THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

c.i., i dont know if "the majority" were released (perhaps others here do), but I know many have been released since. And as for how many of them were actually dangerous insurgents (let alone Al-Qaeda terrorists posing a danger to millions of your countrymen), as the NYT put it:

Quote:

civilian and military intelligence officials, as well as top commanders with access to intelligence reports, now say they learned little about the insurgency from questioning inmates at the prison. Most of the prisoners held in the special cellblock that became the setting for the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib apparently were not linked to the insurgency

0 Replies

How do you know if someone is a terrorist or not?

Are these people not considered to be innocent until proven guilty?

If they do not have that right, can we truly say that we believe that all men are equal under god? Or, should it be, all AMERICANS are equal under god?

Answer my question, Fox. How would you want them to treat your brother in this situation? How about your sister or mother?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So lets get past that and deal with the current issue.

Reason I keep connecting it is because those whom I have seen raise this question raised it in response to the Abu G. fracas. Like this: liberals lambast the Abu G.-type practices; conservative asks - well, sure, but what would you do if you were faced with dangerous terrorists upon whose information the lives of millions of your countrymen rests? You, too, did so when you first asked the question, skipping right from condemning "Abu G." to asking whether "preventing another 9/11 [isn't] worth making an avowed terrorist a bit uncomfortable". Well, my first answer then unavoidably remains, but we were not talking about such terrorists here. Its the equation thats being sneaked in, in order to make us more "understanding" about how things could go wrong sometimes, that makes me furious, not the question itself.

In any case, I would go to any length international law would allow. Since Holland, I think, has ratified the Fourth Convention as well, that means including adherence to the Geneva Conventions. I'm not intimately knowledgeable of the various rules in there, so I'll just have to leave it at that.

The other answer is: I would go as far as I would accept the enemy state to go when they held one of my countrymen as suspect. That means no torture.

So, the question remains. What means would you consider legit for another or enemy country to apply to one of your countrymen if they thought he was a terrorist?

0 Replies

"Majority" may have been a misuse of the word, but it was my understanding they numbered in the hundreds.

0 Replies

Note that they don't have a quick answer for that one, Nimh... I think we really hit a soft spot with that question.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo, I wouldn't put any money on it just yet. Wink

0 Replies

I gotta say I find the abuse which occurred wholly repugnant. The perpetrators are due all legal sanction, and the matter demands thorough investigation. The fundamental systemic flaws which permitted the situation to arise must be addressed and rectified.

Now, just to throw a little fuel on the fire ... re the Geneva Conventions pertaining to Prisoners of War; essentially they do not apply. The Geneva Conventions emphatically and specifically extend Prisoner of War status only to uniformed combatants. To qualify for inclusion under the provisions of The Geneva Conventions, an individual must be a documented member of an organized hierarchical military operating under orders relayed through a distinct chain of command. Further, that individual must, if bearing arms, do so openly, and in any event, must be clearly distinguishable from civilians by means of a uniform or other unambiguous device, insignia or other plainly visible uniquely distinctive marker signifying that individual's status to be military as opposed to civilian. Any uniformed combatant operating outside established lawful orders, or a mercenary, defined as one paid more than the customary amount allotted to regular soldiers for same or similar duties and operating under a command structure distinct from, even if under the orders of, the established military of a belligerant state, taken under any circumstance, or any ununiformed combatant taken while under arms or while otherwise engaged in, abbetting or otherwise associated with belligerent activity, regardless of affilliation or command structure, is exempted from the provisions of the Geneva Cconventions by those conventions themselves.

While there is no exemption from the universal protocols of human decency and the respect for individual basic human rights, nor should there ever be, the fact remains that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to mercenaries, ad hoc irregulars, clandestine militias, unruly mobs, or criminals. While I certainly cannot countenance, and empatically do not endorse mistreatment of such individuals, I see no way any such individuals may lay claim to protection under the provisions and protocols of the Geneva Conventions, or the predecessor Hague Conventions.

0 Replies

I note that no liberal to date has been able to answer the question 'what would you do' either. Conservatives may not choose to answer it, but I guarantee most will have an answer to that question.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I note that no liberal to date has been able to answer the question 'what would you do' either.

Well, I just did, so now its your turn ;-)

0 Replies

woah there. I answered your question on the last page, remember? In case you can't tell, I am a liberal.

And please, tell me - how would you want your relatives to be treated in the same situation?

Cycloptichorn

On edit, I even went and fetched it for you.

Quote:

I can say what is acceptable interrogating terrorists.

It's okay to question. I don't even have a problem with solitary confinement. But humiliation? Physical abuse? Starving prisoners of food and water? No. Those are not okay.

Even if it means we don't get the information we need. It's not okay to stoop to the enemy's level, it makes us as bad as them. Happy now?

Also, Fox, you may want to read Blatham's post carefully - he does point out several instances in which your argument is logically fallacious. I'm not trying to attack your ideas by saying that, just saying that you should examine the structure of your arguments to make them a little stronger Smile

0 Replies

The overriding rules of humanity are not based on any "convention" signed on a piece of paper. To keep arguing who is and who isn't protected by these "conventions" is a moot point. It has already been proven that "normal" people can exact torture on others whether in a war environment or in a US college. The question is what is "my moral" stance? I didn't approve of our government's preemptive attack on Iraq that killed over 10,000 innocent men, women and children. That is a moral issue which is not covered by any "convention." It's what "you" would do.

0 Replies

Great point c.i.

Forget about what is legal, ask yourself what is right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Double post

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn, to answer your question...

Is my brother's organization involved in blowing things up? are there similar people to him blowing things up? Does he look and act suspicious? Does he fit the profile of people that are blowing stuff up and killing people? Is he trying to hide amongst the populace while perpetrating these vile acts?

Or, is he just a random white guy trying to spread the word of God?

In the first example, I would expect the Iranian government to question him thoroughly as he knew the risks of getting caught by the acts of others.

In the second, I would expect him to questioned and released because he had the power of the US government behind him and they would frown heavily at the fact a US missionary was being held illegally by the Iran government.

Does that answer your question? Is 60 minutes too long a wait?

0 Replies

Moral's and world politics have nothing to do with each other. I thought everyone knew that already.

0 Replies

Does it matter WHAT your brother is involved in? All that matters is that they BELIEVE he is involved in a bad organization. How he is treated should not change.

Quote:

In the first example, I would expect the Iranian government to question him thoroughly as he knew the risks of getting caught by the acts of others.

What if he wasn't, but they said he was? How would that be any different from how we have acted? Is it that easy for the gov't to tell who is actually in a terrorist organization? Maybe they should put YOU in charge of figuring that little fact out, because apparently you can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them. A rare ability, indeed.

Quote:

In the second, I would expect him to questioned and released because he had the power of the US government behind him and they would frown heavily at the fact a US missionary was being held illegally by the Iran government.

So, forget anything about MORALITY McG. The fact that the US has political and military supremacy gives us the right to hold prisoners to a different standards than they hold ours to.

Your facist colors are really starting to bleed through, man. You may want to switch laundry detergents.

You really don't sound like anything America stands for, do you know that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

huh!

0 Replies

From worldnetdaily. It explains why conservatives think as they do.
****************
That's how the diplomatic game is played, Russian style.

George Bush trusts Vladimir Putin. He looked into Putin's eyes and saw the salt of the earth. What anyone sees, to be sure, is skin and hair. One sees the facial expression of a trained spy. Wink and nod however you please, the Putin you see is not the inner man. The American president has no right to this inner man. He has no passage. The deeper person has suffered more, has thought more, and has escaped greater dangers. There is no equality here.

The question is thus posed: How does a lesser intelligence comprehend a greater intelligence?

I am not saying that Bush is stupid. Yet every mind has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Bush has many strengths, but his American nature and his American experience ill prepares him to face the KGB. Of course, Putin is friendly. He admits that Russia has an anti-American bureaucracy. Not to worry, Mr. President, if you will fight your country's hardliners, I will fight my country's hardliners.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Does it matter WHAT your brother is involved in? All that matters is that they BELIEVE he is involved in a bad organization. How he is treated should not change.

Quote:
In the first example, I would expect the Iranian government to question him thoroughly as he knew the risks of getting caught by the acts of others.

What if he wasn't, but they said he was? How would that be any different from how we have acted? Is it that easy for the gov't to tell who is actually in a terrorist organization? Maybe they should put YOU in charge of figuring that little fact out, because apparently you can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them. A rare ability, indeed.

Quote:
In the second, I would expect him to questioned and released because he had the power of the US government behind him and they would frown heavily at the fact a US missionary was being held illegally by the Iran government.

So, forget anything about MORALITY McG. The fact that the US has political and military supremacy gives us the right to hold prisoners to a different standards than they hold ours to.

Your facist colors are really starting to bleed through, man. You may want to switch laundry detergents.

You really don't sound like anything America stands for, do you know that?

Cycloptichorn

You said "Well? If the Iranian government captured your brother, who was doing missionary work in Iran, and accused him of being a terrorist, how would you want him to be treated?

Understand that they have a responsiblity to their people to ferret out terrorism. Does that make it okay for them to torture him? "

I answered your question. Now, are you changing the question? Because my brother looks nothing like a Iranian, he couldn't possibly ever be mistaken for an Iranian and therefore would stick out like a sore thumb. Now, I ask you, how many of those poor, innoncent terrorists look like middle eastern men? They call it profiling for a reason. Now, if there were a bunch of white guys in Iran that were terrorising everyone and he was picked up, I would expect the Iranian government to act like the Iranian government. I would not, however, expect the people questioning, holding my brother to act like the Iranian government, I would expect them to act like the people they are. Some are good, some are bad. I would expect him to be questioned. Then, if they were not satisfied with his answers and they had some reason to expect he was lying to hide a greater scheme of killing more Iraqi's, I would expect they would do what needed to be done. Iran doesn't really have a stellar reputation in regards to human rights to begin with.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irn/index

0 Replies

Wow. Way to dodge the question.

An official policy cannot be determined by whether the people holding the prisoner are 'good or bad.'

Basically by reading your statement, I see that you DO believe that the ends justify the means, an accusation I have previously levelled at you.

You, sir, are no American. Your comments do not reflect the nature of the American spirit in the slightest. While I am sure you will discount my statement immediately, I really think you should read the constitution and bill of rights a few times and take a good long look at what you've become.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know