The title sounds extreme—and intentionally so. But it captures a disturbing reality: in the modern Western war machine, the Geneva Conventions have become ceremonial ink. Soldiers execute captives. Civilians die in secret prisons. Detainees suffer, not as combatants, but as objects of convenience. And when the moment comes to apply the law, Western judges shield the perpetrator, not the victim.
In theory, war crimes should trigger moral outrage. In practice, they receive cinematic polish and legal dismissal. The deeper one looks, the clearer the pattern becomes. Impunity flows through the courts. Popular films glorify the killers. Public memory moves on. The Geneva Conventions survive as an idea, but the rules they represent rot in silence.
From legal principle to political theater
The Geneva Conventions were written to limit the brutality of war. They prohibit torture, protect prisoners, defend civilians, and guarantee medical neutrality. These principles, once seen as the bedrock of humane conduct in combat, now crumble under the weight of selective enforcement.
Western powers—especially the United States, United Kingdom, and their NATO allies—routinely reinterpret or ignore these rules. Legal arguments become evasions. Terms like “enhanced interrogation,” “unlawful combatant,” or “collateral damage” function as linguistic disguises. What once was murder now sounds like logistics. What used to be criminal becomes regrettable. And judges, far from correcting the distortion, often endorse it.
Courtrooms no longer deliver justice. They perform legitimacy. They turn moral failure into protocol.
How western judges erase crime
Historical examples confirm the trend. During the Vietnam War, U.S. troops massacred over 500 civilians in the village of My Lai. Women were raped. Children were gunned down. Homes were torched. Only one officer, Lieutenant William Calley, stood trial. He received a life sentence but spent just three and a half years under house arrest. The U.S. military judicial system framed this as accountability. In reality, it was protection in disguise.
In 2003, British troops in Iraq detained Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist. Within 36 hours, he was dead. Beatings shattered his ribs and broke his nose. Multiple soldiers stood by or joined in. One was convicted—not for murder, but for inhumane treatment. He served a single year.
The United States offered another case in Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. In Iraq, his own team accused him of stabbing a teenage prisoner and using civilians for target practice. Photos showed Gallagher posing with the corpse. His fellow soldiers testified against him. Yet political pressure, media campaigns, and presidential intervention derailed the case. Gallagher walked free and became a celebrity. In a world where justice functions, he would have faced a tribunal. In ours, he got a Fox News segment.
Geneva Conventions: Czech soldiers and presidential pardon
This rot isn’t exclusive to superpowers. Smaller democracies also excuse their own. In 2012, Czech special forces operating in Afghanistan captured a local man suspected of planting an IED. According to testimonies, the soldiers beat him during an improvised interrogation. He died in custody. Unlike most military crimes, this one went to court. The soldiers were convicted.
But in 2025, Czech President Petr Pavel, a retired general turned head of state, issued a pardon. He called the situation extreme, he claimed the men had suffered enough. He closed the case with a signature.
Few protested. National pride outweighed legal principle. The soldiers returned to civilian life not as war criminals, but as men who “did their duty.” The president defended the act as compassionate. Critics saw it as complicity. The legal process ended not with truth, but with silence.
Cinema’s role in moral collapse – the David Ayer syndrome
The courtroom may excuse the crime, but the cinema makes it palatable. Few filmmakers illustrate this better than David Ayer. Known for his gritty, emotionally charged films, Ayer creates war stories soaked in realism but empty of accountability.
In Fury, a World War II tank crew commits clear violations of international law. They shoot prisoners, they threaten civilians. They kill wounded enemies. But the film does not question their actions. It venerates their trauma. The crew appears damaged, but righteous. Not once do their crimes receive consequences. Instead, the audience watches them with empathy, not outrage.
In Harsh Times, a war veteran spirals into violence. He carries psychological scars. He loses control. And he destroys lives. Yet the narrative follows him closely, painting his rage as tragedy. The message isn’t one of justice. It’s one of emotional fatalism.
Ayer’s characters do not merely survive war—they carry it into their personalities. The result is compelling cinema, but also dangerous myth-making. By blurring trauma with cruelty, realism with righteousness, Ayer invites audiences to see atrocity as inevitable, maybe even noble.
Why audiences sympathize with killers
Narrative instinct plays a role. Films humanize protagonists, even when they do monstrous things. Stories crave transformation, not punishment. But when war criminals become the center of empathy, moral clarity disappears.
Viewers relate to the soldier’s stress. They forgive the illegal killing. They mourn the veteran’s pain while ignoring the victim’s body. Over time, this reshapes cultural memory. Murder becomes complicated. Execution becomes regrettable. And guilt vanishes into cinematic ambiguity.
The legal system mirrors this shift. In court, lawyers cite mental strain. Generals invoke duty. Journalists call it a tragedy. No one calls it a crime.
Law: Who faces justice?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created to prosecute the worst atrocities. But its docket reveals something else. African warlords appear regularly. Balkan generals face sentencing. Meanwhile, Western leaders remain immune.
George W. Bush launched a war under false pretenses. No tribunal summoned him. Tony Blair supported the invasion of Iraq. No charges followed. U.S. military officials authorized torture sites, rendition programs, and drone assassinations. None stood trial.
By contrast, those who exposed these crimes lost their freedom. Julian Assange was imprisoned. Chelsea Manning spent years behind bars. Edward Snowden lives in exile. The West punishes truth-tellers, not torturers.
Justice, when applied unevenly, becomes theater. The laws still exist. But they serve politics—not people.
Legal myth vs cinematic myth
Courtrooms and films both tell stories. One pretends to deliver fairness. The other pretends to show truth. But when both institutions protect the aggressor, their myths collide—and collapse.
Judges recite protocols while burying accountability. Filmmakers capture gore while romanticizing killers. What begins as fiction ends as cultural reality. Audiences stop asking, “Was this legal?” and begin asking, “Was he broken?”
That shift matters. It transforms war crimes from moral violations into character arcs.
Geneva Conventions: A world without consequence
Modern warfare provides distance. Drones kill without witnesses. Black sites operate in the dark. Civilian deaths receive press releases, not autopsies. And by the time a legal complaint forms, the military has already moved on.
Public attention spans shrink. News coverage fades. Meanwhile, Hollywood offers a parallel narrative—of damaged soldiers, of impossible choices, of noble monsters. Justice becomes less about law and more about the killer’s internal world.
The message spreads: if you wear the right uniform, you can do anything.
Conclusion – the hyperbole hides nothing
“Screw Geneva Conventions, kill anyone you want.”
This line is not official doctrine. But it reflects the moral trajectory of Western warfare. Judges reduce justice to procedure. Presidents pardon war criminals. Filmmakers turn killers into protagonists. And the public, caught between entertainment and patriotism, accepts it.
The Geneva Conventions were meant to stop this. They were meant to draw lines. But today, those lines blur into cinematic lighting and courtroom language. The law becomes myth. The myth becomes culture.
And in that culture, soldiers pull the trigger, courts look away, and cameras quietly roll.
Leave a Reply