Geneva Convention

[sophia jane]

Can someone please explain to me why it's a good idea to change the language of the Convention? Because, from what I understand, part of this big push is going legalize torture and I just don't understand why that's a good idea. So...anyone have some clarification to offer? Or an opinion?

 

[jeninflorida]

Can someone please explain to me why it's a good idea to change the language of the Convention? Because, from what I understand, part of this big push is going legalize torture and I just don't understand why that's a good idea. So...anyone have some clarification to offer? Or an opinion?

I think there were some gray areas, and was suppose to clarify. does anyone think that radical's are treating our troops with respect?

 

[rgraham666]

From what I understand, sophia, the language of the Convention isn't being changed. That would require all the signatories to meet, discuss and vote.

The current administration is trying to create laws that state the U.S is no longer bound by the Convention.

Basically they believe they are too powerful and important to pay any attention to mundane things like ethics and law.

 

[oggbashan]

Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy followed the guidelines of the Geneva Convention with minor glitches usually caused by low level commanders in a fire-fight.

Imperial Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They treated prisoners of war as they expected their prisoners to be treated - badly. Japanese forces were expected to die, not surrender, so in their view any prisoners must be the lowest of the low.

Not following the Geneva Convention invites unfavourable comparison with Hitler.

Og

 

[jeninflorida]

wait, Germany didn't follow the convention for the most part. there were cases where german toops didn't take any prisoner's, they just lined them up and shot them.

how many us prisoners were murdered by the japanese....wonder if one would really ever know. then again, the japanese killed a lot of poeple back then and Japan was the first to use bio wepons.

Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy followed the guidelines of the Geneva Convention with minor glitches usually caused by low level commanders in a fire-fight.

Imperial Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They treated prisoners of war as they expected their prisoners to be treated - badly. Japanese forces were expected to die, not surrender, so in their view any prisoners must be the lowest of the low.

Not following the Geneva Convention invites unfavourable comparison with Hitler.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

wait, Germany didn't follow the convention for the most part. there were cases where german toops didn't take any prisoner's, they just lined them up and shot them.

how many us prisoners were murdered by the japanese....wonder if one would really ever know. then again, the japanese killed a lot of poeple back then and Japan was the first to use bio wepons.

Germany did follow the Geneva Convention when fighting in North Africa and on the Western Front. The exceptions were in the heat of action.

Unfortunately killing prisoners was sometimes true of British and American forces as well.

Neither Russia nor Germany followed the Geneva Convention on the Eastern Front.

Og

 

[Pure]

sophia, there are several conventions: the Third and the Fourth are most relevant.

the argument of Gonzales is basicaly that fighting a terrorist group demands that we 'take the gloves off.' That is, we do NOT pledge to avoid indignities and pain, just killing. We do this by denying that any captives are "Prisoners of War" (since Gen III specifies protections for POWs), we give them a (somewhat) new name "unlawful combatants."

the argument is that 'torture lite' will get valuable information and help save American lives. (and the tortured is still going to be walking around, in most cases, if a little 'shook up.')

Gonzales believes that US can keep its rep, simply by avoiding 'heavy torture,' i.e., pulling out the nails, ripping off flesh, burning etc. "Torture lite" --unless you have a heart attack-- leaves you unmarked.
===

rg is right that the above *might* be accomplished without re- writing any accords, since one defines the people so as NOT to be covered (see above). this too, is how Bush can say: "We do not torture." What he means is that 'torture lite' doesn't count.

 

[rgraham666]

Germany did follow the Geneva Convention when fighting in North Africa and on the Western Front. The exceptions were in the heat of action.

Unfortunately killing prisoners was sometimes true of British and American forces as well.

Neither Russia nor Germany followed the Geneva Convention on the Eastern Front.

Og

I have two books written by men who fought in WWII. In both there were incidents of prisoners being killed in cold blood.

Once when the prisoners were snipers 'left behind' to do random shootings. And once where an officer, not the authour, decided his unit couldn't be bothered to look after prisoners.

Neither book mentioned any official interest in these actions.

And anyone who wants to talk about WWII being 'The Good War' only has to look at the Eastern Front to see what a misnomer that is.

 

[sophia jane]

sophia, there are several conventions: the Third and the Fourth are most relevant.

the argument of Gonzales is basicaly that fighting a terrorist group demands that we 'take the gloves off.' That is, we do NOT pledge to avoid indignities and pain, just killing. We do this by denying that any captives are "Prisoners of War" (since Gen III specifies protections for POWs), we give them a (somewhat) new name "unlawful combatants."

the argument is that 'torture lite' will get valuable information and help save American lives. (and the tortured is still going to be walking around, in most cases, if a little 'shook up.')

Gonzales believes that US can keep its rep, simply by avoiding 'heavy torture,' i.e., pulling out the nails, ripping off flesh, burning etc. "Torture lite" --unless you have a heart attack-- leaves you unmarked.
===

rg is right that the above *might* be accomplished without re- writing any accords, since one defines the people so as NOT to be covered (see above). this too, is how Bush can say: "We do not torture." What he means is that 'torture lite' doesn't count.

This is interesting. So three questions come up for me, just on what you've described. 1. Who determines what qualifies as torture lite and heavy torture? or is totally discretionary? 2. The new term "unlawful combatants" will apply to whom? To known terrorists or to anyone the government wants to label that way? Like, Iraqis for example? 3. Are these things going to only apply to questioning people for important information or is it going to be okay to do this to everyone we capture?
I see so many abuses by broadening the language, not to mention that it's not really fair to hold ourselves to a different standard than the rest of the world. I realize our pow's haven't always been treated fairly/humanely, but passing this kind of measure isn't going to help that. It'll really give the rest of the world the okay to do whatever they feel is necessary. Or am I missing something?

 

[S-Des]

This is interesting. So three questions come up for me, just on what you've described. 1. Who determines what qualifies as torture lite and heavy torture? or is totally discretionary? 2. The new term "unlawful combatants" will apply to whom? To known terrorists or to anyone the government wants to label that way? Like, Iraqis for example? 3. Are these things going to only apply to questioning people for important information or is it going to be okay to do this to everyone we capture?
I see so many abuses by broadening the language, not to mention that it's not really fair to hold ourselves to a different standard than the rest of the world. I realize our pow's haven't always been treated fairly/humanely, but passing this kind of measure isn't going to help that. It'll really give the rest of the world the okay to do whatever they feel is necessary. Or am I missing something?

#1) Lite torture is where the prisoner is not physically harmed. It includes sleep deprivation, loud noises and the waterboarding (which gives you the sensation of drowning, but isn't actually dangerous unless you have a heart attack).

#2) People who attack without a uniform or allegiance to a country. They aren't really soldiers, so the government doesn't feel they need to treat them as such. If you remember your history, it's quite similar to the complaints of British soldiers about us during the Revolutionary war.

#3) ???? The problem with stretching laws is that you have to trust the people doing the stretching. Obviously, few here trust the current administration, so they will see any attempt to change the law as having sinister motives. Who knows what the truth is. Although it's hard to keep secrets in the world today, it is entirely possible that the proposed changes would be subject to ramant abuse.

 

[oggbashan]

Many politicians in the UK (and also private citizens) are already concerned that the US administration has gone beyond the bounds of what is acceptable at Guantanamo and with Extraordinary Rendition.

Some of those people held at Gitmo and under Extraordinary Rendition were fighting in Afghanistan in a normal war situation, not as terrorists/suicide bombers but as soldiers fighting for the then government of Afghanistan. Why then should they be treated as terrorists?

Even if terrorists are caught, should they be treated other than as criminals or prisoners of war? The US (and UK) supported resistance fighters in Occupied Europe during WWII. Germany treated any caught as terrorists, beyond the scope of the Geneva Convention, because the resistance were fighting in civilian clothes. The French Maquis and Tito's Communists, fighting as uniformed forces, should have been treated differently. They weren't until it was obvious that Germany was losing.

Even so, mistakes can be made. In today's Times is the obituary of the woman convicted of being Toyko Rose. She wasn't. She was convicted on perjured evidence BOUGHT by the US prosecutors. She eventually received a pardon, but not repayment of fines imposed on her family, nor compensation for her years in jail. How many of those held by the US at the moment have committed no crime at all? We don't know because they don't have a chance of defending themselves.

The US administration is breaking international law and is now trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Og

 

[Pure]

hi sophia,

the definition of 'torture lite' [=ALLOWABLE COERCIVE MEASURES] is that it's anything that doesn't 1) cause death, or 2) organ failure, or 3) serious permanent damage either to organ, or in functioning.

BTW, OF COURSE GONZALES WILL NOT SAY 'TORTURE LITE', THE WORD WILL BE 'HARSH MEASURES' OR 'COERCIVE MEASURES' NOT COUNTING AS TORTURE.

IOW, it's 'real' torture if 1) you're dead, 2) your kidneys have failed, 3) you've lost the sight of one eye, 4) your right arm is useless.

Incidentally, there are also 'indignities' prohibited by Geneva III for POWs, e.g. taking prisoner's clothing; putting them in cages on public display, making them sit in their own shit, scaring them with dogs, making them give each other blow jobs.

It's proposed that 'indignities' as in Abu Ghraib be allowed in 'torture lite.' [ALLOWED COERCIVE MEASURES]

I wonder where rape fits in the above proposals. It would seem to be allowed if I've go the 'torture life' definItion correct.

===
instead of defining 'unlawful combatant', the way as above is to say,
**"IF you're captured

AND 1) in uniform, and 2) it's the uniform of an army [officers, etc.] , and 3) the army is of a nation with whom there's an official state of war [e.g. Germany in WWII], then you will be a PRISONER OF WAR, with Geneva III protections against numerous things.

---
anyone else, on the battlefield or in NYC, who's committing hostile acts or aiding the enemy or thought to be planning to do so, is an 'unlawful combatant.'

==
you might keep in mind that the Sec of Defense or Pres can arbitrarily detain any 'suspected terrorist' [found within the US], indefinitely and w/o charge, and w/o access to courts. that may even apply to US citizens, e.g., Mr. Padilla. all this is aside from Geneva Accords, etc., and aside from the Bill of Rights [which doesnt just cover citizens].

===
**This definition is a little crude, but basically OK. See R Richard for more detail. I should have added, open carrying of weapons, and included those assisting the troops. But the basic point is that an un-uniformed person taking hostile acts is NOT going to be protected if caught. There are some issues around civilians in Geneva Con IV, but many of the captured folks going to Guantanamo are not civilians (but who knows? some probably are!)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

From what I can glean from the news reports and comments, the Geneva Convention III will not be changed. The Bush Administration is asking for a "clairification" of the wording on two points -

1) To define an insurgent as not covered under the Convention and
2) The ability to try those insurgents under a military tribunal.

Their contention is the wording is "vague" on both of these points. However, the Convention clearly states all (I'm paraphrasing) "Prisoners of War shall be returned to their homes at the end of hostilities". What Bush et al want is a difinition that says those he has held and tortured are not defined as prisoners of war even though most of them were arrested in a war zone. Then he can try them in a Military Court as murderers/terrorists etc. without Judicial oversight.

I think it smells pretty bad since these people would no longer be Prisoners of War he would have a free hand to torture and execute as he sees fit.

 

[R. Richard]

If a person is carrying weapons in a combat zone, they traditionally fall into one of several categories.

1) Members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such armed forces do not have to wear uniforms, but they are required to wear identifying insignia that is visible at a distance and they are required to bear arms openly. Such belligerants are entitled to Prisoner of War status.

2) Members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants who are wearing the uniform and/or insignia of "the other side(s)." Such belligerants are NOT entitled to Prisoner of War status and are traditionally treated as spies.

3) Members of an armed force in a combat zone who are not members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such belligerants are NOT entitled to Prisoner of War status and are traditionally regarded as mercenaries. The treatment of mercenaries varies according to the conduct of such soldiers during armed conflict. Generally, mercenaries who are employed by and fight as regular soldiers of one side in a combat situation are treated as Prisoners of War. However, they do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War.

4) Members of an armed force who are not citizens of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such armed forces do not have the status of Prisoners of War. Generally, the members of such armed forces who fight as regular soldiers of one side in a combat situation are treated as Prisoners of War. However, they do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War.

5) Members of an armed force who are not members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such armed forces do not have the status of Prisoners of War. Generally, the members of such armed forces fall into one of two categories:
5A) Members of a type 5) armed force who fight as regular soldiers of one side, wear recognizable insignia and carry weapons openly in a combat situation are treated as Prisoners of War. However, they do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War.
5B) Members of a type 5) armed force who fight as geurillas/raiders, DO NOT wear recognizable insignia and DO NOT carry weapons openly in a combat situation are treated as bandits. Bandits not only do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War, they are usually subjected to traditional methods of punishment. Such traditional methods normally consist of execution without trial. [If there is a trial, the defendants better hope that the kangaroo is well rested, because the guy running the drumhead court martial tends to shoot first and sentence later.]

The very large majority of the Guantanamo detainees fall into category 5B). They are being treated better than the normal treatment afford to those in their situation.

 

[jeninflorida]

Look at what has happened to American troops, the terrorist decapitates them!

From what I can glean from the news reports and comments, the Geneva Convention III will not be changed. The Bush Administration is asking for a "clairification" of the wording on two points -

1) To define an insurgent as not covered under the Convention and
2) The ability to try those insurgents under a military tribunal.

Their contention is the wording is "vague" on both of these points. However, the Convention clearly states all (I'm paraphrasing) "Prisoners of War shall be returned to their homes at the end of hostilities". What Bush et al want is a difinition that says those he has held and tortured are not defined as prisoners of war even though most of them were arrested in a war zone. Then he can try them in a Military Court as murderers/terrorists etc. without Judicial oversight.

I think it smells pretty bad since these people would no longer be Prisoners of War he would have a free hand to torture and execute as he sees fit.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I believe that in recent legislation the administration was also pushing Congress to define what types of force were legally applicable to prisoners. This is the relevent text from the Geneva conventions:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

It guarantees certain rights to prisoners of war, but they are not always clear in their definitions. What is meant by "cruel treatment" and "torture," or "outrages upon personal dignity," is subjective. As I understand it, Bush wants the United States Congress to come to some more specific conclusions about what practices are included in that language and what practices are not. He's essentially saying that since the Geneva Conventions themselves don't spell out whether, for instance, a relentlessly bland diet and constant loud music count as torture or outrages upon dignity, he wants the U.S. legislature to more clearly indicate what people will or will not be prosecuted for within the United States.

There are some elements of the Geneva Conventions themselves that leave situations like Guantanamo open to dispute. The articles assign rights to persons who have laid down their arms or are hors de combat, defined as "if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape." Whether someone who has every intention of blowing up the base if he's given a moment's liberty counts as not attempting to fight or escape is a fair question.

More significantly, the Geneva Conventions leave open a real "you started it" loophole in Article II of Convention III:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

That indicates that even signatories to the Geneva Conventions are only bound to follow them if their opponent either is a signatory or accepts and applies the convention's guidelines. Given that, as Og points out, examples of signatories themselves breaking the conventions are rife, that ends up as an open invitation not to follow the conventions at all if the enemy isn't signed up to them.

None of that is a statement on the morality of torture or of the administration's actions; it's just an examination of the language in the Geneva Conventions that is causing problems. They have some pretty broad terms there, and some downright problematic passages. Of course, the cynical will say that they were probably drafted that way for a reason; everyone likes a good, high-sounding standard that also leaves remarkable amounts of leeway.

Shanglan

(By the way, this is a very good site that I found in my searches: http://www.genevaconventions.org/. It has the full text of the conventions and also has an alphabetized index function for looking up specific topics.).

 

[Liar]

Look at what has happened to American troops, the terrorist decapitates them!

Yes. That's bad.

Your point being?

 

[jeninflorida]

Yes. That's bad.

Your point being?

what if we did the same thing? oh, your a terrorist....off with your head?

 

[cantdog]

If a person is carrying weapons in a combat zone, they traditionally fall into one of several categories.

1) Members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such armed forces do not have to wear uniforms, but they are required to wear identifying insignia that is visible at a distance and they are required to bear arms openly. Such belligerants are entitled to Prisoner of War status.

2) Members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants who are wearing the uniform and/or insignia of "the other side(s)." Such belligerants are NOT entitled to Prisoner of War status and are traditionally treated as spies.

3) Members of an armed force in a combat zone who are not members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such belligerants are NOT entitled to Prisoner of War status and are traditionally regarded as mercenaries. The treatment of mercenaries varies according to the conduct of such soldiers during armed conflict. Generally, mercenaries who are employed by and fight as regular soldiers of one side in a combat situation are treated as Prisoners of War. However, they do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War.

4) Members of an armed force who are not citizens of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such armed forces do not have the status of Prisoners of War. Generally, the members of such armed forces who fight as regular soldiers of one side in a combat situation are treated as Prisoners of War. However, they do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War.

5) Members of an armed force who are not members of the armed forces of one of the belligerents or of the armed forces of a country aligned with one of the belligerants. Such armed forces do not have the status of Prisoners of War. Generally, the members of such armed forces fall into one of two categories:
5A) Members of a type 5) armed force who fight as regular soldiers of one side, wear recognizable insignia and carry weapons openly in a combat situation are treated as Prisoners of War. However, they do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War.
5B) Members of a type 5) armed force who fight as geurillas/raiders, DO NOT wear recognizable insignia and DO NOT carry weapons openly in a combat situation are treated as bandits. Bandits not only do not have the legal status of Prisoners of War, they are usually subjected to traditional methods of punishment. Such traditional methods normally consist of execution without trial. [If there is a trial, the defendants better hope that the kangaroo is well rested, because the guy running the drumhead court martial tends to shoot first and sentence later.]

The very large majority of the Guantanamo detainees fall into category 5B). They are being treated better than the normal treatment afford to those in their situation.

Or, the very large majority of Gitmo people fall into the category "plain old civilians swept up with other people in a particular area" or "unfortunate people in the wrong place." That German guy whom they rendered to Afghanistan and tortured for years just fell into the category "had the same name as a guy on our list." He hadn't done a fuckin thing but have the wrong name. But of course, under torture, nobody believed what he said and he said both yes and no, depending on pain levels. Torture is a goat fuck.

Look here. The definition of torture goes like this: inflicting pain on people you already have captive. The reason you put forth for doing it doesn't signify, because of two reasons.

One: Except when you are just making them suffer, you won't get what you need anyway, whatever reason you have. You won't get reliable info, you won't deter others, what ever you want you can forget it.

Two: Torture is an end in itself. It's about power and impunity. It wrecks the men who do it, it dishonors the men who protect it from legal repercussion, it blackens the society which allows it to be practicd, it angers the relatives, friends, and brethren of the victims rather than deterring them and strengthens them politically. Deluded men think they will get vital information like that, but they mislead themselves. No one could "interrogate" a man arrested for having the wrong name for four fuckin years unless it didn't help you get information any too well.

 

[TheEarl]

what if we did the same thing? oh, your a terrorist....off with your head?

Then you become everything that the terrorists say you are in their propaganda and they start telling people that they are reacting to your brutalities.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

And don't gimme that shit about 5b. How the fuck do they know they are 5b?

There's no trial, no hearing, no evidence brought, no testimony, nothing. A trial, at least, sifts evidence and testimony with a view to discovery of the truth. An accusation only, with no trial, followed by torture, doesn't try to discover truth at all.

And if it's SO fuckin URGENT to have all this LIFE SAVING INFO, then what do they stretch the captivity and pain out for months and years for? After the first couple months, all urgency has gotta have dissipated, hasn't it?


Torture is stupid and hateful. Stupid politically, stupid diplomatically, stupid militarily.

 

[R. Richard]

And don't gimme that shit about 5b. How the fuck do they know they are 5b?

How do they know that you were speeding when the scumbags gave you a ticket?

There's no trial, no hearing, no evidence brought, no testimony, nothing. A trial, at least, sifts evidence and testimony with a view to discovery of the truth. An accusation only, with no trial, followed by torture, doesn't try to discover truth at all.

OK, I catch a 5B) guy. I march him in front of a US military officer in the field. I say, "Lootenint, I done caught this here terrorist after he shot at me and ran into a house. I done confiscated his AK-47 and an RPG. Yoo kin see that terrorist boy here don't got no identifying 'signia." The Lieutenant says, "What's your story boy?" The terrorist says, "Gable, gable, gable." The Lieutenant says, "You are on trial. If you do not have a lawyer or can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided." The terrorist says, "Gable, gable, gable." The Lieutenant says, "He didn't ask for a lawyer. Guilty as charged! Achmet, see if you can get some info out of gable boy." A nice, legal trial, satisfied? [Achmet takes gable boy out and they pray together or whatever. Achmet does not get paid if he doesn't get info. If Achmet doesn't get info, it will be the first time. Achmet marches gable boy back to the Lieutenant and tells the Lieutenant, "He is with a band of a dozen al Qaida fighters. They were trying to set up and ambush. I got the address of a safe house and first names only of his commanders. If the rest of them are as dumb as terrorist boy, they probably would have shot each other." The Lieutenant asks, "What if we release him?" Achmet can't believe he has just been asked such a stupid question. However, Achmet needs the money, so he says, "He goes back to trying to kill us again."] The Lieutenant should then cut terrorist boy's throat. However, with the kind of wimp officers you get nowadays, he sends him off to GITMO.

And if it's SO fuckin URGENT to have all this LIFE SAVING INFO, then what do they stretch the captivity and pain out for months and years for? After the first couple months, all urgency has gotta have dissipated, hasn't it?

What little info the terrorist had, Achmet got! [Trust me, I have worked with "Achmet: before.] Why they stretch the captivity out for years is because the Lieutenant is too much of a wimp to operate efficiently, so he throws the burden of his incompetence on the US taxpayer. However, terrorist boy does not kill more innocent people. If the US got lucky and caught a high level terrorist, they got more info, will get more info and need to keep high level boy out of circulation, probably for the rest of his life.

Torture is stupid and hateful. Stupid politically, stupid diplomatically, stupid militarily.

Really? You mean the type of terrorist who kidnaps aid workers and beheads them deserves the same consideration as a US citizen? I don't think so and I doubt that many thinking people think so. If Achmet is a pro, even a low level pro, he will get the info from terrorist boy without any permanent damage to the outside. Of course, you might consider Achmet's work torture. However, if you consider Achmet's work torture, what do you call Saddam's feeding of people into wood chipper machines? Saddam's rape of the women of his political enemies? Saddam's use of poison gas on a different ethnic group? If Achmet's work is torture, then you need to define a whole new catagory for Saddam's actions.

If a thousand terrorists need to die to save one innocent life, IMNTHO it is worth it.

 

[Pure]

questions for r richard.... what's changed?

here's what i don't get, r richard,

the Germans had spies and saboteurs and everyone agreed they didn't fall under the Geneva conventions for prisoners. iirc, they may be treated as criminals, subject to summary justice.

so regarding the folks who were in the states for 9-11, or any al qaeda folks in the US, there are clear precedents? why do the rules need to be changed or 'redefined.'

as regards people on the field outside the US, 'irregulars' and 'guerrillas' were not covered. so if there are al queda 'irregulars' in Iraq, as I gather there are, what is so new that demands revising or 'clarifying' the Geneva accords.

was there a Guantanamo type place set up in WWII for the 'unlawful combatants'?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

what if we did the same thing? oh, your a terrorist....off with your head?

In our torture camps we rape little boys in front of their mothers.

We totally kick their unimaginative asses.

Fuckin' Mooslims. Kick ass.

 

[Liar]

what if we did the same thing? oh, your a terrorist....off with your head?

Then we're bad too.

I still don't see your point.

Is it ok for one side to torture, terrorize and decapitate, just because the other side have stooped to that low?

"Johnny, why are you throwing rocks at your little brother?"

"He started it."