Toss Out the Geneva Conventions ?

To compare our actions to the actions a Al Qaeda (especially now that the Iraqi people have voted their overwhelming support for our intervention there) is purely bogus and unacceptable.
Click to expand...

I made no such comparison, and I don't see how I would've implied that I did either. My point was simply that we have laws and long established custom for the treatment of prisoners that we and the Europeans have recognized as legitimate and just for more than a century. The fact that someone else (the terrorists!) is not playing by the rules is not an excuse to relax that long tradition of obeying the law. Do I think terrorists ought to receive the death penalty for their acts? YES. In no uncertain terms.

But does that mean that anyone that is snatched off the street has no right to a trial, no right to challenge his detention, and can be tortured just to find out if he knows something or not?

No. That's the point of the rules, so that when we do use force against our enemies we can be sure it's in the most lawful and just manner.

What I'm saying, in sum, is that the conduct of terrorists has no bearing whatsoever on whether the standards we follow are right. They are evil, horrible men, and they deserve to be punished, but I don't think we should go about that in a way that ignores our long tradition of civillity and due process.
 
shootin-
Well then, I'm definitely reading the same page as you. I agree that we should not lower our standards simply because the enemy can stoop to sub-human levels. I was just taking exception to what I thought was an indictment of our guys' conduct over there thus far.

Rich
 
I'll answer the gist of your would-be rhetorical questions, Rich, with a question and even give the answer. Did the incidents of terrorism such as kidnapping and beheading increase when our war crimes and torture of detained prisoners were exposed?
Yes.
Click to expand...
In chronological order, maybe, but that does not in any way prove causation.

And if you care to look, there are incidents of beheadings well before even 9/11.
 
Rich,

I sure am on the same page. I think the way people have blown up these prison scandals is disgusting, because the reporting is so distorted and because some people do use it to justify what the terrorists are doing. That's just flat out wrong, if you ask me.
 
Rich,

I think you're taking my comments too narrowly. It isn't a one for one exchange, but even though the rebels we're fighting in Iraq are behaving poorly, our behavior against them will be a factor in the NEXT conflict.

Adhering to Conventions and the like is no different than the police observing suspects rights. Both serve to firmly establish who we are, what we stand for and why we should be trusted. That buys our POW better treatment, establishes trust with the civilian population, takes away world support for our enemies and allows the enemy to feel safe in surrendering.


We are immensely powerful - not a country fighting with our backs to the wall. If you want to start a war for "what's right", you have to stay the course with those convictions, not settle to the level of the people you labeled "monsterous". Otherwise this world police gig is going to backfire.
 
Handy-
I'm no knee jerk "conservative"....I'm not even a Republican or a Libertarian. I've no felt need for you to refer to Al Qaeda as "terrorists"....I don't like the term (in the context of Iraq) either. But when you call "rebels", those who have engaged in the wholesale slaughter, mutilation, public humiliation and bloodlust grandstanding they have......well, even Che Guevara rolls over in his grave. It just raises my hackles (not to mention, it insults the memory of James Dean. ;))

Now you brought it up....so let me ask you something.....exactly where ARE our POW's? I know where Al Qaeda's are (and I publicly deplore the fact that there are non-combatants also interred there.) But where are ours?
Rich
 
Rich, your response leaves me wondering if you read my post, or just scanned it for inflammatory language. I wasn't aware "rebel" was going to be so controversially complimentary.

I'll say it again: This isn't necessarily about this war. It is about all wars that we take part in, and how we conduct ourselves in a worldwide pursuit of justice, democracy and human rights.


But I'll ask you, which POWs? The prisoners in Cuba are mainly from Afganistan. How many MIA do we have in that theatre?
 
I think in the context of both Iraq and Afghanistan it is absurd to assume that everyone actively opposed to our presence there are somehow part of some homogenous organization that can be labeled anything in particular. The fact is, there are plenty of people all over the world that could not give a rats behind about how the United States government feels about how their nation should be run, who to do business with or how or in what fashion. And likewise see the "United Nations" as nothing more than a foreign entity and army, and do not care to have the nature of their national defense dictated by anyone but their own government.

The treatment of at least some prisoners has been immoral, regardless of any agreed international conventions, or whether they apply to people not uniformed by a state, and in this context the restraints should be self-imposed. This aside from the fact that these people, in any legal terms of our own jurisprudence, are suspects, regardless of what any particular agency claims to "know" about some of them.

If they claim to "know" enough about any one person or another in these detention camps - then try them for their crimes for justice sake and get it over with.

Like it or not, the way these people are treated will affect how we are viewed and treated and a nation, and rightly so.
 
Last edited:
Rich - Well, you don't read newspapers and I do , so partisan kook websites are the handiest source to give you on the spur of the moment. Nice timeline, but has nothing to do with the kidnap and beheading behaviour I am talking about and am asserting was a result of the knowledge of our misconduct in the treatment of prisoners. Your timeline stopped at the beginning of mine and I see no mention of kidnapping and beheading of Americans mentioned by you. Name the case that occurred before Nicholas Berg, please. Here are some sources I looked up for you and I welcome you in advance. www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking news/10650291.htm?1c and www.aashingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52564-2004Sep26.html. Based on your reply to me with the irrelevant timeline to my statement (unless you were supporting my contention that the kidnapping and beheading did not predate the knowledge of the abuses), it is manifest that you did not recognize the level of specificity in my post and that I mentioned the kidnapping and beheading behaviour as being a result since none of that happened before and we were informed by the enemy that this was why the kidnapping and beheadings were being done.
 
Unique-
Data Points, friend. It's all about Data Points. Re-read the events leading up to Nick Berg. The enemy went from raping and murdering captured soldiers; to targeting Iraqi Police; to targeting innocent civilians; to kidnappings and murder; and finally (in Berg's case) to on-screen executions.

To take one Data Point from the mix and declare a conclusion-in-vacuum is like arguing that milk is the cause of heroin addiction because most heroin addicts drank milk as a child.

Once again, are you trying to state that there would have been no (or far fewer?) public beheadings of Americans but for Abu Ghraib? That Abu Ghraib was planned by Bush? That Abu Ghraib is somehow the rule, rather than the rare exception? The only rationale to that is to take the position that the foreign terrorists in Iraq were mostly conforming to the Geneva Convention prior to April 30 and Abu Ghraib somehow pushed them over the edge.

Patently absurd.
Rich
 
Handy-
In answer to your query on how many American MIA's are held in theater: None.

Now, let's admit that the enemy is hell bent on killing as many of ours as possible. I think we can agree on that, yes? Are we to assume that all our wounded are simply left at the attack site to fight another day? I think not.

Or we can look at the couple examples where US prisoners were taken: an Nasiriyah. You do remember an Nasiriyah, don't you?

Then there's Spc. Keith M. Maupin, shot in the back of the head, on camera, before Abu Ghraib.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/006647.html


Please don't tell me again that our conduct creates such War Crimes. These are not the actions of "rebels", Handy.
Rich
 
Please don't tell me again that our conduct creates such War Crimes. These are not the actions of "rebels", Handy.
Click to expand...
Rich, I didn't tell you that in the first place, so I don't know how I could tell you that again. :confused:


I said that our GOOD conduct will pay dividends in any conflict we involve ourselves in, and I detailed what those dividends would be.

Really, Rich, are you arguing with what I wrote, or what you think I wrote?
 
Handy-
You're right. I overstepped the point. My bad.

If your point is that "our continued good conduct" is a moral imperative, we're in complete agreement. While we could always improve, I think (so far) this Nation, its leaders and, especially our soldiers in the SandBox, have conducted themselves admirably.
Rich
 
I think I dismissed the Geneva Convention when. . .

. . . I learned from that sacred agreement that the only HUMANE way to shoot someone was with hardball ammunition. :confused:

The way we won the Revolutionary War was by NOT following the established rules of war. I think we need a little bit more NINJA and a little bit less SAMURAI in the way we are conducting our affairs in the Middle East.

Right now we're trying to fight the rain with a hammer and an umbrella. The other team isn't playing fair, and in a fight, there are only two rules according to Clint Smith- 1. Always Cheat, and 2. Always Win. Yes, he was talking about a gunfight, but isn't that all a war is multiplied several thousand times???

I say, either do the job or go home and wait until the other team gets up an army proper and is willing to stand there and trade licks. When I fight ya, count on a lot of sucker punches, treachery, and cunning.

You might protest later, but you'll be doing it on your a$$. ;)

Just a thought,

Vanguard.45
 
Last edited:
If torture will save "Just One American Life", remember, Red is Positive, Black is Negative.
Click to expand...
Many would argue that American Life isn't worth saving if we must resort to things like torture.

That philosophy is about 180 degrees out from "Give me liberty, or give me death".


Anyway, torture is a stupid and inaccurate way of collecting intelligence, and the intel equivalent of using Mustard gas in battle. Anyone who calls themselves an American should be ashamed to even consider such evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top