result #102424 - SHOULD THE GENEVA CONVENTION BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE TERRORISTS?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

ethics : SHOULD THE GENEVA CONVENTION BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE TERRORISTS?

[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Sun Sep 24, 06

Currently the geneva convention does not cover terrorists.

According to the treaty, rules apply to:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

- - - -

Obviously terrorists do not fit in to this category. So should the treaty be expanded to include them, or is it proper to not include them in geneva conventions?

For the safety of our OWN soldiers, if nothing else, the GC should apply to all.	61%
It should be expanded to encompass terrorists	23%
They should remain outside of the GCs protection	15%

Ballot #102424: has 26 total votes.
invite people to vote on this ballot!

Comment:

content @ BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
102131. Weakening the Geneva Convention, will it put our troops at risk?
30565. The Geneva Convention, are American soldiers following the rules as outlined?
47799. The Klan Convention/GOP Convention is scheduled to take place in NYC, will you being watching or will you be in NYC with your sheet and pointed hat?
85714. Republicans: Would you give expanded powers to President Hillary?
101735. Do you support the President's request for expanded domestic spying power?
127465. Why has Europe built an underground circular tunnel under Geneva?
88126. Why doesn't US Budget include War Costs?
83840. Things NOT to include with your college application
85090. When Noah had two of every animal get on the ark, did that include fish?
4751. Should we include marijuana in the school lunch program?

email this ballot link to friends

COMMENTS:
How would you determine a terrorist? Should Ghandi and Mandela be denied protection from the convention, or just the ones certain administrations deem so?

by Steelhamster on Sun Sep 24, 06 8:08pm [+]

The Hamster's got you on this one!

by Freon on Sun Sep 24, 06 8:23pm [+]

Yep. Well said Steely.

by mojo on Mon Sep 25, 06 6:34am [+]

Well said Steel.

by Ken_from_Dublin on Mon Sep 25, 06 11:06am [+]

Voted : For the safety of our OWN soldiers, if nothing else, the GC should apply to all.
Thank you, for including this option. I didn't want to toss the tirade I had in my head.

by Truthseeker013 on Mon Sep 25, 06 1:56pm [+]

I hardly think mandela or ghandi were combatants. They weren't blowing up schoolbuses full of kids or planting roadside bombs, killing civilians en masse to inflict terror or any act that could be considered a terrorist act.

In fact I don't see how anyone could confuse bin laden for ghandi.

by herzog on Mon Sep 25, 06 3:55pm [+]

mojo: have our soldiers ever been treated as well as we've treated our captives?

We treated the germans POWs well, they tortured and murdered our POWs. Same with the japanese, koreans, vietnamese, Iraqis, and all sorts of jihadis.

History has shown that the way we treat prisoners in our care does not have one bit of effect on how the enemy will treat our soldiers in their care.

by herzog on Mon Sep 25, 06 5:57pm [+]

Herz, interesting point. You are right about the Japanese and Koreans, and certainly some of the others you listed. My dad was a POW in WW2 and was not tortured or ill-treated (apart from having too little to eat), and no one he knows was either, in Germany.

But my point was, why give them an added REASON to torture our guys? And hopefully, as a civilized nation, we are beyond the 'tit for tat' mentality when it comes to issues like this. After all, we are always *telling* everyone how moral and great we are; why not follow through with our actions?

by mojo on Tue Sep 26, 06 5:39am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact