Nope. That is a complete falsehood. The Geneva convention does address bullet type (no hollowpoints or "dum-dum" rounds) and such weapons as flamethrowers, but not the caliber of weapon that can be used to kill troops. Think about it. The assertation is 100% stupid. Why would the Convention say you can't shoot an enemy soldier with a .50 (12mm) caliber rifle when you are free to shower him with steel rain in the form of 155mm artillery rounds? Is direct fire bad while indirect fire good? Why doesn't the Convention ban canister rounds for cannon and howitzers?

1) "The M82A1 is known by the US Military as the SASR — "Special Applications Scoped Rifle", and it was and still is used as an anti-matériel weapon and EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) tool. The long effective range, over 1500 m with a record shot of 2500 m, along with high energy and availability of highly effective ammunition such as API and Raufoss Mk 211, allows for effective operations against targets like radar cabins, trucks, parked aircraft and so on. The M82 can also be used to defeat human targets from standoff range or when targets are behind cover. However anti-personnel work is not a major application for the M82 (or any other .50 BMG rifle, for that matter). There is a widespread misconception that a number of treaties have banned use of the .50 BMG against human targets, and recruits have been advised by generations of drill instructors to only aim a .50 BMG at an enemy soldier's web gear or other equipment worn on his body. However, the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's office has issued a legal opinion that the .50 BMG and even the Raufoss Mk 211 round are legal for use against enemy personnel." "Another variant of the original weapon is the M82A1A Special Application Scoped Rifle, an almost identical model but specifically designed to fire the Raufoss Mk 211 Mod 0 round, a type of API (Armour Piercing Incendiary) ammunition." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82 2) "There has been much debate over whether the Mk.211 projectile is legal to use against personnel, or if it is strictly an anti-materiel ammunition. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has sought to have the ammunition banned, due to concern over the incendiary and explosive components and their effect on personnel. Under the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 the use of explosive projectiles with a weight of under 400 grams and incendiary ammunition against personnel is forbidden. Trials conducted by Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt[1] (Norwegian Defence Research Establishment) has concluded that the ammunition most likely does not have an unlawful effect if unintentionally used against personnel, as the round will have penetrated the body and exited on the other side before the fuze of the weapon trigger the incendiary and explosive components of the round. Hitting a person the round will detonate about 50% of the time, if the target is wearing body armor a higher detonation frequency is to be expected (as shown by the ICRC tests[2] carried out in 1999). If detonated, the round will have a significant fragmentation and incendiary effect in a 30 degree cone behind the struck target, and this might affect others standing in the vicinity. The distance the round will travel from ignition to detonation is 30–40cm, so if the target is hit at very specific angles the round may still be inside the target at the time of detonation. The ICRC conclusion is that the ammunition is illegal against personnel, and the concern is how to prevent the projectile from being used in an anti-personnel role in the event of war. Most nations using the round train their soldiers not to deploy the projectile against personnel, but in the heat of battle such regulations are easily overlooked. Also, many parties currently fielding the ammunition have no such regulations. The official stance of the Norwegian Government is that the 12.7 mm MP round should not be used against personnel. It is being exported strictly in an anti-materiel capacity. The current U.S. policy (the United States has not signed the St. Petersburg Declaration) is that the ammunition is suitable for use against all targets." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211_Mod_0#Controversy 3) Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899.: "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions. The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them. It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power." Source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/170?OpenDocument 4) Further information: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/135-70013?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/150-110029?OpenDocument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention

I'm sorry Canned Ham, but you're not completely right. it isn't falsehood. its just a very shaky subject because it depends on the perspective. The .50 caliber is not actually designated as an anti personell firearm. and the things it will do to a human body is amazing and humerous...after you realise you really did see what you just saw... but the issue at hand is an indirect on..."mutilation" some tree huggin rabbit fuckin bark lickin hippie sunsabitches say that the M82 "excessivly mutilates the casualty" which is forbidden by the geneva convention...yes. but that is simply a matter of opinion and can be argued on for ages. So does a 155mm artillery round, but again...our hippies will bring up the fact that the firearm is not an anti personell firearm, but actually designated as an anti light armor weapon. so "we're using more gun than we need to" it'll be soemthing argued on forever, probably until we designate it as an anti personell firearm. I don't know why we haven't yet, probably held up by some stupid red tape crap..so the answer to your question is yes and no.