Could the US be expelled from NATO...
October 3, 2006 9:55 AM   Subscribe

Could the United States be expelled from NATO for refusing to abide by the Geneva Conventions?
posted by putzface_dickman to Law & Government (13 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Technically? Yes.

Realistically and politically speaking? No.

We can dream, though.
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 10:05 AM on October 3, 2006


The North Atlantic Treaty. I may be missing it, but I don't see any way to expel a country at all. Which means if you're in NATO and don't want to defend the US, you have to drop out of NATO.
posted by smackfu at 10:11 AM on October 3, 2006


I stand corrected. Damn.
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2006


Sure, effectively.

(1) Everybody else drops out of NATO.
(2) They form NATO 2: Electric Boogaloo, which has exactly the same provisions.
(3) They don't invite the US to join N2:EB.

They could do this for any reason or no reason at all.

But they're unlikely to want to start paying for all of the cost of their defense out of a fit of moral pique.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


paying for all of the cost of their defense

Just who are we supposed to be defending ourselves from? Frankly, the way the US is going, with gerry mandered elections and god-bothering politicos poising their tremulous fingers over a large red button, we're more afraid that the Alliance will blow up in an armageddon of 'friendly fire' [gotta love the newspeak - incompetence respun as accident] than that we'll be devoured by the russian bear.

If the troops were pulled out of the UK, we'd be safer and richer.
Bugger off! I say - and get your tanks off my cricket pitch.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:18 PM on October 3, 2006


If NATO wouldn't expel Turkey during the worst of its state terror against the Kurds, then it's unlilkely to expel the U.S., which provides the bulk of the logistics.
posted by meehawl at 12:28 PM on October 3, 2006


A few things to keep in mind:

1. "they" did it to "us" first - terrorists flying jets into civilian buildings violates the convention in many ways. The link between 9/11 and Afghanistan / Iraq is tenuous at best, but.

2. Islam is so strongly conflated with terror in European and American minds that it only warrants a footnote in formal discussions.

3. Europe has been hating Islam since before it was cool to hate Islam.

4. While it is primarily American conservatives that are anti-Islam, both European conservatives and liberals tend to hate/fear the expansion of Islam within Europe.

5. Europe is only unhappy about our wars in the middle east to the extent that it endangers their ability to service larger civil works contracts and purchase oil cheaply.

6. Euopeans are likely very happy that we "disappear" terror suspects and send them off for torture and indefinite confinement. For reasons of national pride and sovereignty, they have to complain. Privately, they are happy.


This is unfortunate for a few reasons. (1) torture rarely yields useful information (2) torture is primarily effective as a deterrent, but we are doing it in private, and condemn it when proof comes out (3) our enemies want to die as martyrs.

So we will likely continue mildly abusing mildly guilty people until we get bored and go do something else. It will cost us a lot of money, hurt our reputation internationally, and accomplish very little. Europe will continue to condemn us, but their condemnations will not carry any teeth.
posted by b1tr0t at 12:37 PM on October 3, 2006


(1) Everybody else drops out of NATO.
(2) They form NATO 2: Electric Boogaloo, which has exactly the same provisions.
(3) They don't invite the US to join N2:EB.(1) Everybody else drops out of NATO.
(2) They form NATO 2: Electric Boogaloo, which has exactly the same provisions.
(3) They don't invite the US to join N2:EB.


This is how I refer to the UN - "League of Nations 2: Electric Boogaloo".
posted by spaceman_spiff at 12:43 PM on October 3, 2006


6. Euopeans are likely very happy that we "disappear" terror suspects and send them off for torture and indefinite confinement. For reasons of national pride and sovereignty, they have to complain. Privately, they are happy.

Tosser or troll? I just can't decide.

I guess this ain't the place to work it out.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:50 PM on October 3, 2006


Just who are we supposed to be defending ourselves from?

Don't look at me. I'd be happy to pull the US out of Europe, and Japan, and Korea, and all them places.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:19 PM on October 3, 2006


b1tr0t's arguments are well thought-out, sensible and backed with immense evidence.

I look forward to meeting with him in order to follow up on his offer to sell me a bridge.
posted by oxford blue at 4:54 PM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


sadly, I'm fresh out of bridges. I do have some new clothes for sale.
posted by b1tr0t at 5:09 PM on October 3, 2006


As far as I can tell America is abiding by the Genova Convention.

To be protected by Genova Conventions a soldier must meet the following criteria:
1. He wears a milatary uniform.
2. He serves under an officer commissioned by a government that has signed a treaty recoginizing the Genova Conventions.


If a person breaks either of these conditions, then there is no requirement to treat him according to the Genova Conventions.

A person comming violence out of military uniform and not under the orders of a commissioned officer is an illegal combatant.

Al-Qaeda are not the soldiers of an army of any nation. They are stateless terrorists; the Genova Convention allows us to treat them however the hell we want.
posted by Axandor at 7:00 PM on October 3, 2006


« Older Renting property for a cell phone tower?   |   Support through tough times Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.