Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Bush Admin Tries to Change War Crimes Act
britoca
Member Posts: 1,484
Debate on this issue on democracynow.org:
Fearing Prosecution, Bush Admin Tries to Change War Crimes Act
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Comments
sorry man, just 2 topics and interviews I listened/read and thought were very interesting. /shrug
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
It makes sense to me. These "prisoners of war" aren't Private Ali or Corporal Mohammed of the Iraqi army, they are terrorists who very well might know something about other terrorist attacks or plans.
The Geneva convention protects soldiers of sovereign nation who wear uniforms and openly display their weapons. The insurgents in Iraq or terrorists anywhere else are none of these.
Ah, so as long as we don't call the opposition an "army", then we can torture them? We must not be at war then, we must be just be having fisticuffs with the insurgents.
BS.
We must not stoop to the level of those who would torture us. The protections in place from the Geneva Convention were established to PREVENT this sort of thing.
If someone supports torture... the supporter is a terrorist.
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
Ah, so as long as we don't call the opposition an "army", then we can torture them? We must not be at war then, we must be just be having fisticuffs with the insurgents.
BS.
We must not stoop to the level of those who would torture us. The protections in place from the Geneva Convention were established to PREVENT this sort of thing.
If someone supports torture... the supporter is a terrorist.
Read again. I'm not arguing for torture, only that the geneva convention does not apply to terrorists.
The Geneva convention protects soldiers of sovereign nation who wear uniforms and openly display their weapons. The insurgents in Iraq or terrorists anywhere else are none of these.
Do the terrorists fit all of these? They certainly don't fight for a sovereign nation, or wear uniforms.
The purpose of the geneva convention is to regulate war between nations.
I thought the supreme court already stated that the Geneva convention does indeed apply to all prisioners of war, uniformed or not, including the prisioners in guantanamo.
What u are saying is basically that the Nazis could have mistreated the French resistance, because, well, they had no uniform and they weren't an "army".
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Ah, so as long as we don't call the opposition an "army", then we can torture them? We must not be at war then, we must be just be having fisticuffs with the insurgents.
BS.
We must not stoop to the level of those who would torture us. The protections in place from the Geneva Convention were established to PREVENT this sort of thing.
If someone supports torture... the supporter is a terrorist.
Read again. I'm not arguing for torture, only that the geneva convention does not apply to terrorists.
The Geneva convention protects soldiers of sovereign nation who wear uniforms and openly display their weapons. The insurgents in Iraq or terrorists anywhere else are none of these.
Do the terrorists fit all of these? They certainly don't fight for a sovereign nation, or wear uniforms.
The purpose of the geneva convention is to regulate war between nations.
Oh, I read it just fine.
What bothers me is that some people actually think it matters whether or not the individual in captivity is a soldier in an army or an enemy combatant when determining if they should torture the individual.
Does fighting in a war without the banner of a nation remove their eligibility for human rights? And if such is the case, why are Americans getting upset that our people could be tortured? Afterall, it's open season without the Geneva Convention being applied as a standard for war, right?
My point is... no decent human being would use torture because it's not "technically" illegal. It's inhumane. I don't care how "evil" someone might be, or more to the point... how manipulated/brainwashed, torture is horrific, it's terror incarnate.
I wasn't indicating you were necessarily supporting torture, I was making more of a general statement. I definetly should have clarified that as I can see why you would have thought I was making a statement about you. Sorry for that.
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
The 1947 amendment from memory.
Sorry I can't find anything in the Geneva conventuion to back up my point about non uniformed insurgents, I'll keep looking for a bit, but I think it's best I withdraw that completely.
Here we go,
Protocol 1
section II
Article 43
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
In article 44 it goes on to explain that if for whatever reason a combatant fails to display any insignia, as long as he is openly carrying a weapon, he shall be protected by the treaty.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
What I found from the 1949 revision of the third geneva convention.
(Article 4) "Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy"
"Conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". Are blowing up restaurants and churches and kidnapping and murdering civilians in accordance with the laws and customs of war?
What do you think your bombs do when they fall on top of a city? They blow up restaurants, housing, etc as well.
And I don't care if they kidnap and murder people, many criminals do that for a living. We don't mistreat our prisioners in jails who do just that as well (we shouldn't, at least we got laws to prevent it). Even the Nazis weren't mistreated by us.
We have no right to mistreat anyone, or we're going right down to their level. There is no need for this whatsoever.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
What do you think your bombs do when they fall on top of a city? They blow up restaurants, housing, etc as well.
And I don't care if they kidnap and murder people, many criminals do that for a living. We don't mistreat our prisioners in jails who do just that as well (we shouldn't, at least we got laws to prevent it). Even the Nazis weren't mistreated by us.
We have no right to mistreat anyone, or we're going right down to their level. There is no need for this whatsoever.
You cannot excuse unacceptable behavior by pointing to other unacceptable behavior. Do you know what we do to those criminals? We execute them, or at least imprison them for the rest of their lives.
Let me pose this hypothetical to you:
You've just captured a terrorist and you have evidence to suspect he was a major player in a terrorist attack that is planned to take place sometime in the future. He won't respond to normal questioning.
Do you torture him, knowing that if you do you may gain information that could save thousands of innocent lives? Or do you not torture him, knowing that if you don't the attack may kill thousands of people?
Here we go, added in 1977.
Protocol 1
section II
Article 43
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Article 44.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
.
.
N.B.
Sabateurs agents and non uniformed infiltrators maybe held under the Geneva convention with all the normal rights of a standard combatant except one. Access. You may deny them access to the Red Cross for one year after the cessation of normal hostilities.
Here we go, added in 1977.
Protocol 1
section II
Article 43
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Article 44.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
Here we go, added in 1977.
Protocol 1
section II
Article 43
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Article 44.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
Let me put another hypothetical question to you.
You have torured abused and witheld the basic human rights of thousands and thousands of combatants. Do you go on torturing them and withholding their basic human rights years after the battle has ended. Or do you stop?
Correct! We do not torture them, humiliate them, handcuff them to their cell bars for days, etc, etc
And to answer your question: don't torture him.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Here we go, added in 1977.
Protocol 1
section II
Article 43
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Article 44.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
Indeed a fine line. This may protect some insurgents in Iraq, but it doesn't protect terrorists such as the ones arrested in the UK in that recent incident. It protects a guy who fights with an AK-47 but not one with a suicide vest under his clothes.
Considering that there are a wealth of credible studies that show information gathered during torture is more unreliable than that gained without, your theory is bunk.
People will say anything to make the pain stop, truth or fiction, they just want the hurt to go away.
Torture is wrong, it is disgustingly evil, and torture is terrorism.
- - - -
Support Independent Game Developers
What do you think your bombs do when they fall on top of a city? They blow up restaurants, housing, etc as well.
And I don't care if they kidnap and murder people, many criminals do that for a living. We don't mistreat our prisioners in jails who do just that as well (we shouldn't, at least we got laws to prevent it). Even the Nazis weren't mistreated by us.
We have no right to mistreat anyone, or we're going right down to their level. There is no need for this whatsoever.
I think the difference is, we do make an effort to avoid collateral damage (maybe not to the extent everyone would like), where as terrorists (insurgents) make every attempt to cause as much as possible. For example, terrorist bombs timed to go off once emergency crews (medics, firefighters) arrive.
*Nazi pows in the states were actually paid for work they did in the prison camps.*
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Let me put another hypothetical question to you.
You have torured abused and witheld the basic human rights of thousands and thousands of combatants. Do you go on torturing them and withholding their basic human rights years after the battle has ended. Or do you stop?
They should not be tortured unless they are thought to have been involved in terrorist activities that target civilians, and it is thought that information can be gained through torture that will save civilian lives.
Indeed a fine line. This may protect some insurgents in Iraq, but it doesn't protect terrorists such as the ones arrested in the UK in that recent incident. It protects a guy who fights with an AK-47 but not one with a suicide vest under his clothes.
The guy with the concealed suicidebomb is still protected by the Geneva convention, but he forgoes his right to access. You do not have to allow the Red Cross to visit him.
One year after the cessation of normal hostilities that right is regained.