Ignoring the Geneva Conventions
- Thread starter Changleen
- Start date
You know, it would seem that we are engaged against an enemy who has no regard for the Geneva Convention, nor does he represent a signatory country to these accords. So how does it remain important for us to respect those with no respect or regard for the rest of the world as a whole? They scream "Death to
(insert name of western society representative here)" behead, torture and otherwise oppress all who oppose them, and their own women, and generally just do not play well with others. Yet we must argue, with the world as a judge, how we will treat them, in an effort to hold them at bay. In Law of Armed Conflict training (Given to all members of the US military) they are not considerd legal combatants (Uniform wearing, military target striking etc.)
Mind you, GW is an utter and complete bufoon, and his administration in an unmitigated disgrace and failure. But if torturing a terrorist or two (or three or four) prevents another 9-11, I am all for it.
Just my 3 cents...
9
(insert name of western society representative here)" behead, torture and otherwise oppress all who oppose them, and their own women, and generally just do not play well with others. Yet we must argue, with the world as a judge, how we will treat them, in an effort to hold them at bay. In Law of Armed Conflict training (Given to all members of the US military) they are not considerd legal combatants (Uniform wearing, military target striking etc.)
Mind you, GW is an utter and complete bufoon, and his administration in an unmitigated disgrace and failure. But if torturing a terrorist or two (or three or four) prevents another 9-11, I am all for it.
Just my 3 cents...
9
John, there are two very good reasons for America to ensure that the standards of the Geneva convention are met, or even exceeded.
1) If you stoop to the level of the enemy, you are no better than him. You have lost the war on terror right there, as you have embraced it as a tactic. The US stands for freedom (so Bush says) but would throw these ideals away against an enemy who really actually poses no real threat to your way of life whatsoever. Your phrase "hold them at bay" makes it sound like they are about to rush down from the mountains to conquor you. C'mon, seriously.
This speaks volumes about the real motivations of your leaders.
2) You are an American serviceman abroad. You are captured by a foreign army. Why the hell should they not torture the crap out of you? If no leader is actually willing to stand up and practice the ideals of what he supposedly stands for, then again, terror, fear and the trampling of individuals rights win out.
1) If you stoop to the level of the enemy, you are no better than him. You have lost the war on terror right there, as you have embraced it as a tactic. The US stands for freedom (so Bush says) but would throw these ideals away against an enemy who really actually poses no real threat to your way of life whatsoever. Your phrase "hold them at bay" makes it sound like they are about to rush down from the mountains to conquor you. C'mon, seriously.
This speaks volumes about the real motivations of your leaders.
2) You are an American serviceman abroad. You are captured by a foreign army. Why the hell should they not torture the crap out of you? If no leader is actually willing to stand up and practice the ideals of what he supposedly stands for, then again, terror, fear and the trampling of individuals rights win out.
The second one is a total farce. The last time US troops being held prisoner got treated to the requirements of the Geneva convention was by the Germans in WWII (for the most part). The Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis all pretty much ignored most if not all aspects of the treaty. And the probability of US prisoners being treated to the requirements of the Geneva convention by any enemy that we are likely to get into a fight with in the future are pretty slim as well.
For the most part, its pretty much been the US and close Western Allies that have had any respect at all for the requirements of the Geneva Convention. And just look at what that respect as gained us......
how about of those 450 detained, maybe 20 (and I'm being generous here) are actual terrorists? The rest as just muslims who were int he wrong place at the wrong time.
not that i support the war on iraq or anything, but i do support another more frank treatment of terrorism.
let´s see. is the concept of fighting a war "to stop genocide" foreign to us?. what is a war but a mass killing of people?
we already regard as moral (and even highly) killing people to stop the killing of other people. that does not necesarilly "speak volumes of the real motivation of the leaders".
it does not automatically discard the option.
drb said it.
nobody but the US and a few civilized democracies care about them.
whether the US (or anybody, but specially the US ) respects or not geneva conventions (IMO acceptable only when it comes to terrrorism related fights) it really wont make any difference in the treatment of its soldiers.
I totally support whatever needs to be done to terrorists to break them.
However, there's no greater sin than imprisoning and torturing an innocent man.
However, there's no greater sin than imprisoning and torturing an innocent man.
I agree almost 100% with you.
We as a society should be willing to do almost anything to stop world wide terror. The big question is, where does it stop?
The problem with the Genva Convention is that it is an agreement with no teeth. Who enforces it? The UN and the World Court. There is very little motivation for any country to ahere to it. Intelligence services will resort to any means neccesary to glean info from enemy troops. And Chang, the actions of our nitwit president will not prevent another country from using whatever means neccesary to either extract information or simply torture people for the sadistic fun of it. I think you are being a tad overly optimistic.
I am an American serviceman, not currently abroad, but soon to be in the sand again, and believe me, this is a hot topic amongst my co workers. And honestly, if torturing a terrorist who cares nothing for the sanctity of human life that doesnt worship the same deity as he does, saves the life of one of my guys and stops me from having to explain to his wife and little kids why Daddy isnt coming home, well...
Yeah, just lollygagging around al queda fortifications with weapons.:biggrin:
It's a bit sad when American and it's closest allies feel that the highest ethical and moral standards shouldn't apply to them. What are we fighting for? It's certainly not freedom, dignity and a life of plenty for others. At this stage it feels more like a dick measuring exercise on a vast scale.
what is war anyways?
of course it is more socially accepted, but the whole idea isnt foreign to us, and on the very same grounds you reject them, we accept other similarly anti-freedom, anti-dignity and anti-peace measures.
i dont think it should be "moral standards shouldnt apply to them" (as in always) but i do think that once one side throws those standards out of the window.. there should be no moral obligation on the other side to abide by those rules.
just like the "highest moral standard" of respect to life goes out of the window when somebody tries to kill you. (not making an analogy on the action, but the fact the persecution of moral standards per se isnt the ultimate purpose of morality itself).
But how do you run a war when the enemy doesnt apply moral or ethical standards either, but the world expects you to apply these standards? Bin Laden and his pals have sworn to destroy us by any means neccesary, so are we justified to use these standards v. them?
War is unethical by nature...
turn off the cbc and get tuned in to reality.
Maybe you should turn off fox news? Do you happen to believe that invading Iraw was to "fight terror" as well? Or maybe you believe that your current president was never an alcoholic coke addict who managed to weasel his way out of military service to be a D student?
Just so you know, CBC and the BBC are 2 of the most highly regarded news gathering agencies on the planet. This is in stark contrast to what masquerades on American tv as "News".
Does your enemy really present the threat your leaders say it does?
Take a look at the stats for the number of arrests vs. prosecutions in the WoT. It's pretty much a joke.
If you were actually in a "them or us" situation like say, France in WW2 then I could understand a bit more that rules might need to bend. The fact is that you arn't. You are fighting an elective battle in order to show the world that Democracy and Freedom are better than the alternative. If you want to succeed in this battle (and I'm sure you realise it is a battle far more for the hearts and minds of the world's public than actually against a few enraged peasants with AK47s) then you MUST be seen to represent what you claim to represent, openly and transparantly.
The reason the entire world has basically decided GW is a cvnt and America has gone mad is precisely because of the handling of these type of issues. GW and crew have hyped the danger of a few radical islamics who live in the middle east and have no access to modern weaponry to the extent that they can get away with this type of xenophobic based extremism with the American public. The rest of the world looks on shaking it's head in quiet disbelief and disgust.
Europe, Russia, China, Australasia, hell most of the Arabic world have no love for radical Islam, but without the constant veneer of overhyped fearmongering that is portrayed to the American audience the world sees things in a clearer perspective, and in nearly everyone's opinion, the US's response to it's situation is now the main problem. That is why you no longer have any support.
If you had world opinion behind you, as you so easily could have had, you really wouldn't even have a problem. Everyone would help you close this minor threat down as has happened many times in the past with other terrorist groups.
There are a small handful of people to blame for your current problems, and none of them are Arabic.
Sadly you are way off on this statement.
You'd be arguing from what you read. I'd be arguing from what I know first hand.
You aren't right. I promise you aren't even close.
I don't think DRB is in the military....Military intelligence is an oxymoron
So why not just shoot prisoners out of hand, use gas/biological weapons in the caves, nuclear weapons if needed? If the end justifies the means then there should be no constraints.
The scrupulous adherence to the highest standards of behaviour are the only way to command legitimacy.
thats a bit of an slippery slope.
if you come to think about it, we are talking about a "line" already established in an arbitrary fashion.
the fact that we regard "war", "missiles" and "f117a" on the acceptable side of the line in the first place it pretty much arbitrary.
Speak for yourself.
for society, as we know it in the west, at least it is.
No in reality we invaded IRAQ due to the 17 UN MANDATES that clown boy broke! So since he signed we had the right! We also if we are able to secure Iraq 100% will put a strong hinderance on the LUNES there!BBC staright up HATES the USA and is a commy loving RAG!!! They believe FIDEL is the man and read any of their "editorails" what a joke. Next time the BBC wines about the USA ask em how they feel about the 1000000 AMERICANS that died so they could be free. WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS FREED millions FED millions and stood up for those who cannot do it the selves! While my friends are over in the desert fighting for freedom and keeping us safe people who have never fought hide at home and talk about how evil they are. Damn its NOAM CHOMPSKY and Vietnam all over again>>>>>>>>
What do you know of past military engagemnets in the Middle East? Here is the deal Russia followed Englands example and wrapped any dead terrorist in PORK? Well look what happened no more suicide bombs. That could also be against the conventions you art so fond of! The rest of the world is partly taken over by the "few" MUSLIMs you refer to. Remember FRANCE or did you not see that?Lets see a small handful of a BILLION is about 100 million yeah not too many people eh????
Um no, mr world police. The UN had the right, the US most certainly did not. Please learn a little bit about international law (and international Journalism for that matter) before you spout off at the mouth.
Also, here in the adult's forum, we are fond of taking 30 seconds to spell check a post, even ignorant ones.
Durr, fight for freedom!
Them dang muslims is takin over mah christian world! We need to save the world again! Commies are everywhere!You make n8 sound like a mensa member.
chang:
your posted editorial is one of many wildly varying opinions on this topic, & i have my own (starting from yours in your response to JohnE).
yes, believe it or not, i agree that we should indeed strictly adhere to geneva conventions, but my reasons for agreeing are quite different. for one, when we do as they do, we allow them to lead us. because i do believe this is a clash of civilizations, we must demonstrate to the world how different we are in many ways, to include 'conflict resolution'. we shouldn't be that yob wearing a wife-beater & burberry taking half-assed haymakers at whoever makes eye-contact with us. we need to be this calm, collected, pasty infidel who seemingly poses no threat, who does not have the stomach to do real wet work. this would humiliate them more than a forced game of naked twister with hindu cross-dressers slathered in bacon grease.
don't get me wrong: torture would be good sport, but it's kinda hard to make good propaganda when we capture them & give them 3 halal squares/day & accomodate their every silly religious 'need' while in custody.
your posted editorial is one of many wildly varying opinions on this topic, & i have my own (starting from yours in your response to JohnE).
yes, believe it or not, i agree that we should indeed strictly adhere to geneva conventions, but my reasons for agreeing are quite different. for one, when we do as they do, we allow them to lead us. because i do believe this is a clash of civilizations, we must demonstrate to the world how different we are in many ways, to include 'conflict resolution'. we shouldn't be that yob wearing a wife-beater & burberry taking half-assed haymakers at whoever makes eye-contact with us. we need to be this calm, collected, pasty infidel who seemingly poses no threat, who does not have the stomach to do real wet work. this would humiliate them more than a forced game of naked twister with hindu cross-dressers slathered in bacon grease.
don't get me wrong: torture would be good sport, but it's kinda hard to make good propaganda when we capture them & give them 3 halal squares/day & accomodate their every silly religious 'need' while in custody.
on the playground, the bully takes swings at you, but you avoid getting hit by blocking, ducking, etc. eventually, he tires. his 'fan club' sees how inept & powerless he is, and they slowly draw back, being underwhelmed at his efforts. that's the hope of the description of the war on terror. unfortunately, i do not believe it applies. what applies is the bully who lies in wait & pulls a screwdriver out & punctures your lung & ditches the screwdriver before you can see who it is. (you have an idea, though: he's in a nearby crowd of people who say you had it coming & celebrate that you're on one knee coughing up blood).
the rub from applying the geneva convention is, it only works in the best case scenario: when there are absolute sides that are chosen, and every fighter is wearing a uniform, and of course, equally recognizes the rule of law. it cannot be expected that 'law of armed conflict' will be abided by those who aren't even part of a regular army.
what you cynically depicted is the russian mindset (i realize you don't buy into it), and these measures - while successful in the short-term - do us no favors in the generations to come.
and they will come.
Oh right, a school full of kids wasn't taken hostage, and then all the children executed fairly recently in Russia. That war against Afghanistan sure paid off! england didn't just get it's tube system attacked either. I forgot.
I'm just guessing here, but Changleen, MikeD, $tinkle, DRB and the rest here have probably about a ton more accurate information on these issues than you do (some of it first hand in a few cases). They also don't sound like a slack jawed yokel when expressing themselves. They routinely use evidence and facts to back up their point of view. You know, a proper debate and discussion.
Yeha they know alot because they read it on the internet? Sure while my friend spent 3 + years over there doing things you don't want to think about that is where I get my info from! And another thing We the US are the world police and we as the second signing party have that right to enforce what the UN won't and btw that is everything! It is funny how the exact same propaganda used in Viet Nam is again coming into play. Maybe it is because the same people are invloved once again! Sorry Carter, Clinton, Bush Sr all ignored the terrorists and look what it got us, never again no matter what the rest of the world thinks! They all thought Hitler was cool also, but then again maybe you do as well?
Wow, it must be awesome to live in your imaginary world.
The US has no right to enforce UN declarations, unless it is put into effect by the UN, through a security council vote. You should probably stop pulling stuff out of your ass now. Iraq was a sovereign nation, and the US invaded it, quite illegally in every sense of the word.
Edit: Oh, and no, it isn't because they read it on the internet. Some of us here are more educated than a 9th grade level. Some in International Law. Some people even work for the Gov't in some capacities. Just sayin'.
Funny you should mention Vietnam: no exit strategy, started on false pretenses, and the US getting it's ass handed to it by a guerilla force. Sound familiar?
The US has no right to enforce UN declarations, unless it is put into effect by the UN, through a security council vote. You should probably stop pulling stuff out of your ass now. Iraq was a sovereign nation, and the US invaded it, quite illegally in every sense of the word.
Edit: Oh, and no, it isn't because they read it on the internet. Some of us here are more educated than a 9th grade level. Some in International Law. Some people even work for the Gov't in some capacities. Just sayin'.
Funny you should mention Vietnam: no exit strategy, started on false pretenses, and the US getting it's ass handed to it by a guerilla force. Sound familiar?
And really, just to be clear in case you don't get the above UN Charter articles. THE ONLY way use of force to enforce a un declaration is permitted, is through a security council vote. End of story. Now please stop making stuff up and go away.
I'd say a more acurate description might be you're in your backyard and you get stung by a wasp. You can either a) swat the wasp, and maybe apply some insect repelant, or b) hire 10 contractors to come round and soak your garden in DDT to kill every insect of every type who might be living there. Unfortunately the DDT is poorly applied because you didn't manage the contractors, and they end up just angering all the insects who try and swam your ham sammich.
They don't have to apply it, and they will wear the cost to their reputation if that is their choice. It's all on you as the self proclaimed 'good guy' to do the right thing though.
I pretty much disagree.
Find for me and put a link to the entire treaty WE THE USA signed with Saddam at the end of The Gulf War, I looked and couldn't find it? It would suprise me that we would allow the UN to "inforce" anything that our troops had already been invloved in. Wow international law I am just so impressed with that like how hard?? Listen I am attending Cal Poly work FT and go to school FT starting Masters soon also. Here is a book you should read VIETNAM THE NECCESARY WAR it will tell you what really happened over there. We maintaned a military force that was under strick rules of engagement! While back at home weak college boys were whining about FREEDOM FIGHTERs? So when CHINA and The USSR were backing them it was all just farmers with pitch forks ehh? You have no idea the type of man that America grows from MLK to heroes like Carlos Hathcock, and Audy Murphy the type of men that came from nothing and did things under pressures and extreme situations that only a very small % of the world could relate to. These men stood and fought against overwhelming forces in battles that turned to legends. They didn't do it cause some clowns in Washington told em too. They did it for the love of their country and the love of their fellow soldiers! There is a reason that soldiers who have been through war look at others when they come back with a sort of astonishment that is because they know what they saw and experienced can never be understood back home. People going to college and talking about war like they comprehend it should realize that there is only 1 reason thay can even talk about it at all and that is The American soldier. While you sit at home think about this we are the only nation in the World that sacrifices its bravest to free others on a consistent bases. I understand what is at stake in this battle if we loose there will be a very large regime stretching accross the desert that will only have bad intentions for the entire Western World
Give it up with your "we are the bravest", "we are the only ones with balls" BS. No one cares but you.
You know nothing (seemingly) of international law, and really shouldn't comment on it. You are making yourself seem more ignorant with every post.
Also, how does a finance degree have any sort of relevance in an internatinal law discussion? Oh wait, it doesn't. Good thing you don't have to write many fact based papers in FT huh?
You know nothing (seemingly) of international law, and really shouldn't comment on it. You are making yourself seem more ignorant with every post.
Also, how does a finance degree have any sort of relevance in an internatinal law discussion? Oh wait, it doesn't. Good thing you don't have to write many fact based papers in FT huh?
Bad intantions means no one but the us can inforce things if they were at any point involved with them. duh.
Wow, your US public education system at work, ladies and gentlemen.
ianjenn: Seriously dude, you should read up a little bit on this stuff before you try and have a debate about it. The UN charter may be a good place to start. Every member nation has equal rights, except for the Security council members, where the US can't force anything through due to all members being given one vote each.
The US does not get to decide what the UN can and cannot do. The faster you (and the rest of the American populace who is as clueless as you seem to be) get this, the better off the entire world will be.
You guys made your bed over the last few decades, now you get to lie in it.
Martin Luther King wasn't a soldier. Carlos Hathcock got stiffed by the Marines when he was turfed with Multiple Sclerosis. Audie Murphy was a basketcase actor.
50 years ago you would have been an SS member gassing Jews because der Fuhrer told you it was a good idea.