "non-partisan" national security rag mentions Trump 1.0 & 2.0 umpteen times, but never Obama, Biden, Clinton or Kamala in their bio. Or even Bush I & II or Cheney for that matter.
If Al Qaeda was a signatory of the geneva convention they would be in violation all the time because they:
That's for POW rights, not the entire GC. Al Qaeda has counted under Common Article 3 a few times- Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Syria and in Yemen.
speak softly and never ever ever use the stick because that would be mean. these people have a subjugation fetish
Unpopular opinion: Fighting honerably is important even against savages. There is no moral victory in defeating an enemy if you become no better then him in doing so.
That being said, if its a matter of survival for your nation or race, do what you've got to do.
The universe does not have morals. It only cares for what exists and what does not. Survival of my tribe is the ultimate good. If my enemy is defeated, then good has been achieved.
Based
There’s nothing honorable about allowing woman and children suicide bombs your soldiers because they have civilian clothes on
Honor is a concept shared between true men and should be respected. If your opponents act without it, then they are not men but animals. And you should put them down like you would any dangerous animal.
That doesn't give you full authority to torture and be a monster just because, just like it doesn't when you kill a bear or the like, but it does give you full rein to do what is needed to control or remove the danger. Its not evil to steal the eggs of snakes or poison entire colonies of insects, nor would it be when dealing with men who've lowered themselves to that level.
Well said
That won't work
The Geneva Convention AGREEMENTS need to be agreed to. If you will fight like rats, you shall die like them too. Fight with honor, and gain honor in turn.
Of course, they lose any straight-up fight 100% of the time, but they'll lose the covert one too, and with fewer protections in place for the losers.
That's not what the Geneva Convention itself says in Common Article 2 & 3.
This is the majority, just look out for the rare 0.3 percent who can make the Geneva convention their bitch...
I don't know what to think about this. It's common practice to finish off squirters, but this is the middle of the ocean so it's not like anyone is going to survive anyway. Maybe you could look at it as a mercy killing.
I'd blow a load of friendly fire for Anna.
It's almost as if the signs were there all along ;)
For one thing I've heard of (Haugue Convention, but same BS), we can't use hollowpoint or rifle grenades under 40mm because they "hurt too bad". Yes, that's what bullets tend to do