Ignoring the Geneva Conventions

[Changleen]

From the UK Guardian:

Bush strikes a deal that lets him keep fighting dirty

David Rose
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer

Last Thursday night, in a development barely reported in Britain, any hope of bringing detainees at Guantanamo and in the CIA's 'black' prisons into some kind of acceptable legal framework to protect their human rights suffered a grievous setback. After weeks of wrangling, Congressional opposition to Bush administration plans caved in, leaving the prisoners in a literally hopeless position.

At the heart of this story is a deal, hammered out in intensive talks between Vice-President Dick Cheney and his Republican critics, led by Senator John McCain, the former Vietcong prisoner and likely runner in the next presidential election. According to McCain, it 'gives the President the tools he needs'. At the same time: 'There is no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.' The deal does nothing of the kind.

Bush seemed to be heading for disaster in November's Congressional elections, with detainee trials and torture an issue on which he looked vulnerable. Now, along with a broader apparent comeback, he has almost everything he wanted, with Congressional endorsement to boot. Beneath McCain's rhetoric, the legal black hole dug since 9/11 looks deeper and darker than ever. The chances of Guantanamo's 450-odd detainees ever getting justice have been substantially reduced.

The Cheny-McCain deal reverses two historic decisions by the Supreme Court: the 2004 ruling that gave detainees the right to bring suits in US federal courts, and last summer's declaration that Bush's military tribunals, with their classified evidence and testimony obtained through torture, were unlawful. Here, the court also said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which bans torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, applied even at Guantanamo and in the CIA gulag. As a result, the CIA's most 'rigorous' interrogation methods, such as 'light' physical contact and the notorious 'waterboarding', were prohibited. According to Bush before Thursday's deal, this was a dangerous impediment to national security.

McCain's pyrrhic victory is that under the deal, lip service to Common Article 3 remains. The problem is that the only viable method of making this effective has been removed. To work, laws need enforcement, and with detainees that means recourse to the courts, where allegations of maltreatment can be made and tested. The deal not only blocks new cases, but it will stop the several hundred pending ones in their tracks. Most detainees will also lose access to their lawyers and, hence, the principal way in which abuses such as force-feeding and alleged brutality have been exposed.

Meanwhile, it states that there is only one authority who decides which interrogation methods breach Common Article 3 - the President. Thursday's text said he would at least publish the list of permissible techniques. By Friday, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was saying that some CIA methods would stay secret after all. The President's commitment to Geneva would have to be taken on trust.

As for the military trials, here, too, the appearance of real compromise is illusory. The big concession vaunted by McCain and his allies is the acceptance that defendants will at least be told about allegations that emanate from classified sources; the tribunals will not, as Bush initially wanted, consider claims of which suspects remain unaware.

However, the difference with the ordinary rules of legal due process as practised on both sides of the Atlantic will still be immense. Confronting 'evidence' from unknown, secret sources, defendants will not have any opportunity to test it through cross-examination.

Neither does the deal spell out how much defendants will be told. The record from the existing 'combatant status review tribunals', which decide if prisoners who have not been charged with any crime should continue to be detained, suggests that they may learn very little.

After weeks of sound and fury, McCain and his cohorts caved in. Small wonder Bush sounded jubilant: 'The agreement clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do: to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists and then to try them.' Or as White House counsel Dan Bartlett put it: 'We proposed a more direct approach to bringing clarification. This one is more of the scenic route, but it gets us there.':banana:

[JohnE]

You know, it would seem that we are engaged against an enemy who has no regard for the Geneva Convention, nor does he represent a signatory country to these accords. So how does it remain important for us to respect those with no respect or regard for the rest of the world as a whole? They scream "Death to
(insert name of western society representative here)" behead, torture and otherwise oppress all who oppose them, and their own women, and generally just do not play well with others. Yet we must argue, with the world as a judge, how we will treat them, in an effort to hold them at bay. In Law of Armed Conflict training (Given to all members of the US military) they are not considerd legal combatants (Uniform wearing, military target striking etc.)
Mind you, GW is an utter and complete bufoon, and his administration in an unmitigated disgrace and failure. But if torturing a terrorist or two (or three or four) prevents another 9-11, I am all for it.
Just my 3 cents...


9

[Changleen]

John, there are two very good reasons for America to ensure that the standards of the Geneva convention are met, or even exceeded.

1) If you stoop to the level of the enemy, you are no better than him. You have lost the war on terror right there, as you have embraced it as a tactic. The US stands for freedom (so Bush says) but would throw these ideals away against an enemy who really actually poses no real threat to your way of life whatsoever. Your phrase "hold them at bay" makes it sound like they are about to rush down from the mountains to conquor you. C'mon, seriously.
This speaks volumes about the real motivations of your leaders.

2) You are an American serviceman abroad. You are captured by a foreign army. Why the hell should they not torture the crap out of you? If no leader is actually willing to stand up and practice the ideals of what he supposedly stands for, then again, terror, fear and the trampling of individuals rights win out.

[DRB]

John, there are two very good reasons for America to ensure that the standards of the Geneva convention are met, or even exceeded.

1) If you stoop to the level of the enemy, you are no better than him. You have lost the war on terror right there, as you have embraced it as a tactic. The US stands for freedom (so Bush says) but would throw these ideals away against an enemy who really actually poses no real threat to your way of life whatsoever. Your phrase "hold them at bay" makes it sound like they are about to rush down from the mountains to conquor you. C'mon, seriously.
This speaks volumes about the real motivations of your leaders.

2) You are an American serviceman abroad. You are captured by a foreign army. Why the hell should they not torture the crap out of you? If no leader is actually willing to stand up and practice the ideals of what he supposedly stands for, then again, terror, fear and the trampling of individuals rights win out.

The second one is a total farce. The last time US troops being held prisoner got treated to the requirements of the Geneva convention was by the Germans in WWII (for the most part). The Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis all pretty much ignored most if not all aspects of the treaty. And the probability of US prisoners being treated to the requirements of the Geneva convention by any enemy that we are likely to get into a fight with in the future are pretty slim as well.

For the most part, its pretty much been the US and close Western Allies that have had any respect at all for the requirements of the Geneva Convention. And just look at what that respect as gained us......

[Transcend]

how about of those 450 detained, maybe 20 (and I'm being generous here) are actual terrorists? The rest as just muslims who were int he wrong place at the wrong time.

[ALEXIS_DH]

John, there are two very good reasons for America to ensure that the standards of the Geneva convention are met, or even exceeded.

1) If you stoop to the level of the enemy, you are no better than him. You have lost the war on terror right there, as you have embraced it as a tactic. The US stands for freedom (so Bush says) but would throw these ideals away against an enemy who really actually poses no real threat to your way of life whatsoever. Your phrase "hold them at bay" makes it sound like they are about to rush down from the mountains to conquor you. C'mon, seriously.
This speaks volumes about the real motivations of your leaders.

not that i support the war on iraq or anything, but i do support another more frank treatment of terrorism.

let´s see. is the concept of fighting a war "to stop genocide" foreign to us?. what is a war but a mass killing of people?
we already regard as moral (and even highly) killing people to stop the killing of other people. that does not necesarilly "speak volumes of the real motivation of the leaders".
it does not automatically discard the option.



2) You are an American serviceman abroad. You are captured by a foreign army. Why the hell should they not torture the crap out of you? If no leader is actually willing to stand up and practice the ideals of what he supposedly stands for, then again, terror, fear and the trampling of individuals rights win out.

drb said it.
nobody but the US and a few civilized democracies care about them.
whether the US (or anybody, but specially the US ) respects or not geneva conventions (IMO acceptable only when it comes to terrrorism related fights) it really wont make any difference in the treatment of its soldiers.

[SofaKingBanned]

I totally support whatever needs to be done to terrorists to break them.

However, there's no greater sin than imprisoning and torturing an innocent man.

[JohnE]

John, there are two very good reasons for America to ensure that the standards of the Geneva convention are met, or even exceeded.

1) If you stoop to the level of the enemy, you are no better than him. You have lost the war on terror right there, as you have embraced it as a tactic. The US stands for freedom (so Bush says) but would throw these ideals away against an enemy who really actually poses no real threat to your way of life whatsoever. Your phrase "hold them at bay" makes it sound like they are about to rush down from the mountains to conquor you. C'mon, seriously.
This speaks volumes about the real motivations of your leaders.

2) You are an American serviceman abroad. You are captured by a foreign army. Why the hell should they not torture the crap out of you? If no leader is actually willing to stand up and practice the ideals of what he supposedly stands for, then again, terror, fear and the trampling of individuals rights win out.


I agree almost 100% with you.
We as a society should be willing to do almost anything to stop world wide terror. The big question is, where does it stop?
The problem with the Genva Convention is that it is an agreement with no teeth. Who enforces it? The UN and the World Court. There is very little motivation for any country to ahere to it. Intelligence services will resort to any means neccesary to glean info from enemy troops. And Chang, the actions of our nitwit president will not prevent another country from using whatever means neccesary to either extract information or simply torture people for the sadistic fun of it. I think you are being a tad overly optimistic.
I am an American serviceman, not currently abroad, but soon to be in the sand again, and believe me, this is a hot topic amongst my co workers. And honestly, if torturing a terrorist who cares nothing for the sanctity of human life that doesnt worship the same deity as he does, saves the life of one of my guys and stops me from having to explain to his wife and little kids why Daddy isnt coming home, well...

[BurlyShirley]

how about of those 450 detained, maybe 20 (and I'm being generous here) are actual terrorists? The rest as just muslims who were int he wrong place at the wrong time.
Yeah, just lollygagging around al queda fortifications with weapons.:biggrin:

[valve bouncer]

It's a bit sad when American and it's closest allies feel that the highest ethical and moral standards shouldn't apply to them. What are we fighting for? It's certainly not freedom, dignity and a life of plenty for others. At this stage it feels more like a dick measuring exercise on a vast scale.

[ALEXIS_DH]

It's a bit sad when American and it's closest allies feel that the highest ethical and moral standards shouldn't apply to them. What are we fighting for? It's certainly not freedom, dignity and a life of plenty for others. At this stage it feels more like a dick measuring exercise on a vast scale.

what is war anyways?

of course it is more socially accepted, but the whole idea isnt foreign to us, and on the very same grounds you reject them, we accept other similarly anti-freedom, anti-dignity and anti-peace measures.

i dont think it should be "moral standards shouldnt apply to them" (as in always) but i do think that once one side throws those standards out of the window.. there should be no moral obligation on the other side to abide by those rules.

just like the "highest moral standard" of respect to life goes out of the window when somebody tries to kill you. (not making an analogy on the action, but the fact the persecution of moral standards per se isnt the ultimate purpose of morality itself).

[JohnE]

It's a bit sad when American and it's closest allies feel that the highest ethical and moral standards shouldn't apply to them. What are we fighting for? It's certainly not freedom, dignity and a life of plenty for others. At this stage it feels more like a dick measuring exercise on a vast scale.

But how do you run a war when the enemy doesnt apply moral or ethical standards either, but the world expects you to apply these standards? Bin Laden and his pals have sworn to destroy us by any means neccesary, so are we justified to use these standards v. them?
War is unethical by nature...

[dhbuilder]

how about of those 450 detained, maybe 20 (and I'm being generous here) are actual terrorists? The rest as just muslims who were int he wrong place at the wrong time.

turn off the cbc and get tuned in to reality.

[Transcend]

turn off the cbc and get tuned in to reality.

Maybe you should turn off fox news? Do you happen to believe that invading Iraw was to "fight terror" as well? Or maybe you believe that your current president was never an alcoholic coke addict who managed to weasel his way out of military service to be a D student?

Just so you know, CBC and the BBC are 2 of the most highly regarded news gathering agencies on the planet. This is in stark contrast to what masquerades on American tv as "News".

[Changleen]

But how do you run a war when the enemy doesnt apply moral or ethical standards either, but the world expects you to apply these standards? Bin Laden and his pals have sworn to destroy us by any means neccesary, so are we justified to use these standards v. them?
War is unethical by nature...Does your enemy really present the threat your leaders say it does?

Take a look at the stats for the number of arrests vs. prosecutions in the WoT. It's pretty much a joke.

If you were actually in a "them or us" situation like say, France in WW2 then I could understand a bit more that rules might need to bend. The fact is that you arn't. You are fighting an elective battle in order to show the world that Democracy and Freedom are better than the alternative. If you want to succeed in this battle (and I'm sure you realise it is a battle far more for the hearts and minds of the world's public than actually against a few enraged peasants with AK47s) then you MUST be seen to represent what you claim to represent, openly and transparantly.

The reason the entire world has basically decided GW is a cvnt and America has gone mad is precisely because of the handling of these type of issues. GW and crew have hyped the danger of a few radical islamics who live in the middle east and have no access to modern weaponry to the extent that they can get away with this type of xenophobic based extremism with the American public. The rest of the world looks on shaking it's head in quiet disbelief and disgust.

Europe, Russia, China, Australasia, hell most of the Arabic world have no love for radical Islam, but without the constant veneer of overhyped fearmongering that is portrayed to the American audience the world sees things in a clearer perspective, and in nearly everyone's opinion, the US's response to it's situation is now the main problem. That is why you no longer have any support.

If you had world opinion behind you, as you so easily could have had, you really wouldn't even have a problem. Everyone would help you close this minor threat down as has happened many times in the past with other terrorist groups.

There are a small handful of people to blame for your current problems, and none of them are Arabic.

[DRB]

...hell most of the Arabic world have no love for radical Islam...

Sadly you are way off on this statement.

[Changleen]

Sadly you are way off on this statement.We could argue about that for a long time, but in this context it doesn't really matter.

[DRB]

We could argue about that for a long time, but in this context it doesn't really matter.

You'd be arguing from what you read. I'd be arguing from what I know first hand.

You aren't right. I promise you aren't even close.

[syadasti]

You'd be arguing from what you read. I'd be arguing from what I know first hand.

You aren't right. I promise you aren't even close.

Military intelligence is an oxymoron :banana:

[stevew]

Military intelligence is an oxymoron :banana:
I don't think DRB is in the military....

[valve bouncer]

But how do you run a war when the enemy doesnt apply moral or ethical standards either, but the world expects you to apply these standards? Bin Laden and his pals have sworn to destroy us by any means neccesary, so are we justified to use these standards v. them?
War is unethical by nature...

So why not just shoot prisoners out of hand, use gas/biological weapons in the caves, nuclear weapons if needed? If the end justifies the means then there should be no constraints.
The scrupulous adherence to the highest standards of behaviour are the only way to command legitimacy.

[ALEXIS_DH]

So why not just shoot prisoners out of hand, use gas/biological weapons in the caves, nuclear weapons if needed? If the end justifies the means then there should be no constraints.
The scrupulous adherence to the highest standards of behaviour are the only way to command legitimacy.

thats a bit of an slippery slope.

if you come to think about it, we are talking about a "line" already established in an arbitrary fashion.
the fact that we regard "war", "missiles" and "f117a" on the acceptable side of the line in the first place it pretty much arbitrary.

[Changleen]

the fact that we regard "war", "missiles" and "f117a" on the acceptable side of the line in the first placeSpeak for yourself.

[ALEXIS_DH]

Speak for yourself.

for society, as we know it in the west, at least it is.

[Changleen]

Yes, Fair enough.

[ianjenn]

Maybe you should turn off fox news? Do you happen to believe that invading Iraw was to "fight terror" as well? Or maybe you believe that your current president was never an alcoholic coke addict who managed to weasel his way out of military service to be a D student?

Just so you know, CBC and the BBC are 2 of the most highly regarded news gathering agencies on the planet. This is in stark contrast to what masquerades on American tv as "News".

No in reality we invaded IRAQ due to the 17 UN MANDATES that clown boy broke! So since he signed we had the right! We also if we are able to secure Iraq 100% will put a strong hinderance on the LUNES there!BBC staright up HATES the USA and is a commy loving RAG!!! They believe FIDEL is the man and read any of their "editorails" what a joke. Next time the BBC wines about the USA ask em how they feel about the 1000000 AMERICANS that died so they could be free. WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS FREED millions FED millions and stood up for those who cannot do it the selves! While my friends are over in the desert fighting for freedom and keeping us safe people who have never fought hide at home and talk about how evil they are. Damn its NOAM CHOMPSKY and Vietnam all over again>>>>>>>>

[ianjenn]

Does your enemy really present the threat your leaders say it does?

Take a look at the stats for the number of arrests vs. prosecutions in the WoT. It's pretty much a joke.

If you were actually in a "them or us" situation like say, France in WW2 then I could understand a bit more that rules might need to bend. The fact is that you arn't. You are fighting an elective battle in order to show the world that Democracy and Freedom are better than the alternative. If you want to succeed in this battle (and I'm sure you realise it is a battle far more for the hearts and minds of the world's public than actually against a few enraged peasants with AK47s) then you MUST be seen to represent what you claim to represent, openly and transparantly.

The reason the entire world has basically decided GW is a cvnt and America has gone mad is precisely because of the handling of these type of issues. GW and crew have hyped the danger of a few radical islamics who live in the middle east and have no access to modern weaponry to the extent that they can get away with this type of xenophobic based extremism with the American public. The rest of the world looks on shaking it's head in quiet disbelief and disgust.

Europe, Russia, China, Australasia, hell most of the Arabic world have no love for radical Islam, but without the constant veneer of overhyped fearmongering that is portrayed to the American audience the world sees things in a clearer perspective, and in nearly everyone's opinion, the US's response to it's situation is now the main problem. That is why you no longer have any support.

If you had world opinion behind you, as you so easily could have had, you really wouldn't even have a problem. Everyone would help you close this minor threat down as has happened many times in the past with other terrorist groups.

There are a small handful of people to blame for your current problems, and none of them are Arabic.


What do you know of past military engagemnets in the Middle East? Here is the deal Russia followed Englands example and wrapped any dead terrorist in PORK? Well look what happened no more suicide bombs. That could also be against the conventions you art so fond of! The rest of the world is partly taken over by the "few" MUSLIMs you refer to. Remember FRANCE or did you not see that?Lets see a small handful of a BILLION is about 100 million yeah not too many people eh????

[Transcend]

No in reality we invaded IRAQ due to the 17 UN MANDATES that clown boy broke! So since he signed we had the right!

Um no, mr world police. The UN had the right, the US most certainly did not. Please learn a little bit about international law (and international Journalism for that matter) before you spout off at the mouth.

Also, here in the adult's forum, we are fond of taking 30 seconds to spell check a post, even ignorant ones.

Durr, fight for freedom! :rolleyes: Them dang muslims is takin over mah christian world! We need to save the world again! Commies are everywhere!

You make n8 sound like a mensa member.

[$tinkle]

chang:

your posted editorial is one of many wildly varying opinions on this topic, & i have my own (starting from yours in your response to JohnE).

yes, believe it or not, i agree that we should indeed strictly adhere to geneva conventions, but my reasons for agreeing are quite different. for one, when we do as they do, we allow them to lead us. because i do believe this is a clash of civilizations, we must demonstrate to the world how different we are in many ways, to include 'conflict resolution'. we shouldn't be that yob wearing a wife-beater & burberry taking half-assed haymakers at whoever makes eye-contact with us. we need to be this calm, collected, pasty infidel who seemingly poses no threat, who does not have the stomach to do real wet work. this would humiliate them more than a forced game of naked twister with hindu cross-dressers slathered in bacon grease.

don't get me wrong: torture would be good sport, but it's kinda hard to make good propaganda when we capture them & give them 3 halal squares/day & accomodate their every silly religious 'need' while in custody.

[$tinkle]

So why not just shoot prisoners out of hand, use gas/biological weapons in the caves, nuclear weapons if needed? If the end justifies the means then there should be no constraints. on the playground, the bully takes swings at you, but you avoid getting hit by blocking, ducking, etc. eventually, he tires. his 'fan club' sees how inept & powerless he is, and they slowly draw back, being underwhelmed at his efforts. that's the hope of the description of the war on terror. unfortunately, i do not believe it applies. what applies is the bully who lies in wait & pulls a screwdriver out & punctures your lung & ditches the screwdriver before you can see who it is. (you have an idea, though: he's in a nearby crowd of people who say you had it coming & celebrate that you're on one knee coughing up blood).

the rub from applying the geneva convention is, it only works in the best case scenario: when there are absolute sides that are chosen, and every fighter is wearing a uniform, and of course, equally recognizes the rule of law. it cannot be expected that 'law of armed conflict' will be abided by those who aren't even part of a regular army.

what you cynically depicted is the russian mindset (i realize you don't buy into it), and these measures - while successful in the short-term - do us no favors in the generations to come.

and they will come.

[Transcend]

What do you know of past military engagemnets in the Middle East? Here is the deal Russia followed Englands example and wrapped any dead terrorist in PORK? Well look what happened no more suicide bombs. That could also be against the conventions you art so fond of! The rest of the world is partly taken over by the "few" MUSLIMs you refer to. Remember FRANCE or did you not see that?Lets see a small handful of a BILLION is about 100 million yeah not too many people eh????

Oh right, a school full of kids wasn't taken hostage, and then all the children executed fairly recently in Russia. That war against Afghanistan sure paid off! england didn't just get it's tube system attacked either. I forgot. :cheers:

I'm just guessing here, but Changleen, MikeD, $tinkle, DRB and the rest here have probably about a ton more accurate information on these issues than you do (some of it first hand in a few cases). They also don't sound like a slack jawed yokel when expressing themselves. They routinely use evidence and facts to back up their point of view. You know, a proper debate and discussion.

[ianjenn]

Yeha they know alot because they read it on the internet? Sure while my friend spent 3 + years over there doing things you don't want to think about that is where I get my info from! And another thing We the US are the world police and we as the second signing party have that right to enforce what the UN won't and btw that is everything! It is funny how the exact same propaganda used in Viet Nam is again coming into play. Maybe it is because the same people are invloved once again! Sorry Carter, Clinton, Bush Sr all ignored the terrorists and look what it got us, never again no matter what the rest of the world thinks! They all thought Hitler was cool also, but then again maybe you do as well?

[Transcend]

Wow, it must be awesome to live in your imaginary world.

The US has no right to enforce UN declarations, unless it is put into effect by the UN, through a security council vote. You should probably stop pulling stuff out of your ass now. Iraq was a sovereign nation, and the US invaded it, quite illegally in every sense of the word.

Edit: Oh, and no, it isn't because they read it on the internet. Some of us here are more educated than a 9th grade level. Some in International Law. Some people even work for the Gov't in some capacities. Just sayin'.

Funny you should mention Vietnam: no exit strategy, started on false pretenses, and the US getting it's ass handed to it by a guerilla force. Sound familiar?


Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

And really, just to be clear in case you don't get the above UN Charter articles. THE ONLY way use of force to enforce a un declaration is permitted, is through a security council vote. End of story. Now please stop making stuff up and go away.

Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.

Despite U.S. claims over the years that resolutions subsequent to Resolution 687 have provided the basis for U.S. use of force against Iraq, the Bush administration is now seeking a new resolution authorizing use of force should Iraq continue to fail to comply with Security Council requirements. Practically speaking, then, the Bush administration accepts that existing resolutions do not authorize use of force.

[Changleen]

on the playground, the bully takes swings at you, but you avoid getting hit by blocking, ducking, etc. eventually, he tires. his 'fan club' sees how inept & powerless he is, and they slowly draw back, being underwhelmed at his efforts. that's the hope of the description of the war on terror. unfortunately, i do not believe it applies. what applies is the bully who lies in wait & pulls a screwdriver out & punctures your lung & ditches the screwdriver before you can see who it is. (you have an idea, though: he's in a nearby crowd of people who say you had it coming & celebrate that you're on one knee coughing up blood).I'd say a more acurate description might be you're in your backyard and you get stung by a wasp. You can either a) swat the wasp, and maybe apply some insect repelant, or b) hire 10 contractors to come round and soak your garden in DDT to kill every insect of every type who might be living there. Unfortunately the DDT is poorly applied because you didn't manage the contractors, and they end up just angering all the insects who try and swam your ham sammich.
the rub from applying the geneva convention is, it only works in the best case scenario: when there are absolute sides that are chosen, and every fighter is wearing a uniform, and of course, equally recognizes the rule of law. it cannot be expected that 'law of armed conflict' will be abided by those who aren't even part of a regular army.They don't have to apply it, and they will wear the cost to their reputation if that is their choice. It's all on you as the self proclaimed 'good guy' to do the right thing though.

what you cynically depicted is the russian mindset (i realize you don't buy into it), and these measures - while successful in the short-term - do us no favors in the generations to come.I pretty much disagree.

[Changleen]

For the most part, its pretty much been the US and close Western Allies that have had any respect at all for the requirements of the Geneva Convention. And just look at what that respect as gained us......I think until GW started playing silly buggers, we did actually enjoy a fair amount of respect.

[ianjenn]

Find for me and put a link to the entire treaty WE THE USA signed with Saddam at the end of The Gulf War, I looked and couldn't find it? It would suprise me that we would allow the UN to "inforce" anything that our troops had already been invloved in. Wow international law I am just so impressed with that like how hard?? Listen I am attending Cal Poly work FT and go to school FT starting Masters soon also. Here is a book you should read VIETNAM THE NECCESARY WAR it will tell you what really happened over there. We maintaned a military force that was under strick rules of engagement! While back at home weak college boys were whining about FREEDOM FIGHTERs? So when CHINA and The USSR were backing them it was all just farmers with pitch forks ehh? You have no idea the type of man that America grows from MLK to heroes like Carlos Hathcock, and Audy Murphy the type of men that came from nothing and did things under pressures and extreme situations that only a very small % of the world could relate to. These men stood and fought against overwhelming forces in battles that turned to legends. They didn't do it cause some clowns in Washington told em too. They did it for the love of their country and the love of their fellow soldiers! There is a reason that soldiers who have been through war look at others when they come back with a sort of astonishment that is because they know what they saw and experienced can never be understood back home. People going to college and talking about war like they comprehend it should realize that there is only 1 reason thay can even talk about it at all and that is The American soldier. While you sit at home think about this we are the only nation in the World that sacrifices its bravest to free others on a consistent bases. I understand what is at stake in this battle if we loose there will be a very large regime stretching accross the desert that will only have bad intentions for the entire Western World

[Changleen]

Oh no! Not bad intantions! Those really suck. I guess I was wrong.

[Transcend]

Give it up with your "we are the bravest", "we are the only ones with balls" BS. No one cares but you.

You know nothing (seemingly) of international law, and really shouldn't comment on it. You are making yourself seem more ignorant with every post.

Also, how does a finance degree have any sort of relevance in an internatinal law discussion? Oh wait, it doesn't. Good thing you don't have to write many fact based papers in FT huh?

[Transcend]

Oh no! Not bad intantions! Those really suck. I guess I was wrong.

Bad intantions means no one but the us can inforce things if they were at any point involved with them. duh.

Wow, your US public education system at work, ladies and gentlemen.

ianjenn: Seriously dude, you should read up a little bit on this stuff before you try and have a debate about it. The UN charter may be a good place to start. Every member nation has equal rights, except for the Security council members, where the US can't force anything through due to all members being given one vote each.

The US does not get to decide what the UN can and cannot do. The faster you (and the rest of the American populace who is as clueless as you seem to be) get this, the better off the entire world will be.

You guys made your bed over the last few decades, now you get to lie in it.

[Silver]

You have no idea the type of man that America grows from MLK to heroes like Carlos Hathcock, and Audy Murphy the type of men that came from nothing and did things under pressures and extreme situations that only a very small % of the world could relate to. These men stood and fought against overwhelming forces in battles that turned to legends. They didn't do it cause some clowns in Washington told em too. They did it for the love of their country and the love of their fellow soldiers!

Martin Luther King wasn't a soldier. Carlos Hathcock got stiffed by the Marines when he was turfed with Multiple Sclerosis. Audie Murphy was a basketcase actor.

50 years ago you would have been an SS member gassing Jews because der Fuhrer told you it was a good idea.

[JohnE]

Please dont associate me with Ianjenn...shudder...
The sh*tty thing here is that the world opinion was pretty much with the US after 9/11. No one really had a problem with going into A-ghan and rooting out terrorists. Then came Iraq, and GW just had to finish what Daddy left undone. There goes all the goodwill left after 9/11. Then comes the rest of the controversies, and pretty soon we are right back where we started, even a bit behind, because of all the cowboy diplomacy and "Youre either with us or against us" mentality.
I still cant figure out why we had to enforce UN decrees...I have spent too much time in this life in a sh*tty desert when I could have been riding or skiing or playing hockey or whatever, but instead, its the desert. Thanks.
Appeasement doesnt work, just ask Neville Chamberlain. We can ride the moral high horse, but it would be a lie. War is a dirty, ugly business, and the people we are dealing with here are willing to do anything to further their cause. We must be willing to do anything to defeat their cause.
Unfortunatley, we cant go back and fix whatever led to 9/11, we can only work to make tommorow better. I just dont know how. Call the guys with the 9 lb. brains and the common sense.

[JohnE]

I think until GW started playing silly buggers, we did actually enjoy a fair amount of respect.

100% right on the money...had he actually listened to folks like Colin Powell, we would still be okay.

[JohnE]

So why not just shoot prisoners out of hand, use gas/biological weapons in the caves, nuclear weapons if needed? If the end justifies the means then there should be no constraints.
The scrupulous adherence to the highest standards of behaviour are the only way to command legitimacy.

But VB, I would argue that adherence to the highest standards, while noble, is unfortunately, to the radicals, a sign of weakness.
I gotta stay out of this forum...

[Silver]

I would argue that adherence to the highest standards, while noble, is unfortunately, to the radicals, a sign of weakness

I'm not worried about what radical Muslims think about my commitment to not torturing people. I'm much more concerned about being able to look in the mirror and not see a Khmer Rouge staring back at me.

[Changleen]

The only real sign of weakness is losing. Who cares what a bunch of crazy fvcks think of you compared to the opinions of your trading partners and the rational population of the world?

[JohnE]

Honestly, if torturing one terrorist stops another 9/11, or Barcelona attack, or bus bombing, or subway attack, or Pan Am flight 101, saving untold lives, maybe including the life of a loved one, does the end justify the means?
This time, I am really out of this mess. Discussing stuff like this over the Internet is not the same as over a pint or seven...

[Munster]

No-one has mentioned the debate about the effectiveness of torture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

[BurlyShirley]

Honestly, if torturing one terrorist stops another 9/11, or Barcelona attack, or bus bombing, or subway attack, or Pan Am flight 101, saving untold lives, maybe including the life of a loved one, does the end justify the means?
This time, I am really out of this mess. Discussing stuff like this over the Internet is not the same as over a pint or seven...

...the guy who gets tortured but has nothing to say will probably have a pretty bad attitude toward the US on down the line, I would imagine. I wouldnt doubt it could actually incite MORE 911's or subway bombings.

[ianjenn]

Again I can't find anything about the actaul peace accord we signed with Iraq back after desert Storm? So I am guessind nobody else can either but in it from what I understand we are the only group that will enforce any breaking down of this agreement correct?? At this point none of us are going to change our minds..........
So whatever you think cool and whatever I think cool and hopefully there will not be any other reasons for us or othere Western Nations to take actions against Muslims anytime soon? My point in that last post was politicians, lawyers etc., are all lame and weak I don't give a rat about em none of stand for anything these days, but my friends over there will hopefully come home and continue the life they put on hold soon.

[ianjenn]

Martin Luther King wasn't a soldier. Carlos Hathcock got stiffed by the Marines when he was turfed with Multiple Sclerosis. Audie Murphy was a basketcase actor.

50 years ago you would have been an SS member gassing Jews because der Fuhrer told you it was a good idea.

Right MLK was a preacher of peace. Audie Murphy on the other hand well he had a few decorations placed on his chest http://www.audiemurphy.com/welcome.htm

[Echo]

Hey ianjenn, I was in the military over in the middle east probably before you were born. Nice to see how effective the military's brainwashing techniques have gotten since then.

I'm about as white and American looking as they come, and strangely I was able to walk around quite safely in 4 Arab countries 20 years ago. I wonder what happened since then that they are so pissed off at us? Oh yeah, people like you are over there now.

[Old Man G Funk]

No-one has mentioned the debate about the effectiveness of torture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
Exactly.

Torture isn't effective. If you coerce someone hard enough, they'll tell you exactly what you they think you want to hear.

[Old Man G Funk]

Honestly, if torturing one terrorist stops another 9/11, or Barcelona attack, or bus bombing, or subway attack, or Pan Am flight 101, saving untold lives, maybe including the life of a loved one, does the end justify the means?
This time, I am really out of this mess. Discussing stuff like this over the Internet is not the same as over a pint or seven...

If you do come back, I would say that due to the fact that torture isn't very effective that it wouldn't help avert another 9/11.

Also, let's think about this. What's to stop the gov. from torturing US citizens if it thinks it can avert another Oklahoma City bombing?

[Old Man G Funk]

thats a bit of an slippery slope.

if you come to think about it, we are talking about a "line" already established in an arbitrary fashion.
the fact that we regard "war", "missiles" and "f117a" on the acceptable side of the line in the first place it pretty much arbitrary.
There's certainly a non-arbitrary line between shooting at someone on the battlefield and shooting at someone who is chained up in jail. Don't conflate actions on the battlefields to the inhumane treatment and torture of those who have already been defeated.

[syadasti]

Exactly.

Torture isn't effective. If you coerce someone hard enough, they'll tell you exactly what you they think you want to hear.

The US Government still relies on the polygraph too which has been proven ineffective and inaccurate.


8
Conclusions and Recommendations

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures. We separately present our conclusions about scientific knowledge on the validity of polygraph and other techniques of detecting deception, about policy for employee security screening in the context of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, and about the future of detection and deterrence of deception, including a recommendation for research.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Basic Science

Polygraph Accuracy Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test (http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/212.html)

[Old Man G Funk]

don't get me wrong: torture would be good sport, but it's kinda hard to make good propaganda when we capture them & give them 3 halal squares/day & accomodate their every silly religious 'need' while in custody.

I wonder if they have a religious "need" to not be waterboarded.

[Old Man G Funk]

No in reality we invaded IRAQ due to the 17 UN MANDATES that clown boy broke!

How many UN mandates are there against Israel? Should we invade them too?

[Old Man G Funk]

The US Government still relies on the polygraph too which has been proven ineffective and inaccurate.
True that, and they shouldn't. Relying on methods that are proven to be faulty is in no one's best interest.

[BurlyShirley]

True that, and they shouldn't. Relying on methods that are proven to be faulty is in no one's best interest.

Tell that to Maury Povich. Think of the lives he's ruined.

[Old Man G Funk]

Tell that to Maury Povich. Think of the lives he's ruined.
I wouldn't know.

[DRB]

Audie Murphy was a basketcase actor.



Classy of you...

The Official Citation for his Medal of Honor (which he received for actions when he was 20 years old what were you doing at 20)

Rank and organization:' Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 15th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division.
Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January, 1945.
Entered service at: Dallas, Texas. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Texas, G.O. No. 65, 9 August 1944.
Citation: Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

[N8]

how about of those 450 detained, maybe 20 (and I'm being generous here) are actual terrorists? The rest as just muslims who were int he wrong place at the wrong time.



I'm sure they were just guilty of FWM* huh?

















*Fighting while muslim

[N8]

Classy of you...

The Official Citation for his Medal of Honor (which he received for actions when he was 20 years old what were you doing at 20)

Rank and organization:' Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company B 15th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division.
Place and date: Near Holtzwihr France, 26 January, 1945.
Entered service at: Dallas, Texas. Birth: Hunt County, near Kingston, Texas, G.O. No. 65, 9 August 1944.
Citation: Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.



They don't hardly make men like that anymore....


However, most of today's liberals think WWII fictional event anyway.

[Old Man G Funk]

However, most of today's liberals think WWII fictional event anyway.
I know, it seems like a fairy tale that we fought against someone who actually attacked us first...

[N8]

I know, it seems like a fairy tale that we fought against someone who actually attacked us first...

Ah.. what dastardly surprise attack on the USA did the Germans carry out again..???

[Westy]

Ah.. what dastardly surprise attack on the USA did the Germans carry out again..???


Pearl Harbor dumbass.
:biggrin:

[Old Man G Funk]

Ah.. what dastardly surprise attack on the USA did the Germans carry out again..???
Actually, the Germans were a clear threat to us and had attacked some US shipping boats.

[N8]

Actually, the Germans were a clear threat to us and had attacked some US shipping boats.

losses were minimal... a lot less than 3000 civilians on US soil...


..and what sneak attack did Italy carry out on the US again..??

[Old Man G Funk]

losses were minimal... a lot less than 3000 civilians on US soil...


..and what sneak attack did Italy carry out on the US again..??
Considering that Italy was embroiled in the war with Germany and the rest of Europe, we could not attack German without also attacking Italy.

Of course, even if Germany killed only one person, it would still be more than Iraq killed on 9/11. Nice try though. You keep making references to 9/11 everytime someone points out that we are in the midst of an elective war in Iraq and maybe someone will buy it.

[MMike]

But 9/11 was orchestrated by the US gov't

[DRB]

Considering that Italy was embroiled in the war with Germany and the rest of Europe, we could not attack German without also attacking Italy.

Of course, even if Germany killed only one person, it would still be more than Iraq killed on 9/11. Nice try though. You keep making references to 9/11 everytime someone points out that we are in the midst of an elective war in Iraq and maybe someone will buy it.

So you have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan?

[Old Man G Funk]

So you have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan?
I've said before that the invasion of Afghanistan was probably justified. The Taliban were aiding and abetting a group that had physically attacked us.

[Echo]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that we would be much better off if we had stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job, instead of doing a half-assed job there and then doing a half-assed job in Iraq. The US invading Iraq was a dream come true for Al Queda.

[jimmydean]

Afghanistan was justified. The group we put in power years ago no longer served a valuable purpose, so it was time for a change.

I agree that we should have finished there long before we ever considered Iraq. It was a mistake to go in at all, but if we would have waited until the majority of troops were done there, we wouldn't be spread so thin either.

But the topic at hand is still a mess. Even if we are the only country that follows the guidelines, at least we lead by example. That way, the countries or groups that do not can be taken care of without question.

If we do the same crap as they do, then it's additional reason for hate, and we don't need more of that right now.

[Transcend]

losses were minimal... a lot less than 3000 civilians on US soil...


..and what sneak attack did Italy carry out on the US again..??

Nice troll, even the most dimwitted here know of the Tripartite agreement between Japan, Germany and Italy. You aren't even funny anymore, nor do you make any sense.

[ianjenn]

OK FOUND A LITTLE HERE (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)
about Geneva Conventions
combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
So from what I read there and posted here are Terrorists due Geneva Conentions??? Thats a good ?

[Transcend]

How about being human shoud be reason enough to grant them geneva convention rights?

Also, an insurgency movement is categorized as an organized resistance movement. So clearly, yes, they are as per convention 1. The 1977 protocols also clearly extend here to combatants bearing arms during an attack.

[ianjenn]

Ya you didn't read it they don't distingiush themselves from civilians and don't carry their weapons openly so no they actually don't fall into that. Don't read me wrong I am not advocating the use of blowtorches or anything here. I think in certain instances there should be the use of the same interigation methods that our police use ie no sleep, cold rooms, etc when deemed needed ya know? Anyway Transcend I am not trying to be in a flame War with ya OK. I just wanted to read the actual document myself, that BTW I still can't find weird don't ya think?

[Transcend]

Ya you didn't read it they don't distingiush themselves from civilians and don't carry their weapons openly so no they actually don't fall into that. Don't read me wrong I am not advocating the use of blowtorches or anything here. I think in certain instances there should be the use of the same interigation methods that our police use ie no sleep, cold rooms, etc when deemed needed ya know? Anyway Transcen I am not trying to be in a flame War with ya OK. I just wanted to read the actual document myself, that BTW I still can't find weird don't ya think?

They don't need to fit into ALL of the categories. Only one. Thus, "organized resistance" is more than enough. The US Gov't is calling them an insurgency, which by definition, is an organized resistance (rebel group, resistance movement etc).

They carry their weapons openly DURING an attack itself. 1977 protocol addition.

[ohio]

How about being human shoud be reason enough to grant them geneva convention rights?


Actually I'm going to disagree with you here. I don't think that's a good reason at all.

The good reason is that it's counterproductive to our ultimate goals (safety for the US and allies, democracy in the middle east, reduction in terrorist power and numbers) to diverge from the geneva conventions in our treatment of prisoners.
1. We get unreliable info - see Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who offered reliable info up until the CIA started water-boarding him until he gave false info (but what they wanted to hear) that led us to conduct an extremely expensive and totally worthless offensive.
2. We aid terrorist recruitment - looking ruthless and hyprocritical on the world's stage gives the terrorist leaders more fodder than they could ever need for recruitment
3. We alienate ourselves from allies - gets expensive (in money and lives) to fight this fight ourselves... but that's where we now are because our former allies are afriad that our stink might rub off on them.

I couldn't care less about the well-being of terrorists... it's the three points above that worry me.

[DRB]

How about being human shoud be reason enough to grant them geneva convention rights?

Also, an insurgency movement is categorized as an organized resistance movement. So clearly, yes, they are as per convention 1. The 1977 protocols also clearly extend here to combatants bearing arms during an attack.

What's so funny is that the average Arab laughs that this is even being brought up. He views it as another example of how the West will eventually lose because they are unwilling to do what it takes to resolve the matter at hand. They, meaning the average Arab, as more respect for Israel then they do the West because the Jews fully understand an eye for eye.

You know why the terrorists have such a hard time operating in Saudi Arabia? Because they know if they get caught that life is going to suck for a very very long time and if they don't get caught but killed and sent to the virgins, life is going to suck for their entire family for a very very long time.

They view the Convention as a huge joke and can't believe that it even exists.

[Transcend]

I couldn't care less about the well-being of terrorists... it's the three points above that worry me.

Only the problem is that the US seems to like grabbing anyone remotely muslim lately and sending them to secret prisons with no sort of propsect of justive ever occuring. He MAY have at one time, dated a girl who was the 3rd cousing of a known terrorist. Grab him!

example: the case a few weeks ago of the guy in the us who canadian authorities fingered and was instantly deported to somewhere in the middle east and tortured. He had nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of terrorist anything. But hey, he was brown and muslim.

Then you just end up tortruing innocent civilians, which does matter. Let alone the fact, as you mentioned, it will incite yet more attacks.

Also, remember that next time there is an uproar due to a random American/Brit etc civi being snatched, tortured and eventually beheaded.

If you don't rise above their level, you are no better than they are. you can't very well trumpet freedom and democracy as your cause when you are secretly (well not anymore) sending people off to secret prisons with no trials and no crimes committed.

[Transcend]

What's so funny is that the average Arab laughs that this is even being brought up. He views it as another example of how the West will eventually lose because they are unwilling to do what it takes to resolve the matter at hand. They, meaning the average Arab, as more respect for Israel then they do the West because the Jews fully understand an eye for eye.

You know why the terrorists have such a hard time operating in Saudi Arabia? Because they know if they get caught that life is going to suck for a very very long time and if they don't get caught but killed and sent to the virgins, life is going to suck for their entire family for a very very long time.

They view the Convention as a huge joke and can't believe that it even exists.

Of course, this is perfectly true and I agree 100%. However, i also beleive (as I posted above) when you stoop to their level it's pretty hard to claim you are fighting for freedom and democracy etc, when you are , in reality, no better than a common thug.

[BurlyShirley]

Of course, this is perfectly true and I agree 100%. However, i also beleive (as I posted above) when you stoop to their level it's pretty hard to claim you are fighting for freedom and democracy etc, when you are , in reality, no better than a common thug.

Since when do "freedom" and "democracy" equal fairies and unicorns? Brutal tactics for brutal people I say.

I agree with you that they should be more selective, maybe waiting for some kind of legal "just cause" before pulling out fingernails, but when it comes to letting bombings occur because you're afraid of being too mean, well, that I dont agree with. Its a fine line, I know, but this is the real world, and these guys are worse than the "Christian Zealots" you constantly complain about. Theyll DIE for their god. Why not help them along?

[DRB]

Also, remember that next time there is an uproar due to a random American/Brit etc civi being snatched, tortured and eventually beheaded.


The two have nothing to do with each other at all. They, for the most part, don't target anything but civilians and other soft targets. The only time they didn't was when they went after the USS Cole.

Of course, this is perfectly true and I agree 100%. However, i also beleive (as I posted above) when you stoop to their level it's pretty hard to claim you are fighting for freedom and democracy etc, when you are , in reality, no better than a common thug.

What does getting dirty and fighting in a manner that is consistent and applicable to the enemy have to do with democracy and freedom. How does it make sense to let your enemy practice these techniques on those that aren't in a position to protect themselves? How does that line up with freedom and democracy?

Your arguements are naive and dangerous in today's world. Why don't you torture? For the number one reason Ohio gave. But even then you slap a guy around for a little bit with the fear that it'll go on for a long time and if he gives great if he doesn't, then move on.

Though we should just lie about it like the rest of our allies and move on. Then the emperor's clothes are just fine. The French are real sweethearts when it comes to taking care of terrorists in their care. At least here there is a debate and some level of honesty about it in the US.

[Transcend]

Freedom and democracy was probably a bad word choice, as I didn't mean it literally.

I meant in the new "freedom, democracy, religious right all that is good in the world, purveryor of justice" image that the current administration is trying to establish.

You know, where the US is full of good natured, Christian happy people who are out to quelch the forces of evil aka: the dirty, brown, Muslim folks in the middle east.

[Transcend]

The two have nothing to do with each other at all. They, for the most part, don't target anything but civilians and other soft targets.
.

And the US forces/intelligence services picking up Muslims off the street and shipping them off to Cuba with no trials or charges being brought isn't doing exactly this, how?

[DRB]

And the US forces/intelligence services picking up Muslims off the street and shipping them off to Cuba with no trials or charges being brought isn't doing exactly this, how?

Oh yeah they just randomly pick up brown folk for sh!ts and giggles. Yeah US troops never patrol for contact with enemy forces to pick a fight. Just scoop up those civillians willy nilly that's our way. Shoot if they have a gun US forces just run for our lives screaming "help me jesus, help me jesus"

Hell we can just kill them and get away with it..... oh wait....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/25/marines.court.martial/index.html

Oh no the UK is getting into the act now

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/25/iraq.terrorist.ap/index.html

I wonder if they knocked first and tried to give them the search warrant.

Edti:
Like I said we should just lie about it. When we are done put a bullet in them and then dump them where we found them, stick a gun in their hands and report it that way. They could just find some cops to help them set that into motion.

[Transcend]

gimme a break dude, you know full well that half the people in that prison probably never had a single thing to do with anything terrorist related, and are there due to circumstances alone. They know someone, or visited somehwere etc.

[DRB]

gimme a break dude, you know full well that half the people in that prison probably never had a single thing to do with anything terrorist related, and are there due to circumstances alone. They know someone, or visited somehwere etc.

Oh I know that about as well as you do. Again they just randomly haul unarmed innocent folk because that's easy.

[Transcend]

Yup, because shooting at an invading force in a country as part of an insurgency means one is a terrorist and not a POW. POWs retain certain rights that the USA doesn't seem to want to grant.

[Changleen]

DRB, you can argue the 'neccesity' of your torture and heavy-handedness all you like, the fact is the rest of the civilised world still thinks you're being an ignorant, despicable cvnt. There is a reason for that.

[$tinkle]

They view the Convention as a huge joke and can't believe that it even exists.but wait, there's more:

Police to brief Muslims before terror raids (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2372471,00.html)POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.

Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.

The first panel, expected to consist of four people, will be set up initially in London. Tomorrow representatives from police forces across England and Wales will decide whether to make the scheme national.

Muslim groups have welcomed the move, which is understood to be backed by Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner.

This week the Association of Chief Police Officers will discuss with MI5 and the Home Office whether to reveal to the panel intelligence information from the security service.

The idea came from the Metropolitan police and the Muslim Safety Forum (MSF), which works for better police-Muslim relations. It has been under discussion for two years and came to the top of the agenda after a police raid in Forest Gate, London, in June, in which a man was shot. Police were acting on a tip-off about a bomb. None was found.

Azad Ali, chairman of the MSF, said: “The major concern that came to us from Muslims was that the intelligence was flawed — the raid was on assumption and nothing else. This will allow independent scrutiny of intelligence.”

The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have sometimes been criticised for being over-cautious about tackling Muslim extremism. Last week Abu Izzadeen, a radical cleric who has so far escaped prosecution despite seemingly inciting terrorism, gained entry to a closed meeting in east London and heckled John Reid, the home secretary.

It has now emerged that Izzadeen apparently urged Muslims to wage holy war in Britain in an internet video downloaded by several thousand users from websites that closed down two months ago. The sites were linked to the Saved Sect, of which Izzadeen was leader and which has now been banned and disbanded.

In the video he told his audience: “In the UK no fighting takes place yet, but don’t be fooled, the time will come to you brothers . . . fighting is so close at hand.”

He adds: “You prepare yourself now and when the hard time comes you are ready to defend yourself; you are ready to die for the sake of Allah.”

David Corker, a partner in the London law firm Corker Binning, which has dealt with terrorism cases, said of the video: “There is enough material there for him to be considered for prosecution.”

Izzadeen, 34, did not respond to requests for comment this weekend.posted about izzadeen last week (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166390)

[DRB]

DRB, you can argue the 'neccesity' of your torture and heavy-handedness all you like, the fact is the rest of the civilised world still thinks you're being an ignorant, despicable cvnt. There is a reason for that.

Yeah and the reason is if the crackpots are focused on the US then they won't come a knockin'. So its in their best interests to keep this a story. And for course by the rest of the civilized (that's rich) world you mean the governments of the world that are standing around with righteous indignation all the while doing exactly the samething if not worse because no one has caught them at it yet.

The "civilized" world cares oh so much about the brown people and their treatment.

Edit: Here is the person that should decide world policy.... http://franken.8k.com/stuart2.gif

[Transcend]

If you drop your keys into a stream of flowing lava, just forget about them, 'cuz they're gone.

~Stuart Smalley

[Silver]

Edti:
Like I said we should just lie about it. When we are done put a bullet in them and then dump them where we found them, stick a gun in their hands and report it that way. They could just find some cops to help them set that into motion.

In that case, what was wrong with Saddam?

[Changleen]

Yeah and the reason is if the crackpots are focused on the US then they won't come a knockin'.Errrr, Let's see, post 9/11 we have London, Milan and Bali for starters...
Good start for your theory...


So its in their best interests to keep this a story.Your premis is wrong, so your reasoning for this too is flawed. We both know the real reason that Terr'ism is a constant headline in the US is to serve the Administration's agendas.

And for course by the rest of the civilized (that's rich) world you mean the governments of the world that are standing around with righteous indignation all the while doing exactly the samething if not worse because no one has caught them at it yet.No, I mean the people. The actual populus of the world, who watch or read the headlines and think "Wow, that George Bush really is a evil dickhead." Also, WTF do you mean by "exactly the samething if not worse because no one has caught them at it yet"? Huh? So maybe France has secretly invaded Poland on false pretence, and killed 100,000+ people, but we just haven't noticed yet? Or maybe NZ has a network of secret jails where we send people to get tortured? That was a pretty dumb post from you.

[Old Man G Funk]

Oh I know that about as well as you do. Again they just randomly haul unarmed innocent folk because that's easy.
What about the "terrorists" in Gitmo that have been completely cleared? How many "terrorists" have we decided really did nothing wrong, after holding them for years?

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah and the reason is if the crackpots are focused on the US then they won't come a knockin'. So its in their best interests to keep this a story. And for course by the rest of the civilized (that's rich) world you mean the governments of the world that are standing around with righteous indignation all the while doing exactly the samething if not worse because no one has caught them at it yet.

The "civilized" world cares oh so much about the brown people and their treatment.

This boils down to, "Well, everyone else is doing it." Is that really a good reason? If all your friends jumped off a bridge....

[MMike]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/18/arar-report.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5358762.stm

[DRB]

This boils down to, "Well, everyone else is doing it." Is that really a good reason? If all your friends jumped off a bridge....

It didn't say it was a reason. I said its why the "civilized" world is so indignant about it.

[Old Man G Funk]

It didn't say it was a reason. I said its why the "civilized" world is so indignant about it.
You think they are indignant because they see a little of themselves in our actions? I'm not sure how that is germaine to the topic then. Instead of dealing with our actions and cleaning our house, you are just lashing out at others.

[N8]

All the more reason that no 'enemy combatant' should be left alive.. err.. I mean should "fight to the death"... on the battlefield.

[ianjenn]

What about the "terrorists" in Gitmo that have been completely cleared? How many "terrorists" have we decided really did nothing wrong, after holding them for years?
Yeah there have been some but look at THIS (http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000567.html)?
Here is ANOTHER (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm) more "reliable" news source?
Any how there will always be people who are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully they find it out soon ya know. And then they can release them.........

[$tinkle]

You think they are indignant because they see a little of themselves in our actions? I'm not sure how that is germaine to the topic then. Instead of dealing with our actions and cleaning our house, you are just lashing out at others.we're still talking about that clinton interview on fox???

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah there have been some but look at THIS (http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000567.html)?
Here is ANOTHER (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm) more "reliable" news source?
Any how there will always be people who are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully they find it out soon ya know. And then they can release them.........
From your own source...
...said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman.
Is that a real name? Anyway...

At least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence....

U.S. officials released 146 detainees from Guantanamo, but only after determining the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.
So, wait, they released 146 prisoners and only 7 of them decided to fight us after being held indefinitely with no charges? So, what does that say about the other 139? It certainly doesn't prove that the 146 were originally terrorists. It only shows that once they released 146, 7 engaged in actions against the US.

[Old Man G Funk]

we're still talking about that clinton interview on fox???
No, we aren't.

Besides, Clinton hasn't been president for about 6 years now. You've got to let the hate go.

[ianjenn]

From your own source...

Is that a real name? Anyway...


So, wait, they released 146 prisoners and only 7 of them decided to fight us after being held indefinitely with no charges? So, what does that say about the other 139? It certainly doesn't prove that the 146 were originally terrorists. It only shows that once they released 146, 7 engaged in actions against the US.

Maybe they haven't been caught yet???:biggrin: Washingtontimes isn't really a conservative rag?

[Changleen]

In all seriousness ianjenn you should look into how most of these people were captured. The basic facts are that many of them were handed over to the US by the Northern Alliance. The US were offering substantial monetary rewards for captured 'taliban fighters'. Essentially the NA went out and kidnapped a bunch of illiterate farmers and handed them over to the US, claiming they were 'taliban'.

That is why in reality there is zero evidence against these people, because they are mostly just random Afghanistani males who happen to be of fighting age.

The US was delighted to get some 'results' and held them up as evil terrorists captured for the good of the world.

Your tax dollars hard at work. Don't you feel proud?

[Old Man G Funk]

Maybe they haven't been caught yet???:biggrin: Washingtontimes isn't really a conservative rag?
If ifs and buts....

[$tinkle]

In all seriousness ianjenn you should look into how most of these people were captured. The basic facts are that many of them were handed over to the US by the Northern Alliance. The US were offering substantial monetary rewards for captured 'taliban fighters'. Essentially the NA went out and kidnapped a bunch of illiterate farmers and handed them over to the US, claiming they were 'taliban'.

That is why in reality there is zero evidence against these people, because they are mostly just random Afghanistani males who happen to be of fighting age.

The US was delighted to get some 'results' and held them up as evil terrorists captured for the good of the world.

Your tax dollars hard at work. Don't you feel proud?just so you don't think i dismiss anything you say out of hand:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm

cindi lauper was right: money changes everything

[ianjenn]

In all seriousness ianjenn you should look into how most of these people were captured. The basic facts are that many of them were handed over to the US by the Northern Alliance. The US were offering substantial monetary rewards for captured 'taliban fighters'. Essentially the NA went out and kidnapped a bunch of illiterate farmers and handed them over to the US, claiming they were 'taliban'.

That is why in reality there is zero evidence against these people, because they are mostly just random Afghanistani males who happen to be of fighting age.

The US was delighted to get some 'results' and held them up as evil terrorists captured for the good of the world.

Your tax dollars hard at work. Don't you feel proud?

Yeah I am not for the way our government pisses away lots and lots of $$$! This does seem plausable with money rewards being offered btw. Just like the AIDS $$$ we send to Africa nobody who needs it gets it and we have no accountants overseeing where it goes.

[reflux]

Yeah I am not for the way our government pisses away lots and lots of $$$! This does seem plausable with money rewards being offered btw. Just like the AIDS $$$ we send to Africa nobody who needs it gets it and we have no accountants overseeing where it goes.
Aid to Africa is an entirely different subject and has its own separate issues. Spend a few minutes doing a search on RM for AIDs support to Africa, and you'll see just how disfunctional and unrealistic the program is.