International law is UN law is Socialist law

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
images

I knew about Unterseeboot 505, but I never saw it connected to the Geneva Conventions:

. . . the accusations and charges of war crimes against Israel for violating the international Geneva Conventions, 1929 and 1949.

The Museum features the remarkable display of the German U Boat 505, the ship that was hunting American and Allied shipping during War II in the area off the coast of West Africa. The U Boat, the only submarine ever captured by the U.S. fleet, was captured dramatically by the American destroyer USS Chatelain in June 1944 and towed to Bermuda. The significance is that the American navy captured not only the entire crew but also seized two Enigma machines, the devices that enabled encoding of German secret messages. Realizing the significance of the Enigmas, Rear Admiral Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Fleet, issued an order to keep the capture of U Boat 505 secret. He did not want the Nazis to realize that their code might be broken and therefore they would change it.

King also realized that his action was a violation of the Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners, issued on July 27, 1929. His order meant that the Red Cross was not informed of the capture or the identities of the German prisoners.

XXXXX

Admiral King clearly had violated the 1929 Convention in order to reduce the Nazi threat and thus safeguard national security and help win the war.

XXXXX

In making his decision, Admiral King in no way can be considered as having committed a grave breach of the Convention or as a "war criminal." Indeed, the 1929 Convention does not establish violations of its provisions as war crimes.

February 12, 2014
How International Conventions Jeopardize National Security
By Michael Curtis

Articles: How International Conventions Jeopardize National Security

Before getting to the Geneva Conventions let me remind you that war crimes and war criminals were invented at the end of WWII. War crimes and war criminals are real to be sure. Whether or not they should be punished by an International body is another discussion. The linked thread barely scratches the surface for anyone who is interested in the topic:


Now, let’s examine the Geneva Conventions in a critical light.

Somewhere along the way the United Nations set itself up as the authority on the Geneva Conventions. The UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, tried the same thing and with good reason. Any International organization with the military muscle to enforce the Geneva Conventions is code talk for worldwide Socialism. That’s exactly why Democrats always wanted our military to fight for Communism. If not fight alongside Communists as in WWII then not fight against Communism as in Korea and Vietnam. There is nothing new there. In practice, Democrats have been openly angling towards using the US military as the mechanism that will enforce the Geneva Conventions under the supervision of the anti-America United Nations.

Americans treat prisoners of war in a civilized manner. Americans can, and do, punish military personnel for illegal acts. That gives many in the world the impression that humane treatment at the hands of Americans only exists because of the Geneva Conventions.

By speaking so highly of the Geneva Conventions for so many decades liberals subliminally taught many generations to love them; much like children love to hear the same bedtime stories told night after night.

International law is UN law is Socialist law

Liberals married International law to the Geneva Conventions. Hardly a day passes without some talking head citing International law. Here’s the problem:


International law is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy. Robert Bork in his book Coercing Virtue.

You will better understand why the marriage has been a success if you imagine Judge Bork saying: The Geneva Conventions is not law but politics, ... there is no such law, and the pretense that it exists is a harmful fantasy.

Clearly, the Geneva Conventions are treaties that exist. International law does not exist.

Compliance

Geneva Conventions obeyed universally is a pipe dream. Lacking enforcement the Geneva Conventions amount to nothing more than a fairy tale told by the touchy-feely crowd.

Parenthetically, who can forget Senator McCain talking to Mitt Romney in a debate:


“Then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions.”

Had Romney replied “You got that right.” he might have been the nominee in 2008 instead of McCain. Romney would have clinched it had he added that civilized behavior does not flow from the Geneva Conventions nor does peace. Romney’s wrong answer changed history —— my answer would have given him the nomination in 2008, and McCain would have lost in 2012 instead of 2008.

A little background on the Geneva Conventions

In 1882 the first illegitimate president, Chester A. Arthur, signed the 1864 Geneva Convention and the Senate ratified it.

I started with President Arthur because he locked America into the Geneva Conventions at a time when the world was much different than today’s world. In spite of the Geneva Conventions inhumanity grew in leaps and bounds throughout the last century. The Geneva Conventions are a millstone around the necks of civilized countries while the Geneva Conventions do nothing to curtail the behavior of brutal aggressors.

The Geneva Conventions originated in the 1860s. The one and only impetus for the first Convention was better treatment for wounded soldiers.

The excerpts come from my computer almanac. There are two separate entries. The first is about the Red Cross when the Geneva Conventions were in the rudimentary stage. Should you do further research you’ll find that in the beginning there was no mention of torture, prisoners of war, habeas corpus, or anything else:


Initiative for founding the Red Cross came from the 19th-century Swiss philanthropist Jean Henri Dunant. Appalled by the almost complete lack of care for wounded soldiers, he appealed to national leaders to establish societies devoted to the aid of the wounded in wartime. Five Swiss citizens formed a committee, which later became the ICRC, and issued a call for an international conference. The first conference was held in Geneva in October 1863.

NOTE: Dunant’s national leaders are now mistakenly called world leaders.

There’s a touch of the charity hustle in the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross (not to be confused with the American Red Cross) was founded in 1863 prior to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. In 150 years the ICRC has grown into a well-funded organization dedicated to self-aggrandizement. Committee membership is restricted to Swiss citizens. Aside from making porous cheese those Swiss know a good thing when they see it.

Let me suggest that caring for the wounded in accordance with the first Geneva Convention evolved into deliberately wounding enemy combatants. Professional soldiers in every modern army know that a wounded enemy soldier ties up more resources and manpower than does a dead enemy. I am not suggesting that the wounded should be treated as they were treated in long-forgotten wars. I am simply pointing out one result of the Geneva Conventions. Call it one more example of “The highway to hell is paved with good intentions.”

The next excerpt explains the Geneva Conventions:


The Geneva Conventions are 4 international treaties governing the protection of civilians in time of war, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the care of the wounded and sick in the armed forces. The first convention, covering the sick and wounded, was concluded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864; it was amended and expanded in 1906. A third convention, in 1929, covered prisoners of war. Outrage at the treatment of prisoners and civilians during World War II by some belligerents, notably Germany and Japan, prompted the conclusion, in August 1949, of 4 new conventions. Three of these restated and strengthened the previous conventions, and the fourth codified general principles of international law governing the treatment of civilians in wartime.

The 1949 convention for civilians provided for special safeguards for the wounded, children under 15, pregnant women, and the elderly. Discrimination was forbidden on racial, religious, national, or political grounds. Torture, collective punishment, reprisals, the unwarranted destruction of property, and the forced use of civilians for an occupier’s armed forces were also prohibited.

Also included in the new 1949 treaties was a pledge to treat prisoners humanely, feed them adequately, and deliver relief supplies to them. They were not to be forced to disclose more than minimal information.

Most countries have formally accepted all or most of the humanitarian conventions as binding. A nation is not free to withdraw its ratification of the conventions during wartime. However, there is no permanent machinery in place to apprehend, try, or punish violators.

Notice how the original mandate grew:

The First Convention covered care for the wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field.

The Second Convention covered care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as civilian shipwreck survivors.

The Third Convention covered prisoners of the war.

The Fourth Convention covered civilians in times of war.

When the inevitable Fifth Convention convenes guess what will be added? You guessed right if you said habeas corpus, and enemy combatants being tried in civilian courts. It will all be made to appear that GI Joe is being protected, but the new additions will include protections for the people who gave the orders as well as the people who carried them out. There will be no more War Crimes Trials where Nazi and Japanese leaders were executed by military tribunals. There will be no more hanging dictators à la Saddam. Ruling classes protecting their own kind will not change one iota under the Geneva Conventions.
The New World Order crowd repeatedly invoking the Geneva Conventions at every opportunity is a scam designed to send “violators” to an International court of some kind.

The Rule of Law, rather than the Geneva Conventions, should protect the Rights of traitors of every stripe. First give them a trial then hang them.

WW II torture, inhumane treatment of prisoners, and the executions of Americans by the enemy shows that the League of Nations and the Geneva Conventions were as absurd as is the UN. Flying planes into skyscrapers in violation of the Fourth Convention is a no-no, but that did not stop it from happening.

The Geneva Conventions tells Americans how to behave while enemy countries ignore the them with impunity. Not every country is a signatory. Those that did not sign have no “legal” obligation to comply. That makes the certainty of winners punishing the losers a more useful deterrent than is the Geneva Conventions, or at least it did before Socialists decided otherwise.

Countries that signed onto the Geneva Conventions often engage in the most brutal forms of torture. Proponents of the Geneva Conventions seem to be saying that America should avoid war against the non-signers if it expects captured Americans to get better treatment than they get from Muslim fanatics who are non-signers.

The Geneva Conventions would be wonderful things if all wars were fought by gentlemen. Colonel Saito was on the right side of the issue:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t9f5FmSQeB4]The Bridge on the River Kwai (1/8) Movie CLIP - The Coward's Code (1957) HD - YouTube[/ame]​

And please do not tell me that an end to war will be an end to government murders. The do-gooders who are driving the world toward a global government seem to think that the brutes will admit defeat after the birth of global government. The truth is: The butchers will take control of the machinery the instant the do-gooders get the kinks out.

America should not be bound by non-existent International law. That is where Supreme Court Internationalists are pushing this country. Americans will always dictate their own conduct in war. So I see no reason to give the Geneva Conventions legitimacy irrespective of what moralists wearing black robes say.

There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view. TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly barbaric from the outset of the Geneva Conventions in 1864.

Prior to 1864, governments not at war concentrated on killing ambitious citizens they saw as threatening. Since 1864, the Geneva Conventions gained worldwide attention and respectability. During that time governments have taken to killing everyone those in power do not like. The Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, along with countless lesser-known brutal regimes have slaughtered well over 100 million of their own citizens.

Brutality strengthened by new technology will always outpace good intentions. In the hands of the politically powerful, technology developed in the last century alone made it the most murderously efficient century in history. Mankind cannot possibly be worse off after scrapping the Geneva Conventions.

So long as the Geneva Conventions remain a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the Geneva Conventions and see what develops. Renouncing the Geneva Conventions is the only logical course for America if for no other reason than to strike a crippling blow at Socialists and Socialism. Bring back the Geneva Conventions if things are worse at the end of this century.

Katyn and Gaddafi

The Soviet Union’s treatment of prisoners made a mockery out of the Geneva Conventions:


Now, for the first time, anyone with a computer can see the files that prove Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and his aides were responsible for the killings of 22,000 Polish officers in the forest in western Russia.

Russia Opens Its Files on the Katyn Massacre
By Beata Pasek / Warsaw Friday, Apr. 30, 2010

The 1940 Katyn Murders: Russia Posts Its Files Online - TIME

The Germans had 91,000 men captured alive after the Battle of Stalingrad. Few of these men returned to Germany after the war ended.

Before Soviet Union sympathizers jump on this, I know Nazi Germany treated Russians just as badly; however, there was no excuse for killing 22,000 Polish officers.

In light of the Katyn Massacre Russia’s newfound conscience offers a bit of comic relief:


In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the Geneva Conventions had been breached with the killing of Colonel Gaddafi.

"We have to lean on facts and international laws," Mr Lavrov said. "They say that a captured participant of an armed conflict should be treated in a certain way. And in any case, a prisoner of war should not be killed."

Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia
World Reaction
By Shaun Walker in Moscow
Saturday 22 October 2011
Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia - Europe - World - The Independent

Americans should not impose their morality on anyone whether or not Americans practice what they preach. By the same token, central control in the hands of the United Nations should not impose International norms and mores on Americans.
 
So why didn't GW pull us out of the WTO?
Why doesn't ONE Republican run on such a platform?
 
Inter arma enim silent leges is not exactly a new idea.

To Steven_R: As it should be.

So why didn't GW pull us out of the WTO?

To Independent: Better to ask why Bush did not pull out of the United Nations.

The WTO is a farcical de facto UN agency with roots (the ITO) in the Bretton Woods Conference. John Maynard Keynes was one its strongest advocates. That says it all.


Why doesn't ONE Republican run on such a platform?

To Independent: One did. Ron Paul authored HR 1146, but it never got to the floor. Withdraw from the UN and all of its agencies and related agencies disappear including the WTO.

I've been in that sub. It's parked at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

To Mr. H. I’d like to see the actual enigma machines captured on U Boat 505.

images


images
 
Interesting thread, Flanders! It was you that enlightened me over a decade ago that there is no such thing as international law - it was a buzz word used to gain legitimacy ( by the UN ) where there is none!

Today they continue on with their communist agenda even suggesting that international law can impose itself on Israel! A sovereign nation! I mentioned on the Israel and Palestine forum that there is no such thing as international law and was surprised by the reaction. The term has been used so often we've been duped into believing the UN has some right to force us into surrendering our sovereignty! We should have abandoned the UN and drove them out of the United States many years ago. We are going to regret that we didn't.
 
Interesting thread, Flanders! It was you that enlightened me over a decade ago that there is no such thing as international law - it was a buzz word used to gain legitimacy ( by the UN ) where there is none!

Today they continue on with their communist agenda even suggesting that international law can impose itself on Israel! A sovereign nation! I mentioned on the Israel and Palestine forum that there is no such thing as international law and was surprised by the reaction. The term has been used so often we've been duped into believing the UN has some right to force us into surrendering our sovereignty! We should have abandoned the UN and drove them out of the United States many years ago. We are going to regret that we didn't.

To Jeremiah: You know how to upset the Israel-haters. It’s a gift.
 
This is surely an incremental step ending in surrendering America’s judiciary to the United Nations:

Imagine you go overseas and give a speech advocating a cause, only to come home and find you’re being sued for “crimes against humanity.” No, what you did wasn’t illegal under American law or under the laws of the nation in which you expressed your words.

You’re being sued under international law.

And here’s the kicker: Your case will be adjudicated by an American court.

XXXXX

American courts can adjudicate cases of American citizens sued under law (international law) that the people’s representatives did not in any way enact. Thus, Americans can conceivably be punished under legislation that they had not even an indirect hand in creating.

This is adjudication without representation.

XXXXX

Again, though, this isn’t about the facts of any particular case. It’s about using extra-constitutional means to trump Americans’ constitutional rights; it’s about seeking to use international laws and philosophy regarding “hate speech” to circumvent Americans’ First Amendment right to free speech.

I excerpted the threat involved. See the full article for a specific case that’s in the courts.

Suing Americans under International Law—in American Courts
By Selwyn Duke Thursday, February 20, 2014

Suing Americans under International Law?in American Courts
 
Interesting thread, Flanders! It was you that enlightened me over a decade ago that there is no such thing as international law - it was a buzz word used to gain legitimacy ( by the UN ) where there is none!

Today they continue on with their communist agenda even suggesting that international law can impose itself on Israel! A sovereign nation! I mentioned on the Israel and Palestine forum that there is no such thing as international law and was surprised by the reaction. The term has been used so often we've been duped into believing the UN has some right to force us into surrendering our sovereignty! We should have abandoned the UN and drove them out of the United States many years ago. We are going to regret that we didn't.

To Jeremiah: You know how to upset the Israel-haters. It’s a gift.

When I was born they switched me at the hospital. My real parents were Jewish - pro Israel - bloggers. Then they found me and the rest is history..... :eusa_angel:
 
I quick search of this morning’s articles told me that last night’s debate was a snoozer. I did spot one thing that grabbed me because of my utter contempt for the Geneva Conventions:

The whole exchange began when Sen. Rand Paul attempted to paint Trump as unserious because of Trump's position on the Internet.

"If you're going to shut down the Internet, realize America what that entails: that entails getting rid of the First Amendment," Paul pleaded. "It's no small feat. If you are going to kill the families of terrorists, realize that there's something called the Geneva Convention we're going to have to pull out of."

That argument despite many experts' opinion that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists.

Trump rips debate audience for booing
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 12/15/2015 @ 10:48 pm
By Paul Bremmer

Trump rips debate audience for booing

Assuming Rand Paul has no use for the Geneva Conventions he could have gotten back in the game if he explored a myriad of good reasons for pulling out. See the OP.

Here’s one for starters:

Somewhere along the way the United Nations set itself up as the authority on the Geneva Conventions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top