Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

P.O.W Interrogation and torture
FN Posted: Tue May 25 15:14:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Interrogation yes.

Torture no.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 15:16:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  an honest question:

where would you draw the line?


 
FN Posted: Tue May 25 15:24:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  How would you justify the torture of people, especially when you aren't 100% sure that they are guilty.

Torture can be mentally and it can be physically.

If you start fucking with basic human rights where will it end.


 
mat_j Posted: Tue May 25 15:44:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 15:45:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>How would you justify the torture of people, especially when you aren't 100% sure that they are guilty.
>
>Torture can be mentally and it can be physically.
>
>If you start fucking with basic human rights where will it end.

i didn't say i justified it...i'm just asking where you believe interrogation techniques end and mindfucking starts.


 
FN Posted: Tue May 25 15:46:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm pretty sure that's already described somewhere in the Geneva convention or in the human rights.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 15:47:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.

i don't think that can be a very good basis because that'll only work for governments with leaders who give a shit about their people. if you had said that to saddam he would have been free to do just about anything to pows


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 15:48:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I'm pretty sure that's already described somewhere in the Geneva convention or in the human rights.

actually it doesn't. all it states is it can't be inhumane. what i consider inhumane though and what others consider it to be may be totally different.


 
FN Posted: Tue May 25 15:52:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>mat_j said:
>>I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.
>
>i don't think that can be a very good basis because that'll only work for governments with leaders who give a shit about their people. if you had said that to saddam he would have been free to do just about anything to pows


You think the US government doesn't think there's anything wrong with what they did to their foreign prisoners, that much that they'd do it with americans?

I'd move out first chance I'd get.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 15:54:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>mat_j said:
>>>I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.
>>
>>i don't think that can be a very good basis because that'll only work for governments with leaders who give a shit about their people. if you had said that to saddam he would have been free to do just about anything to pows
>
>
>You think the US government doesn't think there's anything wrong with what they did to their foreign prisoners, that much that they'd do it with americans?
>
>I'd move out first chance I'd get.

i'm not saying that at all. if that was the case then those soldiers wouldn't be under trial right now would they...what i'm saying is it's not always a defined line. it has alot to do with judgement calls that these folks obviously were not trained to make. you are the one who's making this all about what happened at the prison...i was just asking where you believe the line should be drawn


 
mat_j Posted: Tue May 25 15:56:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>mat_j said:
>>I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.
>
>i don't think that can be a very good basis because that'll only work for governments with leaders who give a shit about their people. if you had said that to saddam he would have been free to do just about anything to pows

I'm talking about America here


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 16:03:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>casper said:
>>mat_j said:
>>>I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.
>>
>>i don't think that can be a very good basis because that'll only work for governments with leaders who give a shit about their people. if you had said that to saddam he would have been free to do just about anything to pows
>
>I'm talking about America here

still...even though we have a pretty good system we don't have a perfect one. who's to say we don't get some immoral person as president? i'm sure he could cause all kinds of attrocities without the public even knowing about it.


 
FN Posted: Tue May 25 16:06:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>i'm not saying that at all.

I'm not saying you are, just adding my thoughts.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 16:07:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>casper said:
>>i'm not saying that at all.
>
>I'm not saying you are, just adding my thoughts.

do you believe the government (as a whole...maybe some small parts of it did) condoned what those soldiers did?


 
FN Posted: Tue May 25 16:10:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Officially, no.


But frankly I don't think they actually gave a fuck either.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 16:16:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Officially, no.
>
>
>But frankly I don't think they actually gave a fuck either.

to a point i agree with you. i'm sure up until a few soldiers made some official complaints and an investigation was ordered they didn't give a rat's ass what occured in that prison. but i'm sure that would have been the case with ANY government. it's not the job of the highest ranking people in a government to oversee every detail. not only not their job but also impossible. i can't even blame rumsfeld...i can blame that female general and the person right above her though. from that point on down should be fried


 
FN Posted: Tue May 25 16:20:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wether it is possible or not, it is Rumsfeld's responsibility.

Ministers over here have resigned for much less than something like that, seriously, even thought they couldn't have prevented some stuff but they felt like they were responsible so they had to take up their responsibilities.


 
casper Posted: Tue May 25 16:23:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Wether it is possible or not, it is Rumsfeld's responsibility.
>
>Ministers over here have resigned for much less than something like that, seriously, even thought they couldn't have prevented some stuff but they felt like they were responsible so they had to take up their responsibilities.

he's responsible but not at fault. there's a big difference. since he's responsible he is the one that has to decide what should be done with those at fault. rumsfeld is not just dealing with those soldiers in iraq...he's dealing with the entire armed forces and DoD civilian population. he can't be held accountable for what a few specialists (fairly low ranking individuals if you don't know the army rank system) were doing.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue May 25 16:54:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  not really to do with the torture subject, but i was just thinking, we have a few older fellas who have been in military, was wondering if any of them ever had to serve in combat?








 
Asswipe Posted: Tue May 25 19:00:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  when someone enters the state of war they knowingly try to kill a group of people. how can you say that those in such a state should receive the same rights granted to people not in war? they enter war knowing death could be just around the corner, and if they put up the white flag, avoiding death, why should there be a limit to what we can put them through in order to get information from them? we don't kill them, we don't chop their fingers off(at least from what i've seen) and even if we have done those things, so what? it's fucking war.


 
antartica Posted: Wed May 26 06:36:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

The third Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War") covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. They are in the power of the enemy State, not of the individuals or troops who have captured them


Prisoners of war MUST be:

- Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour.
- Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.
- Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.
- Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.
- Supplied with adequate food and clothing.
- Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor's troops.
- Given the medical care their state of health demands.
- Paid for any work they do.
- Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) .
- Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

Prisoners of war must NOT be:
-Compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number.
- Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release).
- Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications.
- Held in close confinement except for breaches of the law, although their liberty can be restricted for security reasons.
- Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading.


most exactly the same as we were taught in boot camp.....


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 07:05:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That is all well and good, but the Geneva convention does not apply to captured terrorists.


 
antartica Posted: Thu May 27 07:12:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>That is all well and good, but the Geneva convention does not apply to captured terrorists.

agreed.

but in all fairness be you a terrorist or even if you happened to be of the wrong nationality on occupied soil, you are still technically a POW.

not that i am trying to sound like a terrorist-lover, am trying to see it from on the fence rather than on any side...


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 08:59:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>but in all fairness be you a terrorist or even if you happened to be of the wrong nationality on occupied soil, you are still technically a POW.
>
>not that i am trying to sound like a terrorist-lover, am trying to see it from on the fence rather than on any side...

i don't really agree with them being pows actually. that would give them the same rights as a standing army from a nation and they are clearly not. they don't fight other soldiers to win a war they kill innocent civilians. I'm not saying we have the right to torture the lil fuckers but i don't think we should have to give them the same rights as captured soldiers.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 09:03:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  We are talking about a group of people who would willingly murder millions of people without remorse, people who want to re-instate the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
I have no problem violating their human rights. As far as I'm concerned they are barely human. They don't build anything, they only kill and destroy.
Fuckem !


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 09:08:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>We are talking about a group of people who would willingly murder millions of people without remorse, people who want to re-instate the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
>I have no problem violating their human rights. As far as I'm concerned they are barely human. They don't build anything, they only kill and destroy.
>Fuckem !

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."----Friedrich Nietzsche


we can't lower our standards just because they are scum pieces of shit.


 
addi Posted: Thu May 27 09:10:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>we can't lower our standards just because they are scum pieces of shit.

yes, thank you


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 09:11:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>casper said:
>
>>we can't lower our standards just because they are scum pieces of shit.
>
>yes, thank you

ummm...your welcome? :)


 
antartica Posted: Thu May 27 09:17:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>"He who fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."----Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>
>we can't lower our standards just because they are scum pieces of shit.

exactly what i was trying to say... 'cept that ol Fried-dy's put it into words...

duno why but that WS quote kept coming to my mind...

No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, i know none, there fore am no beast. - Richard III - W. S'pear


 
mat_j Posted: Thu May 27 09:22:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>mat_j said:
>>casper said:
>>>mat_j said:
>>>>I suppose i'd draw the line at what you were willing to do to your own people in interogation training.
>>>
>>>i don't think that can be a very good basis because that'll only work for governments with leaders who give a shit about their people. if you had said that to saddam he would have been free to do just about anything to pows
>>
>>I'm talking about America here
>

>still...even though we have a pretty good system we don't have a perfect one. who's to say we don't get some immoral person as president? i'm sure he could cause all kinds of attrocities without the public even knowing about it.

I apologise, i'm not being clear enough here

What i'm saying is, elite units EG Rangers, marines or SAS have torture/interogation training, If you're willing to put your own men through it then that should be your limit on enemy forces. This has nothing to do with Saddam's or any 'rogue nations' torture agenda, I'm purely making this point with the context of western European and North American armies.



 
addi Posted: Thu May 27 09:28:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>ummm...your welcome? :)

don't even mention it. i'm nothing if not polite : )

and I would qualify my agreement with you by saying that by saying some are scum pieces of shit, just like some citizens of the U.S. (and every country)are scum pieces of shit.



 
antartica Posted: Thu May 27 09:30:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i mean a worser form of torture could be making the sods read some of these thread... : p


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 09:34:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>casper said:
>
>>ummm...your welcome? :)
>
>don't even mention it. i'm nothing if not polite : )
>
>and I would qualify my agreement with you by saying that by saying some are scum pieces of shit, just like some citizens of the U.S. (and every country)are scum pieces of shit.
>

Some are scum? are you saying that not all terrorists are scum?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 09:45:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So we should give them coffee and donuts and ask them kindly to divulge information that could save lives ?

I know that's oversimplifying but at what point do interrogation techniques become torture and where do you draw the line ?
If you look at the pics that everyone is seeing, is there any real torture happening ? I don't think so.
Everything else is just hearsay.


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 09:45:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>
>Some are scum? are you saying that not all terrorists are scum?

or were you just referring to iraqi nationals in general? in that case i agree with your qualification :)


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 09:52:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So we should give them coffee and donuts and ask them kindly to divulge information that could save lives ?
>
>I know that's oversimplifying but at what point do interrogation techniques become torture and where do you draw the line ?
>If you look at the pics that everyone is seeing, is there any real torture happening ? I don't think so.
>Everything else is just hearsay.

that was my question at the beginning of the thread. where does one draw the line? one of the main problems was that the people doing these things were in no way shape or form trained as interrogators. they should not have ever done anything but guard the prisoners. that's what they are for. and i'd be willing to bet they were all just normal MPs and not Internment/Resettlement Specialist which are supposed to be the peeps in charge of confinment facilities. I mean really...if you were being held by a foreign military force would the things on those pictures really make you break and talk? i think all that stuff was totally pointless.


 
addi Posted: Thu May 27 10:21:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>or were you just referring to iraqi nationals in general? in that case i agree with your qualification :)

one man's terrorist is another mans "freedom Fighter"
Ronald Reagan could have said that

*I was referring to Ali John Doe caught in the middle of this mess, who has been captured and put in prison as a terrorist.

I wouldn't call a true terrorist that would kill innocent civilians in Allah's name anything but scum shit.

the trick i'm sure is trying to tell the difference between the two.
Unlike, hif, I just can't see that the "intelligence" secrets these guys may have would be all that critical to our war effort.

private Joe: (gun and angry dog in hand) Where's Osama hiding?!

Mohammed POW: (on floor with hood over head and german shepard growling at his face): I no know! I NO KNOW!

private Joe: You piece of scum!! Tell us or I'll let the dog rip you a new one!(lets growling dog out further on leash)

Mohammed POW: Okay... Okay!! Uhhhhh..Osama hiding as clerk at 7-11 convenence store in San Fransisco!! NO DOG!! NO DOG!!

private Joe: Hehehe...i knew the lil'bastard was holding back on us!






 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 10:34:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Mohammed POW: (on floor with hood over head and german shepard growling at his face): I no know! I NO KNOW!
>
>private Joe: You piece of scum!! Tell us or I'll let the dog rip you a new one!(lets growling dog out further on leash)
>
>Mohammed POW: Okay... Okay!! Uhhhhh..Osama hiding as clerk at 7-11 convenence store in San Fransisco!! NO DOG!! NO DOG!!
>
>private Joe: Hehehe...i knew the lil'bastard was holding back on us!
>
Casper is right about the idiots that were guarding these guys.

If GI Ali was just a private in someone's army you may have a point Addie, but these guys are not regular soldiers and very possibly could have information about arms caches, plans for insurgency strikes, safehouses, etc.



 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 10:39:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yeah even the maj gen in charge of training interrigators say that alot of the stuff that went on there was prolly counterproductive to getting information because they'd say anything.

i'm not denying that what went on there was some okie doke shit. what upsets me is when people generalize what went on. there are 7 soldiers going to trial over this shit. yet everyone associated with that prison is going to have that stigma over their heads now. people keep saying how fucked up we are well if we were so fucked up why was it an AMERICAN soldier who made the complaint and it was AMERICA who investigated and put these soldiers under trial. You hear the people complain about how there is no difference between what we did and what saddam was doing during his reign well that's the difference...can you imagine if a guard complained to saddam about what was going on during his reign? that person would find out how it felt first hand i'm sure.


 
addi Posted: Thu May 27 11:12:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>If GI Ali was just a private in someone's army you may have a point Addie, but these guys are not regular soldiers and very possibly could have information about arms caches, plans for insurgency strikes, safehouses, etc.

i don't care if they're regular privates or irregular generals in anybody's army, hif.
The tactics employed to "gain information" were assinine and counterproductive to our efforts there.
I'm not saying mullycottle the prisoners, but all this smacked of vengence and hate tactics to me, rather than being sincere attempts to get strategic information from them. I of course have no way of knowing for sure, but would guess that the amount of useful information we got using these tactics wouldn't fill the extra small ribbed condom of mini-me.


*and casper please don't take my critisms of our intelligence gathering techniques of prisoners over there as equating our treatment of prisoners to the way some other countries treat prisoners (whoo, too long).
You're example of how Saddam was known to treat prisoners is right on. I guess I hold us to high standards and don't feel the need to lower them just because other countries do things differently.


 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 11:24:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>*and casper please don't take my critisms of our intelligence gathering techniques of prisoners over there as equating our treatment of prisoners to the way some other countries treat prisoners (whoo, too long).
> You're example of how Saddam was known to treat prisoners is right on. I guess I hold us to high standards and don't feel the need to lower them just because other countries do things differently.

oh i kinna figured that's how you felt and i'm the same way. if we don't hold ourselves to these standards then we have no right to criticize anybody when they do these things to us or to anybody for that matter. i was just venting :)



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 11:51:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>If GI Ali was just a private in someone's army you may have a point Addie, but these guys are not regular soldiers and very possibly could have information about arms caches, plans for insurgency strikes, safehouses, etc.
>
>i don't care if they're regular privates or irregular generals in anybody's army, hif.
>The tactics employed to "gain information" were assinine and counterproductive to our efforts there.
>I'm not saying mullycottle the prisoners, but all this smacked of vengence and hate tactics to me, rather than being sincere attempts to get strategic information from them. I of course have no way of knowing for sure, but would guess that the amount of useful information we got using these tactics wouldn't fill the extra small ribbed condom of mini-me.
>
No one is approving what those few idiots did. Those were not "tactics", they were just stupid. Still, I have no sympathy for those prisoners.
The problem I have where this is concerned is that those pics are being portrayed as real torture, which they are not, and they are being used as propaganda showing that this is what Americans are like, which is also untrue.
As far as real interrogation techniques are concerned, I have no problem using whatever means necessary to get useful information from these guys.
As for the Geneva convention, it does not apply to these guys, and in any event, we honor the Geneva convention because we expect our enemies to honor it as well, and in this case, that is not ever going to happen.


 
addi Posted: Thu May 27 13:14:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>As far as real interrogation techniques are concerned, I have no problem using whatever means necessary to get useful information from these guys.

like i said, it would be very interesting to find out what information we got by employing those techniques, and exactly how useful it was.

>As for the Geneva convention, it does not apply to these guys,

we part ways here. i think it does apply to them. we are in a war with iraq. they were captured as prisoners and held in a prison camp.


>we honor the Geneva convention because we expect our enemies to honor it as well, and in this case, that is not ever going to happen.

i don't care if our enemies never uphold it. i still feel strongly that we should


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 13:26:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>>As for the Geneva convention, it does not apply to these guys,
>
>we part ways here. i think it does apply to them. we are in a war with iraq. they were captured as prisoners and held in a prison camp.
>
The Geneva Convention clearly states that enemy combatants must be a member of a state sponsored army, wear that army's uniform and openly carry a weapon.
The guys that we have been capturing are most definitely not members of the Iraqi army, hell they are not even Iraqis.
You may wish to have these guys treated as per the Geneva Convention but we are most definitely not bound by law to adhere to it in this case.


 
addi Posted: Thu May 27 13:39:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm not seaching for loopholes with the origonal geneva convention. I'm looking at its intent

i see it as being bound by honor, decency and respect for basic human rights

not by a law




 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 27 13:55:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>i'm not seaching for loopholes with the origonal geneva convention. I'm looking at its intent
>
>i see it as being bound by honor, decency and respect for basic human rights
>
>not by a law
>
The Geneva Convention defines prisoners of war very clearly as follows:

Article 4

A. 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:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.




 
casper Posted: Thu May 27 15:08:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  it seems like we are all arguing different points here. i believe hif's arguments apply only to terrorists while addi is talking about how we treat a conventional army (i could be totally full of shit though :)) or maybe not even a federally recongized army but at least one that is fighting for a nation (i.e. iraqi nationals trying to take over the government)

as far as terrorists go they are criminals and therefore the geneva convention does not apply. as criminals their many of their basic human rights could and should be taken away.

now if they were just iraqi "freedom fighters" that's a different story. i'm not sure if i'd exactly grant them the same liberties that a regulation soldier would get but they should not be treated as criminals.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 28 13:29:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Contemptuous Al
Gore and the Geneva Convention.
By Rich Lowry


In his latest rip-roaring attack on the Bush administration, Al Gore basically called on everyone in the Pentagon's civilian leadership short of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs William Winkenwerder Jr. to resign. Their list of offenses is myriad, according to Gore, including a charge rarely heard in political debate "the impending loss of intimacy with one's soul." Gore is judge, hangman, and therapist, all in one.






The administration's gravest alleged misconduct is treating the Geneva Convention with contempt. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were "the natural consequence" of Bush policy, says Gore. He all but accuses President Bush of personally dressing Iraqi detainees in women's underwear. No respectable Bush critic would dare use Gore's inflammatory language he says Bush is running a "gulag," thus associating him with Josef Stalin but his essential charge on the Geneva Convention has been repeated even in more serious quarters. If Gore et al. want to scold the Bush administration for ignoring the Geneva Convention, the least they can do is properly understand its purpose and its provisions.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has been criticized for a 2002 legal memorandum in which he described parts of the Geneva Convention as "quaint." He was right. As law-of-war expert David Rivkin points out, the convention regarding treatment of prisoners was originally signed in 1949 with World War II in mind. Prisoners of war were assumed to be conscripts caught up in a war by no fault of their own, and therefore entitled not just to humane treatment, but to "Hogan's Heroes" treatment.

Under the Third Geneva Convention, POWs must be housed in "dormitories," and provided a "canteen," where they can buy "foodstuffs, soap and tobacco and ordinary articles in daily use." The canteen's profits must be available for the prisoners' use, and POW representatives must participate in the canteen's operation. "The practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners" must be encouraged.

The Bush administration, rightly, says these provisions don't apply to al Qaeda prisoners and other "unlawful combatants" with nothing in common with regular soldiers. Gore apparently disagrees. So captured al Qaeda big Abu Zubaida, for instance, should be held in a comfortable dorm setting and perhaps even avail himself of the occasional friendly chess game with a certain former vice president. He shouldn't be bothered with tough interrogation, from which the Geneva Convention protects POWs not when he has the operation of the local canteen to worry about. Will the market bear falafels priced at $3 or $5?

Treating Zubaida and other thugs thusly would do more to undermine the Geneva Convention than anything Gore is accusing Bush of. The convention was designed to disadvantage combatants who don't obey the laws of war by fighting out of uniform, lacking a discernable chain of command or targeting civilians. The distinction is meant to encourage combatants to honor relatively civilized standards of conduct in combat and foreswear such dangerous tactics as hiding among civilians.

Gore's absurd reinterpretation of the Geneva Convention to protect terrorists makes a huge intellectual concession to al Qaeda, former Baathist fighters, and other criminal groups that their men are indistinguishable under international law from American GIs. Gore is also willing to kiss off the intelligence gained from the kind of interrogation forbidden of regular soldiers under the Geneva Convention. Intelligence under interrogation has been crucial to the capture of Saddam Hussein and many high-level al Qaeda officials.

"Pvt. Lynndie England," Gore thundered in his speech, "did not make the decision that the United States would not observe the Geneva Convention." Put aside the fact that no one in the Bush administration decided to deny Geneva protections to those entitled to them. The suggestion that England's perverse conduct at Abu Ghraib was influenced one way or the other by Bush's interpretation of international law is ridiculous. She knows as little about the Geneva Convention as, well, Al Gore.




 
antartica Posted: Sat May 29 16:09:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>i'm not seaching for loopholes with the origonal geneva convention. I'm looking at its intent
>
>i see it as being bound by honor, decency and respect for basic human rights
>
>not by a law
>
>

yeah! let's not give them fresh underwear for a week!!!


 
addi Posted: Sat May 29 16:51:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  antartica said:

>yeah! let's not give them fresh underwear for a week!!!

hell, that's not even a punishment for most guys. they only change once every 2 weeks anyway

now me, i've always been paranoid about being subjected to the unexpected strip search by a beautiful security guardess porn star, so I change every hour.

ya can't be too careful about that kind of thing


 
antartica Posted: Sat May 29 17:06:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  haha... i'll try to keep that in mind.

i always thought those dozen buget packs was supposed to be for like "January...Feb...Mar..."


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 29 17:14:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So that's what they mean by "going commando" . . .


 
antartica Posted: Sat May 29 17:27:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>So that's what they mean by "going commando" . . .

actually... going commando is letting it "hang" i.e. NO UNDERWEAR... lol


 
FN Posted: Sat May 29 17:58:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wether this is real or not is open for discussion, so don't start with me, just thought it probably isn't too farfetched.




http://f.ulu.sitemynet.com/1.htm


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 29 18:03:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Wether this is real or not is open for discussion, so don't start with me, just thought it probably isn't too farfetched.
>
>
>
>
>http://f.ulu.sitemynet.com/1.htm
>
not enough information there.
Yes, the pictures with the captions are certainly incriminating, but
what is Israel's side of the story ?


 
FN Posted: Sat May 29 18:10:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Whatever Isreal's side of the story is, you can't shoot somebody when you have already secured them.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 29 22:35:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Whatever Isreal's side of the story is, you can't shoot somebody when you have already secured them.
>
in most cases that's true, but anyone can string some pics together and make it look bad.
Here in my town the cops shot a guy that they already had cuffed. There were protests and vigils and speeches, but it turned out the guy had somehow got hold of a razor knife and had lunged at the cop, he was actually able to produce it in front of himself even though he was cuffed from behind.
From those pics, we don't even know that the guy was shot. He could have been killed by some type of incendiary he was carrying on his body. He could have been killed by someone in the nearby crowd. Whenever there is only one side of the story, you can never be sure.


 
antartica Posted: Sat May 29 23:23:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>From those pics, we don't even know that the guy was shot. He could have been killed by some type of incendiary he was carrying on his body. He could have been killed by someone in the nearby crowd. Whenever there is only one side of the story, you can never be sure.


well.... dead men tell no tales...


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]