The GC in the main is one thing: the codification of a spirit, an attitude of mind, a moral demand, an approach to deal with the consequences of war.

I would like to see it being used on any opponent that uses it and respects it with regard to "us".

I do not understand why it should make us protect the interests and potentials of an attacker that does not see it valid for protecting us.

the tricky part is to prevent abusing it, or hollowing it out, and making reasonable judgements (not biased ones) when deciding for whom it should be used, and for whom not. as you see, I have slightly changed my opinion a bit during the last three years. But Bush wants card blanche. That is too much, even more so since he directs his creation, this illogical and hollow phrase "war on terror", to serve the interests of a certain political agenda (which does not mean that our very real Islamic enemy is less harmful to us).

As TteFAboB has it so wonderfully summed up in his sig: I will not allow others, in the name of their principles (or lack thereof), to deny me what I would never deny them in the name of mine.

Edit. I am contradicting myself. Here I say "GC yes", in other threads I argued in favour of "use moral to decide about peace or war, but once in war fight with all that you have, without moral." The problem for me seem to be that I differ again between "action of war" and combat, and treatment of prisoners. It seems to me I see the GC limited for the treatment of prisoners (that are at your mercy already), but not for the action of war, whereas the GC wants to have a say in both.

Edit 2: Further thinking about it, what is a prisoner that holds a potentially valuable information that would influence your capacity to fight - is he a prisoner, or does this passive potential turn him into a fighter again even when being imprisoned a slong as he withhold that information from you (becasue he an indirectly harm you by limiting your abilties to fight when hiding that information from you so that you cannot make use of it)?
Hm, I need to sit down and think this through. You know that first or second Dirty Harry movie? He has caught the bad guy who has kidnapped a girl that will die within a shgort period of time due to lack of oxygene, if she is not freed. Callaghan does not protect the right of the priosner to stay silent, he tortures him to force him to give away the life-saving info. He made a clear hierarchy: the interests of the innocent victim uncompromisingly go first, befor the interests of the criminal. But the constellation is clear: a bad guy and offender of moral rules, and his innocent victim. This constellation is less clearly to be defined in war. Think of German soldiers or British soldiers being caught in WWII. while participants of SS-slaiughterings can be argued to be criminals, the oprdinary wehrmacht grunt can be argued not to be that, maybe even to be a victim himself. Here, the principle of justice used by Callaghan could only be repalced by the rule of selfish interests of two war-waging sides. And would this be enough to skip legal protection for some prisoner that holds valuable information?

That Dirty Harry movie caused a moral uproar of the public in Germany when it was released, btw. Of course, against Callaghan's action. I was still at schooll, but found the trouble most irritating and unreasonable. The onyl defendig argument was: Callaghans's actions casued a precedent by which the gewneral protection and validity of the law could get hollowed out: ba defining more cases as "exceptions from the rules". which is, however, a valid argument.

1. Torture is not acceptable as a principle, period. One might reasonably argue and excuse a specific case or series of cases where its application was neccesary, but codifying torture in international regulations is unacceptable.
I think one of the characteristics of 'terror nations' that we've seen so far has been the use of torture. What does that make our oh-so-civilized society if we stoop to that? I'm not keen on having another medieval feature here...

2. International conventions such as this should apply on a mutual basis, but they do stem and should stem from moral principles of our culture, not eye-for-eye. If an individual combatant violates conventions, he should be prosecuted for this duly, not denied rights and treated as his captors would prefer without proper investigation.
Idealistic, yes, very. But you can't run around saying conventions don't count. You get into a foggy territory where you can brand someone a terrorist without so much proof as catching him with a weapon, and treat him as you want.
I can safely say that this is precisely what Bush wants to do here - have the right to catch suspicious blokes in the bush, let his guys whatever he wants with them, and whether whatr they did was right or done for the right reason, proclaim that it's all legit and for great democracy. Because he can. Woot.
These new wars are all a grey area that certain people want to paint black and white. This is part of that effort.

3. It is completely unacceptable to have the denial of human rights codified in international regulation that specifically deals with them in the first place.
Think of the precedent this sets. We're better off not having a convention at all than having 'unpersons' codified into it and having 'legitimate' precedents of all this stuff...

None of this will make war crimes or torture go away. But at least let's not give up on modern post-Enlightenment moral principles just yet when it comes to international law...

If its true that bush wants to make changes to suit the CIA (another form of Terroist?) then it will be the downfall of democracy and all those assicated with them. The old saying if ya can't beat em join em does not always work. America and the rest that follow are at the top because they dont act like savages. Do we really want to resort to these tactics?... Desperados?

The background is that his attempt to allow a wider spectrum of "non-conventional" interrogation methods to be used in Guantanamo was brought to a stop even by his own Republican party that rejected him the needed support. He now tries it through the backdoor, somewhat distracting from or evading his defeat by that.

BUSH YOU SILLY OLD...:x

Damnit, this sucks! The Genva Convention is a Good thing. Bush just wants to get rid of it so he can Torture and shoot everyone who he dislikes. THATS NAZILAND 2! This time it's no stupid bull****, this time it's serious!

The Problem is to define terrorism.

If this does not get clear, if you shout "America Sucks and all americans should die" (No offence against anyone, i am just making an excample) Bush can just say "He's a Terrorist, Torture him and Blow his Brain out".

Bush already did enought nazi-things, like saying "Torture is only Torture if it can kill you", and already did enough stupid and outright Facist things, like bringing people outta country to torture them. If they found out he wasn't anything bad, they thrown him in the woods of an unknown country! Secret Black CIA (Yes the are another form of Terrorists/Insurgents) Flights across Europe, Heard of it?

I know this sounds Stupid as hell, but this SERIOUSLY concerns me. The USA gets more Nazi alike every day. Lets make a Overview.

Nazi Germany

Discriminated
Jewish, Poles, Russians

Torturing Camps:
Concentration Camps

Army=Wehrmacht:
Does everything for thier Leader and Commits war Crimes

Gestapo:
Secret Police with Power over everything

Leader:
Uncle Adolf Heilstoned, der brave honest superman Fuehrer

Excuse to start war:
Attack of Poland on Germany (Germany only faked it in this case!)

Now Comes USA!

USA

Discriminated:
Islamists, Middle East People

Torturing Camps:
Secret Prisons, Abu Graib, Guantanamo

Army:
Does everything for thier Leader, and does war crimes too!

CIA, NSA, ect:
Secret Police with Power over everything

Leader:
Georgie Bush, the Clean Honest Democatic elected always says the thruth blah blah blah guy.

Excuse to start war:
Attack on the USA on 9/11. (True in this case)

Does anyone get the Pattern?

Anyway, the Point is, (Sorry but i can only express this in German, it's a...Redewedung here) "Der Zweck heiligt nicht die mittel!". It means you can't justify every action with that good what shall come out in the end. Because it is usually utter horsesh**.

You cannot justify the Torturing and Killing of People, even if they are Terrorists. You are going to thier level.

There is a great movie that shows what can come out of such stuff. It's called "The Siege" and it would not Suprise me if it is banned in America.

The Avon Lady, i would normally ask you "ARE YOU *MEEP*ING CRAZY?!" but i will not, since you can in my Opinion not judge this, since you are under terrorist Attacks for a Long time "down there" in Israel, and a certain hate has build up. It is right we need to Stop the terrorists. I hate Terrorism. It is GAY! The shall come out and FIGHT in a Open war, and not hide in thier holes like Bugs Bunny, but SUCH INHUMAN methods are just...wrong. We are Lowering to thier levels. We are going back in time...staight to Nazi Germany 1942.

Heil Bush! :nope:

(As usuall on my Political Comments if this gets to Offensive, remove it, no Problem. But i cannot hold myself on such terms like Removing GC.)

I do not agree on torturing people or changing the GC article three. However, as CCIP stated a few posts above:
It all comes down that us Westerners, we do "try" to adhere to the Geneva Convention, them (terrorists), on the other hand they do not and will never follow it. So I will never feel ashamed or feel like a monster if we use an occasional slap to make one cough up some valuable information. ;)

However, if it's true that Bush asked for a change in article three, from this point on, if I hear one word from Bush saying something about China's way, I will laugh hard.

The GC is humane and straightforward, we must follow it as much as we can, point.

We have lost the moral high-ground! :roll:

"assailed with loud Red Hot Chili Peppers music.":rotfl:

:rotfl:

Lest we forget, terrorism is not the invention of the palestinians or jihadists. It has been used widely across the world in modern times, by people of all faiths, but differing goals. The geneva convention is reserved for conventional warfare, not terrorism wars. A new set of doctrines must be formulated for how to respond to that type. What to do with capture terrorists etc.

To my surprise, Mr. Babylonian Talmud has dropped by to say hello at the American Spectator. :D

Precisely.

That's why I think the term 'War on Terror' is very misleading. It's not really a war, it's more of a special operation. War is far more straightforward than that.

I have no trouble with terrorists getting what they deserve. But I think we need to be very careful in the definition of a terrorist. A guy who blows up a building is most certainly a terrorist. A guy who paid money and/or gave weapons for another guy to blow up a building is a terrorist. A guy caught with explosives where he shouldn't be is probably a terrorist. A guy caught in the bush with a rifle could be a terrorist. A guy who likes to hate Americans and might throw a rock or two is probably not a terrorist, if even a potential terrorist someday. We all don't like any of the above, of course, but let's try to make sure the latter two categories don't have too straight a road to Guantanamo, at least...

I have to add one thing: A guy who blows up a Building is maybe just insane. Could be.

Aaah, but in todays world it all depends what's in the building. 3000 civilians, he's insane. 3 civilians being held hostage by 4 terrorists, he's an agent of freedom. ;)

Having read this thread and many others here, I see no need to change the Geneva Convention to deal with Islamic terrorists. As stated above, The convention deals with uniformed troops of an opposing nation's army. Terrorists belong to no army and no nation. My solution is and has been for some time to try them under the law they chose to live under: Sharia.

Sharia is a much more draconian code than any other law currently extant. The punishments are far more severe than anything the West has to offer.

We are not attacking the Muslim faith as a whole, merely the extremists who attack us. Therefore, the defense of defending the faith does not apply.

I would actually try them under the Taliban interpretation of Islamic Law and punishment since they see that regime as the purest expression of their philosophy.

That said, I would try them in Islamic courts with our own hand-picked Islamic judges to ensure both a fair trial for the murders they have committed and the appropriate punishments under their law.

I would televise the trials on the Arab TV channels so the Muslims would see the fair application of those laws.

I would even offer, upon conviction, the families of the victims the opportunity to carry out sentence. This would also be televised to the Muslim world.

Let them see the West mete out Justice, Muslim style. Then they can decide for themselves if that is the road they wish to go down.

Also, having been convicted in an Islamic court, they become ineligible as martyrs, according to their own faith.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

IMHO, that's a good idea Ishmael....trouble would be finding the people who would attend that court and making sure they don't get gunned down/blown up/decapitated/kidnapped/disappear, or all of the aforementioned.

Simple solution: Hold them in Guantanamo. They get a sunny vacation on the south coast of Cuba. There's lot's of great snorkeling and scuba diving off the coast there as long as you stay out of the minefields. I was there in the summer of 1978 and did a lot of both. It would be the new Club Fed.

Also, after the verdict is in, they could be taken into international waters. There their right hand would be removed in accordance with Sharia. Then they would be made to walk the plank in shark-infested waters. If they can get away from the sharks, then we have shown true Muslim "mercy".

No need for those measures. Try them under the law that governs the people they committed their crimes against. The Bush administration could easily let the prisoners of Guantanamo go before a judge. If they are guilty, they will be sentenced and punished.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!:rotfl:

Desperate means from a desperate president!!!

This only further shows how badly Bush has lost and how hopeless he's become. HE must live by the saying, "If you can't beat them. Join them"...So when do we all start praying to Allah and speaking Arabic?!? :rotfl:

Bush can't find Bin Laden and he'll never be able to win this war on "terror", so all he can do is bang his own head against his wall thinking up evil ideas of his own of how to "protect the American people"...HAHAHA!!! :rotfl:What a bunch of bull!

Bin Laden has obviously defeated Bush by turning him into a monster as well!!!

First, Bush will start with the Geneva Convention and twist that all around so that he and America can torture anyone from a foriegn nation for anything at anytime.

Then Herr Bush and his wench will focus their attention on the schools that your childern go to by allowing principals or other staff members to execute and torture your child for any sort of intolerance or other misbehavior. It will be mandatory that your child grows up in a brainwashed Bush enviroment that makes him/her pledge allegiance to Bush's picture before each class.

Yes indeed, we've seen this before. I do recall his name being Adolf, but it appears he has returned and is now in full control of the United States.

LOL :lol: :rotfl:

George "The desperate president" Bush is surging in all polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ush-poll_x.htm

President Bush is now at 44% approval heading into the elections, which is very high for a second term President historically. This beats out Clinton, and Reagan in their second terms. It even tops Bush Sr. in his midterm election numbers and of course the skunk Carter in his. No matter how many times you call this man Hitler or Idiot or Buffoon, he beats you every time. Gotta love it.