Geneva shmeneva

[Rex Kickass]

I know.

 

At the same time, though, it amazes me the amount of attention the acts of a few get over the whole.

When those few represent the highest level of our federal government, I think that attention is warranted.

[kapkomet]

When those few represent the highest level of our federal government, I think that attention is warranted.

Oh, really? So do you, then. Meh.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm glad that you feel I'm as important as our President - but frankly, I just don't do that much vacationing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm glad that you feel I'm as important as our President - but frankly, I just don't do that much vacationing.

Wow. I heard that one from the street.

[samclemens]

among other requirements, the geneva convention requires that:

- soldiers where uniforms

- soldiers do not kill civilians

 

sorry, i dont think you should be able to hide behind a law you willfully violate like that. the geneva convention doesnt apply to terrorists captured abroad.

 

oh, and also, they arent american citizens. hence, no rights. you have to be part of the "collective community" of the country (i believe that was the term the supreme court used ages ago) to afford it's rights, a.k.a. be in the country.

[NorthSideSox72]

among other requirements, the geneva convention requires that:

- soldiers where uniforms

- soldiers do not kill civilians

 

sorry, i dont think you should be able to hide behind a law you willfully violate like that. the geneva convention doesnt apply to terrorists captured abroad.

 

oh, and also, they arent american citizens. hence, no rights. you have to be part of the "collective community" of the country (i believe that was the term the supreme court used ages ago) to afford it's rights, a.k.a. be in the country.

The argument that we shouldn't have to follow the requirements because someone else didn't is pretty childish, no? What happened to this country standing up for what is right, even if it isn't convenient?

[YASNY]

The argument that we shouldn't have to follow the requirements because someone else didn't is pretty childish, no? What happened to this country standing up for what is right, even if it isn't convenient?

 

This is a case where there we have to find an appropriate middle ground. We aren't dealing with a sovereign nation that has to answer to world opinion. On the other hand, we are exactly that. Our enemy plays by no rules, yet we have to play by rules. We can't let them keep beheading us without striking back, yet we can't cross a line that puts us in the same light. Do I think we should be sticking to the Geneva convention ver batim? No! Do I think we should resort to maiming and killing detainees? No! This is not an army we are fighting, it's a gang of thugs. There's a middle ground somewhere that we have to find. A place where we can be effective in gathering intelligence needed to protect the homeland and advance toward winning the war on terror, yet a place where we can still maintain our national dignity. This ain't black and white.

Edited June 8, 2006 by YASNY

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a case where there we have to find an appropriate middle ground. We aren't dealing with a sovereign nation that has to answer to world opinion. On the other hand, we are exactly that. Our enemy plays by no rules, yet we have to play by rules. We can't let them keep beheading us without striking back, yet we can't cross a line that puts us in the same light. Do I think we should be sticking to the Geneva convention ver batim? No! Do I think we should resort to maiming and killing detainees? No! This is not an army we are fighting, it's a gang of thugs. There's a middle ground somewhere that we have to find. A place where we can be effective in gathering intelligence needed to protect the homeland and advance toward winning the war on terror, yet a place where we can still maintain our national dignity. This ain't black and white.

I think we can achieve that middle ground and still follow the Geneva conventions. We can be tough without caving to anger. Its tough - tougher than the road this Administration has chosen - but it can be done. it includes acknowledging our mistakes, and trying to actually change the things that make so many Middle Easterners so angry. But it also includes raids like the one that got Zarqawi, and an unabated push to arrest or kill as many terrorists as we can find.

 

I do agree with you, though, that we cannot go into this blindly thinking we can use nation-state mentality. Won't work. These are thugs, no question about it. But like common criminals in a city like Chicago, if you want to reduce crime, you have to crack down on criminals AND address the things that create those criminals to begin with (poverty, crappy schools, infrastructure, health care, governmental corruption). And you have to play by a set of rules, even when they don't.

[YASNY]

I think we can achieve that middle ground and still follow the Geneva conventions. We can be tough without caving to anger. Its tough - tougher than the road this Administration has chosen - but it can be done. it includes acknowledging our mistakes, and trying to actually change the things that make so many Middle Easterners so angry. But it also includes raids like the one that got Zarqawi, and an unabated push to arrest or kill as many terrorists as we can find.

 

I do agree with you, though, that we cannot go into this blindly thinking we can use nation-state mentality. Won't work. These are thugs, no question about it. But like common criminals in a city like Chicago, if you want to reduce crime, you have to crack down on criminals AND address the things that create those criminals to begin with (poverty, crappy schools, infrastructure, health care, governmental corruption). And you have to play by a set of rules, even when they don't.

 

You can't find a middle ground AND stick to the Geneva convention. That, by definition, is impossible. Even you sat the nation-state mentality won't work. War between nation-states is what the Geneva convention addresses.

[Rex Kickass]

This is a case where there we have to find an appropriate middle ground. We aren't dealing with a sovereign nation that has to answer to world opinion. On the other hand, we are exactly that. Our enemy plays by no rules, yet we have to play by rules. We can't let them keep beheading us without striking back, yet we can't cross a line that puts us in the same light. Do I think we should be sticking to the Geneva convention ver batim? No! Do I think we should resort to maiming and killing detainees? No! This is not an army we are fighting, it's a gang of thugs. There's a middle ground somewhere that we have to find. A place where we can be effective in gathering intelligence needed to protect the homeland and advance toward winning the war on terror, yet a place where we can still maintain our national dignity. This ain't black and white.

 

There's no middle ground when it comes to maintaining human dignity. Who that human is is immaterial to me. All humans deserve a basic level of respect and dignity, regardless of their behavior.

[YASNY]

There's no middle ground when it comes to maintaining human dignity. Who that human is is immaterial to me. All humans deserve a basic level of respect and dignity, regardless of their behavior.

 

I disagree. You have to protect the homeland first and foremost. When dealing whit scum, treat 'em like scum.

 

Ehhhhh. Wait. I retract that statement. Too reactionary. Offering these guys the same protections as mandated by the GC just isn't going to work. There is a middle ground, and we can find it.

[Rex Kickass]

First off, when we invaded Afghanistan, the people we sent to Cuba seem to qualify as a prisoner of war....

 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

Which seems to be the very definition of an enemy combatant.

 

Here are the protections afforded prisoners of war

 

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

 

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

 

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

 

Article 14

 

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

 

Article 15

 

The Power detaining prisoners of war shall be bound to provide free of charge for their maintenance and for the medical attention required by their state of health.

 

Article 16

 

Taking into consideration the provisions of the present Convention relating to rank and sex, and subject to any privileged treatment which may be accorded to them by reason of their state of health, age or professional qualifications, all prisoners of war shall be treated alike by the Detaining Power, without any adverse distinction based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions, or any other distinction founded on similar criteria.

 

So the problem is what, again, with the Geneva Conventions?

[YASNY]

First off, when we invaded Afghanistan, the people we sent to Cuba seem to qualify as a prisoner of war....

Which seems to be the very definition of an enemy combatant.

 

Here are the protections afforded prisoners of war

So the problem is what, again, with the Geneva Conventions?

 

Afghanistan. They haven't nor ever will organize themselves into an army.

 

GC. They don't recognize it. We shouldn't take it verbatim in this instance. Take your liberal boo-hoo stance for the poor poor terrorists and relish it all you want. We aren't going to agree on this and there is no need for further discussion.

[Rex Kickass]

It's not a liberal boo hoo stance. It's a new testament stance, if ya gotta know.

[YASNY]

It's not a liberal boo hoo stance. It's a new testament stance, if ya gotta know.

 

Enjoy your relish.

[IggyD]

How many times guys? How many times are you people going to apply rights to a bunch of terrorists who don’t deserve them? The Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY to terrorists. Terrorists don’t win when we mistreat them. Terrorists win when people like you guys lose your will to deal with them.

 

Does America stand for human rights or not? Do we now roll back the years to the Middle Ages?

 

If American Society is to progress forward to a day that wars are not need and people can talk to resolve differences we must make a stand and be above the fray.

 

Most of the terrorism today is because of the repression of liberties/freedoms. Where are the leaders/thinkers of today that can resolve issues without death and destruction?

 

When we become like those we fight against we "Americans" have already lost.

[Rex Kickass]

Enjoy your relish.

I'm not eating hot dogs. But thanks.

[IggyD]

When it becomes the stated policy of our forces to target innocent people......

When it becomes the stated policy of our nation to wipe out a nation because of their religon ( think Iran vs Isreal )..........

When it becomes our stated policy to indiscriminantely bomb civillian buildings..............

When it becomes our Standard Operating Procedure to kidnap people and mutilate them on television for all to see........

..........THEN we have stooped to their level.

 

Until then, all this whining and complaining about terrorist s***bags getting roughed up during interrogation is just that.

When it becomes

 

Stated policy of our forces have target innocent people......its called acceptable collateral damage.

 

Stated policy of our nation to attack a sovereign nation without cause “Preemptive for any reason” (per Official 911 Report there was no connection to 911)..........

 

Stated policy to indiscriminately bomb civilian buildings.............. That was all done in the early days of the so-called Liberation of Iraq by taking out electric, water and other needs for the civilian population to survive.

Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION

Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application

Article 48: Basic Rule

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

 

When it becomes our Standard Operating Procedure to kidnap people and mutilate them on television for all to see........Are you saying if it is not shown on television it is ok?

[NorthSideSox72]

You can't find a middle ground AND stick to the Geneva convention. That, by definition, is impossible. Even you sat the nation-state mentality won't work. War between nation-states is what the Geneva convention addresses.

I was referring specifically to our treatment of prisoners and detainees. Should have clarified.

[EvilMonkey]

Stated policy of our forces have target innocent people......its called acceptable collateral damage.

 

Stated policy of our nation to attack a sovereign nation without cause “Preemptive for any reason” (per Official 911 Report there was no connection to 911)..........

 

Stated policy to indiscriminately bomb civilian buildings.............. That was all done in the early days of the so-called Liberation of Iraq by taking out electric, water and other needs for the civilian population to survive.

Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION

Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application

Article 48: Basic Rule

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

 

When it becomes our Standard Operating Procedure to kidnap people and mutilate them on television for all to see........Are you saying if it is not shown on television it is ok?

Collateral damage is NOT targetting of civilians. To assume it is, you must have your hat on too tight. To assume you can have a war without any civilian casulties is ridiculous. And not to be able to distinguish between intentional targeting of civilians and collateral damage is even more ridiculous.

 

Also, we didn't 'indiscriminately' bomb civilian building, we picked the targets with great care, such as electric, etc. and with a great rate of success. Public works are acceptable targets. So are bridges, major roads, rail systems and tunnels. Its called war.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

First off, when we invaded Afghanistan, the people we sent to Cuba seem to qualify as a prisoner of war....

Which seems to be the very definition of an enemy combatant.

 

Here are the protections afforded prisoners of war

So the problem is what, again, with the Geneva Conventions?

 

 

The fact that these scumbags belong to an terrorist organization. They aren't just jow and Jane Haji.

 

 

Stop trying to defend these people! Save your f***ing tears for people who deserve them..........you know.....like the innocent people who die every day in car bombings, suicide bombings, shootings and other assorted terrorist activities that they perpetrate.

 

Does America stand for human rights or not? Do we now roll back the years to the Middle Ages?

 

If American Society is to progress forward to a day that wars are not need and people can talk to resolve differences we must make a stand and be above the fray.

 

Most of the terrorism today is because of the repression of liberties/freedoms. Where are the leaders/thinkers of today that can resolve issues without death and destruction?

 

When we become like those we fight against we "Americans" have already lost.

 

 

You freely assume, like all bleeding heart leftists, that terrorists can be reasoned with.

 

They can't.

 

Terrorists only understand one thing and that's force. You have to make war so horrible for them that they submit.

[Rex Kickass]

The fact that these scumbags belong to an terrorist organization. They aren't just jow and Jane Haji.

Stop trying to defend these people! Save your f***ing tears for people who deserve them..........you know.....like the innocent people who die every day in car bombings, suicide bombings, shootings and other assorted terrorist activities that they perpetrate.

 

I could maybe even be swayed if a large percentage of the people that we got in captivity in Guantanamo Bay were actually terrorists. But if that's the case, we oughta prosecute them and bring them to justice.

[minors]

I could maybe even be swayed if a large percentage of the people that we got in captivity in Guantanamo Bay were actually terrorists. But if that's the case, we oughta prosecute them and bring them to justice.

 

 

I am sure glad you feel for these people, because they would kill you the first time they got a chance.

 

Does America stand for human rights or not? Do we now roll back the years to the Middle Ages?

 

If American Society is to progress forward to a day that wars are not need and people can talk to resolve differences we must make a stand and be above the fray.

 

Most of the terrorism today is because of the repression of liberties/freedoms. Where are the leaders/thinkers of today that can resolve issues without death and destruction?

 

When we become like those we fight against we "Americans" have already lost.

 

 

I am sure glad you think you negotiate with terrorists did you forget that 2900 were killed at the world trade centers. These thugs would not give a second thought about killing an innocent person these people are simply cold blooded monsters there in NO negotiating with these thugs the sooner liberals understand that the better.

Edited June 10, 2006 by minors

[Rex Kickass]

The point is that the vast majority of people held in Guantanamo Bay wouldn't kill me - that's the problem.

 

If they are terrorists, they should be brought to justice. If they are not, they sure as s*** shouldn't be held in confinement for four years for no good reason.

 

Everyone uses the word terrorist like its an excuse to treat someone inhumanely. It's not. They are still human. And if the same people here who claim that our country is based on "Christian" values, aren't arguing this than maybe they oughta bone up on the texts they claim is the basis for our society.

 

Taking away the fact that what makes us better than the terrorists is our value of treating all men humanely and equally, is the idea that if this is a war of values and image, us treating these people humanely and equally (while bringing them to justice) helps win the people to our side who might just become the next generation of terrorists.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Everyone uses the word terrorist like its an excuse to treat someone inhumanely. It's not. They are still human. And if the same people here who claim that our country is based on "Christian" values, aren't arguing this than maybe they oughta bone up on the texts they claim is the basis for our society.

 

Meh, that tired old bit about 'That which you do to the least of My brothers. . . '? Apparently that line never made it onto the NUKE Testament.