Trump advocating 'Torture' justifying Crimes against humanity. sound familiar

[shunyadragon]

But these jihadists are not signatories to the Geneva Convention Treaty. These are not State actors.

This is not relevant to the Geneva Convention Treaty. The convention agreement is not contingent on the enemy being a party to the agreement.

[Cow Poke]

But these jihadists are not signatories to the Geneva Convention Treaty. These are not State actors.

So, interesting question -- is one nation, a signatory to the Geneva Convention, bound to the confines of that agreement when in war with a nation who is not a signatory?

[seer]

This is not relevant to the Geneva Convention Treaty. The convention agreement is not contingent on the enemy being a party to the agreement.

Says who?

[seer]

So, interesting question -- is one nation, a signatory to the Geneva Convention, bound to the confines of that agreement when in war with a nation who is not a signatory?

Why would they be? Why would a nation so tie its hands and put itself at a real disadvantage?

[Cow Poke]

This is not relevant to the Geneva Convention Treaty. The convention agreement is not contingent on the enemy being a party to the agreement.

Whereas I have reason to question your knowledge of law, I checked for myself...

The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.

So, no --- you're wrong again.

[Cow Poke]

Why would they be? Why would a nation so tie its hands and put itself at a real disadvantage?

Well, unlike Shuny, before spewing forth ignorance, I wasn't sure, so I actually looked it up.

[seer]

So, no --- you're wrong again.

I'm shocked! Again...

Well, unlike Shuny, before spewing forth ignorance, I wasn't sure, so I actually looked it up.

[Sparko]

so you have no problem outright killing of terrorists along with "collateral" damage with no due process, but it is immoral to torture terrorists for information with no intention of killing them or causing any physical damage, or causing any collateral civilian damage?

I for one, would rather be "tortured" without damage, rather than get blown up by a drone, laying dead, or wounded physically and suffering a slow torturous death.