September 18 - Pet Peeve Monday - Geneva Convention

After a three-week hiatus, I’m proud and relieved to return to my weekly, PET PEEVE MONDAY. I had taken the last two Mondays off due to Labor Day and September 11th.

With much in the news, I thought I would tackle the recent up roar over President Bush’s desire to update Article 3 of the Geneva Convention concerning Prisoner of War interrogations.

First, get your History Hats on, as I provide some Geneva Convention background.

The First Geneva Convention was known as the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. It was held in 1864 and was resposible in part for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

The Second Geneva Convention of 1906 dealt with the treatment of casualties in war at sea.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1929 concerned the treatment of prisoners of war.

The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 outlined the treatment of civilians during wartime.

Additionally there have been amendments or “Protocols” to the Geneva Conventions in 1979 and 2005.

What George Bush is proposing is CLARIFICATION of Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention. It concerns the bolded clause below:

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

My PET PEEVE is based upon all of the outrage about Bush’s intent to CLARIFY the AMBIGUOUS language. I have two issues with the negative response to Bush’s proposal.

# 1 – The clause was written in 1929 and needs updating. My argument is that all documents, including the U.S. Constitution, should be refreshed from time to time to reflect new technologies and the changing world. My argument is provided in my July 17 Pet Peeve on the Second Amendment.

# 2 – People are against any changes because Bush proposed them. Here’s a novel idea. Let’s see what his proposed changes are before we reject them out of hand. It has been my experience that any effort to remove AMBUGUITY is A GOOD IDEA.

Now if people don’t like Bush’s proposed changes, let’s argue about content or intent. But don’t dismiss the message because of the messenger.


The below joke is a good example of the need for CLARIFICATION. It also reminds me about my April 24 Pet Peeve concerning STOP SIGNS.


A lawyer from Michigan runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by an Ohio State Trooper.

Being from Michigan, he thinks that he is smarter than the Ohio Trooper because he is sure that he has a better education. He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the Trooper's expense.

Trooper says, "License and registration, please."

Lawyer says "What for?"

Trooper says, "You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign."

Lawyer says, "I slowed down, and no one was coming."

Trooper says, "You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please."

Lawyer says, "What's the difference? If you can show me the difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration and you give me the ticket, if not you'll let me go and no ticket."

The Trooper says, "All right then Sir, exit your vehicle please."

At this point, the Trooper takes out his nightstick and starts beating the heck out of the lawyer and says: "Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?"

Now who doesn’t think CLARITY is a GOOD IDEA? Where’s my stick?

Below is the license plate of the Michigan Lawyer.