Comment: The Geneva Conventions are redundant, but not bad, IMO

(See in situ)

Cyril's picture

The Geneva Conventions are redundant, but not bad, IMO

I wouldn't feel the need to make this sort of disclaimer.

You are on the right side. It is sad it ever had to be written and signed in the first place (to anyone who already understands the Golden Rule) but the Geneva Conventions, IMO, aren't a coercitive set of rules.

The Geneva Conventions mostly, if not exclusively, tells about what MUST NOT be done - what is INHUMANE - for armed forces to do during war times.

"... are rules that apply in times of armed conflicts."

They do not regulate or forcefully impose things that "SHOULD" or MUST be done against people's lives or freedoms when there is NO war or threat, life endangered context.

You know, VERY MUCH UNLIKE the sole purpose of THE U.N. REGULATIONS INFAMY (including during peace time), otherwise.


I had to write an essay in high school on what motivated writing them - treatment of the wounded, etc - and what are the inherent limits of such texts - I got a D because my conclusion was that anyway the only supreme authority one could reasonably, possibly trust to be incorruptible in interpreting those correctly and ALWAYS is GOD, man being imperfect and corruptible any time ... knowing that teacher, I didn't care about the grade, you get the picture...

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius