Liberalism, Submarine warfare, terrorism and the Geneva Convention

Discussion in 'Naval Warfare' started by Sailor, May 19, 2009.

  1. Sailor

    Sailor Regular Member

    Apr 19, 2009
    Likes Received:
    "As all of you submariners undoubtedly know, unrestricted submarine warfare is itself a violation of the good old Geneva Convention. Before you attack a merchant ship you are supposed to give the crew a chance to get off and, after the attack, to do whatever is possible to avoid loss of life. Actually the Germans tried that during the early days of WWII and almost had a U-boat sunk by the Royal Navy. The U.S. never even tried. After the war, when Admiral Doenitz was tried for war crimes his defense produced an affidavit from ComSubPac (or some other top commander) that verified the fact that USN routinely torpedoed merchant ships without warning and then left the scene ASAP. Admiral Doenitz was acquitted, at least of that charge."

    So it would appear that the Geneva Convention upon which the left has pinned it's interrogation limitations argument isn't really being adhered to by anyone. And thus the liberal effort to have it apply to terrorists who are NOT even a part of the Geneva Convention [gotta read the fine print, which requires the combatant to represent a nation and be in uniform before the Geneva Convention applies]. It brings to mind the movies "Run Silent, Run Deep" and "Das Boat"---- where to be in compliance, instead of the vaunted command "Torpedoes Los" it would have been "Surface, Surface, prepare to launch boats to go advise the merchant ship we're about to fire torpodes so they will need to leave". And truth in advertising, where I stand is that if any single terrorist has information that will keep my kids and grandkids and family AND EVERYONE ELSES FAMILY from having a single hair on their head harmed, then I'm in favor of doing whatever is necessary to defend our nation and our citizens.

Share This Page