Military 'invisibility cloaks' could breach Geneva conventions

Maybe it's time to rewrite the Geneva Conventions to reflect the fact that it's now 2016 and not 1949.

The intent of the Convention was to prevent the use of enemy weapons and uniforms(Battle of the Bulge) to trick your adversary into thinking you were one or theirs. TBH it never envisioned the types of technology to increase survivability that have developed in the past 67 years which makes this whole section of the Convention somewhat antiquated especially, since everyone with the capability is using it and those that don't have it are seeking it.

Ever since the notion that non-uniformed Moslems are covered by the GC came along I really haven't given a shit about the GC.

Once it's applied to non-signatories it becomes meaningless.

They're just scared that this technology can be used to assassinate the politicians, generals, corporatists, and warlords that initiate the damn wars in the first place. Leave ten thousand dead in a one square-kilometer area after marching them into point-blank cannon and machine-gun fire? That's A-OK according the rules. Pre-emptively cap with an agent in a stealth-suit some war-mongering politician as he's getting blown in a whorehouse somewhere? Sorry, that's not sporting, old chum.

On the legal side if you're not in uniform you not protected by the GC...unless you're some child raping Moslem...then you can wear anything you want.

Sad that it's only applied in the sense that we're expected to abide by the Convention when dealing with their prisoners while they have unlimited freedoms to carry out atrocities under the guise of not having signed on the dotted line.

The truth of the matter is that the Geneva Convention only works for signatory countries and is completely meaningless when dealing with terrorism even though some people still can't or won't get over the fact that the enemy not playing by the rules increases potential harm to our troops and definately increases the danger to our own populations.

Minor correction for truthiness.

When you're right, you're right!

Hey, what happened there?

Am I the only one being blocked from that article?

That's the first time I ever had that happen at the Guardian.

Let's try that again.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... onventions

Ok, yeah. That seems to work.