From: Randall Parker 

Phil,

In WWII the other side (especially Japan) did not respect the Geneva
Conventions in the treatment of US prisoners.

In the Korean War the other side did not treat soliders according to the
Geneva Convention. US soldiers got sent to Russia for Stalin's amusement.
They were tortured and killed in Korea, China, and Russia.

In the Vietnam War the other side did not treat the US soldiers according
to the Geneva Convention.

I could go on. The pattern is clear. US soldiers are not going to get
treated according to the Geneva Convetion. The US doesn't have the downside
that you imagine it has. The Geneva Convention is pretty much a dead
letter.

Then there are the prisoners that we captured in Afghanistan: They do not
qualify as regular prisoners of war because they didn't obey the Geneva
Convention in the first place. The reason that soldiers who act like
regular soldiers with uniforms and all that are accorded more rights as
prisoners is because of the desire to minimize civilian casualties. I've
read the convention. I've read interpretations by international law profs.
I don't see where the US is violating it.

Balkans international outrage: and was this outrage (wherever it was - in
Russia perhaps?) directed at Spanish, British, and other NATO countries
that took part in airstrikes?

Phil Payne wrote:
>>So then why don't you also have contempt for the French for violating
>>international law? They go into African countries with no UN mandate.
>
>
> But when they do so, they observe the Geneva Convention.  Why should anyone
> who captures an American serviceman anywhere in the world treat him under
> the Convention, when the US does not?
>
>
>>And why no contempt for the US when the US did airstrikes against the
>>Serbs without UN mandate? I mean, there was the US and its NATO allies
>>carrying on like the UN didn't matter. All of them flaunting
>>international law in the Balkans. Oh the outrage.
>
>
> Indeed there was.  Possibly not in the USA.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5