Bush and the Geneva Convention

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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

To which I also stated in my 2nd post:

Yes, there are lines to be drawn but they shouldn't be drawn at the "your pants are way down" line.

Quote:
I wonder if your line of thought would change if you were on the recieving end?
That goes for both of us. How many terrorist attacks have you been on the receiving end of?

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?[/quote]
What is so hard for you to understand that terrorists can be uniformed?

What is so hard for you to understand that the world will laugh at you when the time comes and proclaim that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter"?

Just look at what the world had done to Israel any and every time it lifts a finger to defend itself. Why learn the hard way when someone else has already been through it.

So, I am saying the GC cannot and should not be modified to cover tactics for extracting information from terrorist.

And I'm saying that you should keep in mind that it's 2006 and the UN still has not defined what constitutes terrorism. Hint. Hint. Nudge. Nudge.

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.

And all I'm saying is the GC as it stands, along with the world's anti-Americanism, along with today's terrorist conivences, along with much of the world's upsidedown moral logic today, will have US forces' hands tied behind their backs on day 1 of the next relevant conflict.

[Oberon]

Yes, I don't know what worries me more...the fact that these people from the dark ages are trying to kill us, or the fact that we're chasing them back into the dark ages....

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

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...

One tiny bit of legality better be thrown in here. The fact that Bush declared war on them means he should probably abide by the GC. This gave Bush special powers by declaring war since if he did not, then the 9/11 happanings would be a police matter only. So there is a fine a line to be walked.

-S

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

[
One tiny bit of legality better be thrown in here. The fact that Bush declared war on them means he should probably abide by the GC. This gave Bush special powers by declaring war since if he did not, then the 9/11 happanings would be a police matter only. So there is a fine a line to be walked.

-S

Actual real war was not declared.

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Actual real war was not declared.

The terrorists did thought!

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

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?

[Skybird]

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.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

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?

We have lost the moral high-ground!

[Perilscope]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

We have lost the moral high-ground!

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