The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: July 27, 1929
/27/1929: The Geneva Conventions are signed by United States. The Supreme Court would consider the Conventions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Too bad North Vietnam didn't
Utilitarians want to scream, and to go full ghetto on the heartless, toxic lawyer profession. This convention was superceded in 1949. It immunizes the greedy elite that start wars to get enriched. It forces the killing of millions of working people who just want to go home. It forces the destruction of $trillions in infrastructure. The resulting war and damage is the number one failure of the toxic lawyer profession.
1949 Geneva Conventions (Expanded Scope)
After the atrocities of World War II, four new conventions were adopted on August 12, 1949, vastly expanding protections:
The Four 1949 Conventions:
Convention I: Wounded and sick in armed forces on land.
Convention II: Wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea.
Convention III: Updated rules on POWs (replacing the 1929 version).
Convention IV: Protection of civilians in times of war, including those in occupied territories.
Key Improvements:
Civilians gained protected status during conflict (especially under Convention IV).
Expanded protections to medical and religious personnel.
Neutral observers (e.g., Red Cross) given access to verify conditions.
Prohibition of torture, collective punishment, and hostage-taking.
Clearer rules on fair trials for detainees.
Common Article 3: Applies humanitarian standards to internal conflicts and civil wars.
Waterboarding is the most effective interrogation method and causes no damage. It should the first go to method for interrogating dangerous prisoners 12 hours a day, including our own serial killers and king pins. Get their passwords. The families of the political hierarchies should all be taken hostages, with body parts delivered on a regular basis to the leadership of the enemy. After 9/11, the lawyer profession shut down all air travel, save for the flight of the family of the Osama Bin Laden out of the country. The lawyer profession is the internal enemy of our nation. The PC lawyer profession also ordered the female FBI agent reporting a dozen Arabs were taking flight lessons to not interview them. 9/11, 100% the fault of the lawyer profession.
and we Waterboard our own Aircrew during their Survival Evasion Resistance Escape training
As they were not signatories, their troops and civilians were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
So your rights as a human being depend on whether your government has signed a piece of paper?
Welcome to lawyerhood.
French Indochina in '29.
Like I said, too bad North Vietnam didn't
Is it worth the paper it's written on?
Not unless or until a first world power is willing to use war against another first world power to uphold them.
So, no.
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/072723zr_j4ek.pdf
An order regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline was handed down two years ago. "The application to vacate stays presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted."
They added this atypical comment: "Although the Court does not reach applicant’s suggestion that it treat the application as a petition for a writ of mandamus at this time, that determination is without prejudice to further consideration in light of subsequent developments."