Bush and the Geneva Convention
 

Bush wants to change article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Bush says that it is too vague, in particular "(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;". To me it doesn't sound vague at all. Maybe he should look the words up in a dictionary. What he is doing is trying to tailor the Convention to suite the CIA's needs to extract information from terrorists. This is as wrong as wrong can be.
The GC has been around since 1929 without change and our soldiers don't need the risk of countries tailoring the convention to their specific needs. If so the convention might as well be thrown out as useless. Bush is trying to warp an international standard to fit his need for here and now after these secret prisons of his have been found out.
He is not thinking of our troops now or in future conflict's. This is another case of Bush trying to twist and corrupt for his use.
It's interesting that he stated that if this change doesn't pass, the program (I assume he mean's the secret prisons.) will be halted. Yes Mr President, if we don't play your game you'll take your ball and go home.
To me an obvious solution to his problem would be to circulate a letter of policy stating what the administration/goverment understanding of article three is and issue guidelines for interrogators to follow. That is of course unless you are ashamed of what those guidelines are and don't want them known by his fellow americans and the international community.

This is not intended to lead to a democrat vs. republican debate but a debate of right and wrong and the repurcussions facing our troops now and in the future.

Link for reading the Geneva Convention. (It's not long) http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Those words certainly can be interpretted and used in various ways, so in that sense they are vague. So even though I'm not that fond of President Bush, I can see why he would want it to be clarified a bit better. And there is nothing wrong or illegal about requesting something like that. Just because the rules haven't been changed in over 50 years doesn't necessarily mean that they should never be.

Sound good to me! :rock:
Wise up. Warfare has changed.
Much of it should indeed.
And that's a good thing.
It will benefit all of humanity.
And we'll have shot ourselves in the foot, all during wartime.
Why should you reveal everything to the enemy?
The enemy we face doesn't respect anything in the GC as it is.

What he can do instead of changing the convention is do what I said and publish a letter of policy. If we change the convention then everyone else can and would change it to suite their individual states needs. Where does the line get drawn?
Not to mention that the Geneva Convention is aimed at uniformed combatants. It's not supposed to be used for terrorist/insurgent protection.
That is also another reason for Bush just too come out with a policy and then he can submit it to Nato if he wants to come out with an international convention for treatment of terrorists/insurgents.

Wise up again. Terror nations are on the arise. They will have uniforms and regular armies but they won't give a damn about the GC.

Yes, there are lines to be drawn but they shouldn't be drawn at the "your pants are way down" line.
Most other NATO members still having the luxury of not having to face a major massive war against such terror forces. They will not be a source of support for a while to come.

The U.S. continues to give its prisoners far better treatment than would they get from most other countries. They should consider themselves lucky and fortunate.
President Bush just wants some clarity. Nothing wrong with asking. Everyone has that right which you seem to overlook so easily. In that sense there is no line nor should there be.

The Geneva Convention was designed, and can only be applied, with conventional armies in mind.

It does not cover terrorists and should not cover terrorists.

You want to earn the rights of the Geneva Convention? Then raise a standing army.

Have you read the Geneva Convention Brad? Why don't you count how may violations terrorists commit. I've stopped at 32 after it got too repetitive and boring: General Provisions lots of violations, General protection of POWs more violations, subsequent parts violated by default, Religious, intellectual and hpysical activities, discipline, etc. it's all violated. Everything from then onwards is violated. And a terrorist group is no legitimate "Party" because they do not recognize the right of the other side to exist.

The CIA can do as they please with terrorists. Had CIA agents been captured by Jihadists, they would not even think about applying the Geneva Convention to them, as they didn't with the hostages (violation) captures who were beheaved (violation), forced to convert to Islam(violation), deprived of physical, intellectual and religious activities (violation, violation, violation).

You want to know what's right and what's wrong? It's wrong to release a terrorist and all information about him if that's an advantage to terror cells. And it is right to lock him in a hole without sunbathing and use psychological torture on him if that serves to prevent another 3000 direct and how many more indirect victims of a terror attack plus their main goal of political victory.

The Hizbullah is sponsored by Iran...

Read what I wrote. The Convention is for the treatment of uniformed combatants!

See above

See above

See above

See above

[quote]
And we'll have shot ourselves in the foot, all during wartime.
[/quote
See above

Why should treatment of prisoners be secret?

The Convention is for the treatment of uniformed combatants!

You are under the mistaken belief that terrorists/insurgents should be honored by the Geneva Convention and you would condone the corruption of that convention to suite the CIA's needs.
Terrorist's don't have any rights. It's legal to make them kneel and put a bullet in the back of their neck. Do not corrupt a convention that was made for uniformed combatants to warrant interrogation of terrorists.
I wonder if your line of thought would change if you were on the recieving end?

Did you miss my 2nd post, where I already stated:

[i]"Wise up again. Terror nations are on the arise. They will have uniforms and regular armies[ but they won't give a damn about the GC."
That goes for both of us. How many terrorist attacks have you been on the receiving end of?

Making my point:

Black Five Blog: Remind me why I liked Powell. Highlighted quote:

heheh!

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9...091806arp2.jpg

A Winnar is you: http://www.mhaf.org/images/medal_gold_pipe.jpg

Recognizable uniform == Geneva Convention protections
No recognizable uniform == No Geneva Convention protections

What did the Russians do with German soldiers that were out of uniform, in Berlin? That's exactly right -- they machine-gunned them on the spot.

Now, for arab muslims, death is so common that they've become de-sensitized to it. Which brings me right back to Abu Ghairab. Sexual humiliation is something that the vast majority of jihadists absolutely cannot psychologically cope with. If there is any kind of deterance value to be gained by punishment, then sexual humiliation is the only thing that is going to work. To increase it's effectiveness, it would probably be best if it was a Jewish female laughing and pointing at their little peckers (no offense intended toward you, Avon -- I'm just being pragmatic).


So, I propose re-writing that article to read as follows:

Recognizable uniform == No sexually humiliating photos posted on the web and in newspapers/magazines.

Non-recognizable uniform == Sexually humiliating photos posted on the web and in newspapers/magazines.

You guys scare me.
The proper treatment of prisoners is one of those safeguards that prevents you from becoming the very monster you fight. Of course, if you honestly think that becoming a monster is what it takes, so be it.

There is no need to torture, or belittle them. Are they terrorists, have they caused grief and death, then execute them. No need to drag it out. I find more humanity in a swift sentence of justice than prolonged abuse.

We will deal with that if and when it arises. What about fighting a civilized nation?

What don't you understand AL? The Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists. It is not meant to cover terrorists. The GC is for the treatment of uniformed combatants. What is so hard for you to understand about that? So, I am saying the GC cannot and should not be modified to cover tactics for extracting information from terrorist.
You want to shoot fingers and toes off? Fine. Want to beat them nearly to death? Fine. Want to put them on the rack? Fine. They don't have rights. I couldn't care less what is done to them. What I'm saying and saying is the GC is for uniformed combatants to be treated humanely. Don't try and lump terrorists treatment under a convention they are not meant to be under.
Do you understand now?
Terrorist under the GC = Bad
Terrorist not under GC = Good
I can't put it any simpler then that. I am not defending terrorist. Kill them all! I am defending a convention that was and is meant for uniformed combatants.

Response: