Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
28. Heres a ref from a Slate article (edit to add direct Geneva reference)
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:12 PM
Jan 2012

The respect for corpses is so rooted that we even agree to deal gently with the bodies of our enemies. International rules about the treatment of the battlefield dead date back centuries. Witness Shakespeare's Henry V, in which a French herald pleads with King Henry: "I come to thee for charitable license/ That we may wander o'er this bloody field/ To book our dead, and then to bury them." The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly provide that prevailing forces must "search for the [enemy's] dead and prevent their being despoiled." The conventions further require that enemy "dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found." Violators have been convicted and imprisoned.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2002/03/habeas_corpses.html


Here it is (or here one ref is):

2) [(2) p.152] Although this Article speaks only of measures
to prevent the "despoiling" (French, ' dépouillement ' of
the dead, it incontestably involves a prohibition of
"pillage", (French, ' pillage ') of the dead. The 1906
Convention made mention (Article 28) of individual acts of
pillage as an example of offences which Governments ought
to stop. The reason why this passage did not reappear in
either 1929 or 1949 was that the 1906 wording, instancing
this particular offence as an example, was replaced by a
more general provision for the punishment of "any act
contrary to the provisions of the... Convention" (Article
29 of the 1929 Convention and the similar Article 49 of
the 1949 Convention). Most military or ordinary criminal
codes already penalize pillage on the battlefield, and
countries which have not yet any provisions to that effect
are obliged under Article 49 of the 1949 Convention to
enact the necessary legislation;

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/365-570019?OpenDocument

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

it's a sickness SixthSense Jan 2012 #1
Yup. I knew it. Just like they cheer for torture. Both should be a lesson brewens Jan 2012 #2
"You can't hold a man responsible for following orders, can you? ... In the Pacific we were told phasma ex machina Jan 2012 #3
good lord, who was cheering? spanone Jan 2012 #4
I didn't hear anything about any cheering either. I wonder if the OP has a link? nt riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #8
No link. Stinky The Clown Jan 2012 #10
I have no idea what that is. nt riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #11
oh, those morans..... spanone Jan 2012 #15
Which? Knuckle-draggers or "Joannie Loves Chachi"? Robb Jan 2012 #16
I wouldn't go there, personally. chrisa Jan 2012 #22
Or, go take a big whiff of the catbox. The effect is identical. EFerrari Jan 2012 #38
Uber-twit Pam Geller was literally cheering the Marines for their little piss-fest. 11 Bravo Jan 2012 #29
check the comments in the CNN article from yesterday DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #30
Democrats defend killing them. Pissing on them is the least of their worries. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #5
Christians NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #6
They should not be cheered or defended bluestateguy Jan 2012 #7
Do you have a link? nt riderinthestorm Jan 2012 #9
No link Stinky The Clown Jan 2012 #12
This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #13
It is a war crime. EFerrari Jan 2012 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #19
In fact, it is a war crime. n/t EFerrari Jan 2012 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #25
See #28. EFerrari Jan 2012 #31
This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #39
Calling out one crime doesn't obviate the others. n/t EFerrari Jan 2012 #40
This message was self-deleted by its author Obamanaut Jan 2012 #41
The degree of deadness isn't the issue here, though. EFerrari Jan 2012 #42
Really? It's a bad idea, but I highly doubt it's a war crime muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #24
I'd have to go look at the Geneva conventions again EFerrari Jan 2012 #27
Heres a ref from a Slate article (edit to add direct Geneva reference) EFerrari Jan 2012 #28
Here's a good online resource for the Geneva Conventions deutsey Jan 2012 #33
Thank you, deutsey. EFerrari Jan 2012 #35
I do apologise; I had no idea the conventions went in to detail about the dead muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #36
Oh, no problem at all. EFerrari Jan 2012 #37
The same group the CIA gave little blue pills to, knowing that most of those warlords had child polly7 Jan 2012 #18
I imagine it may have to do with the position LanternWaste Jan 2012 #26
"The Marine Corps Builds Men...err...strutting adolescents" Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #14
the OP is not coming down on the Marines. politicallycorrect Jan 2012 #21
Please demonstrate where I came down on the Marine Corps Stinky The Clown Jan 2012 #23
I think we should still be allowed to kill 'em. Dr Fate Jan 2012 #32
Most countries in the world are steeped in violence. redqueen Jan 2012 #34
I agree with you, redqueen, it's like a contagion. n/t EFerrari Jan 2012 #43
Because they're Taliban*, of course. Donald Ian Rankin Jan 2012 #44
Perry! How's that for an answer?? Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How can anyone not just d...»Reply #28