to amend the Geneva Convention

[knowbody0]

All nations that signed would need to agree upon the amendment. It is not ours to amend. Am I correct?

[gaspee]

1. That's what I thought too

Silly me, thinking one country can't just go and unilaterally change a treaty.

[Monkeyman]

2. yep

[AndyA]

3. I believe that's correct.

It would not seem possible that one nation could make changes without all the others agreeing to it.

Perhaps Bush would just like to do away with the Geneva Convention completely...

[kurth]

4. That's correct

It is an international treaty - a legal contract among nations.

[displacedtexan]

5. Yes, you are correct.

And if anyone you know needs Article #3 "clarified," I suggest reading this.

[wtmusic]

6. We already "amended" the anti-proliferation treaty, the UN Charter,

etc. etc. Might makes right...right? :crazy:

[shraby]

7. Not only that, but it's a treaty and as such

becomes a part of our constitution. In order to change it, it would have to be done as any changes in our constitution are done...that's just my opinion. Any lawyers out there with thoughts on this?

[LSK]

8. yes

[shadowknows69]

9. Bush will just have Rove write him a Signing statement

to....uh...sign.

[Avalux]

10. He doesn't want to amend it, wants to "clarify" it.

Claiming it's vague, we'd have a law that would pertain to the US alone that would further explain the Geneva Conventions section pertaining to torture. :silly:

[kohodog]

12. He wants to keep his sorry ass out of the Hague

He said as much yesterday when he said the secret prisons couldn't continue unless his bill went through because agents could be tried for war crimes. He is the agent in chief.

Foreign nations are already speaking out against any re-interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.

[BurtWorm]

11. Of course, but Bush doesn't want to amend it.

He wants the US to create its (i.e. *his*) own standard. He wants to clarify Article III out of relevance to the US.