Sigh, more lies about abuses

However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

old europe wrote:

Well, not exactly on the battlefield, as the Commander in Chief has pointed out. Otherwise they would be prisoners of war, and the Geneva Convention would apply, right? But, of course, the US have not declared war on Iraq or on Afghanistan, so there can't be any POWs, I have to admit - just 'enemy combatants'....

It is ironic that in the directive were Bush outlined this (ie that the Geneva Convention wouldn't be applied), this paragraph is to be found:

Quote:

The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.

Brandon, you are always pointing out the 'sawing off your head' as something utterly cruel (which it is). At the same time you virtually ignore that hanging somebody from the ceiling of a cell, breaking his legs and leaving him there to die is at least as cruel.

I don't fail to notice and accuse the first. But don't expect me to fail to notice the latter, too.

And let me add this: characterizing oneself as a shining city upon the hill while issuing memos that allow 'Category III techniques' (which would cover most of what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib, for example) is perceived as hypocrisy at best.

This is the image today's US of A have in the world, and flowery speeches about how the responsible persons will be put to trial won't help much, when it is in fact the Secretary of Defense or the President who call for suchlike action in the first place.

(addendum: in the meantime, Rumsfeld's directive to use 'Category III techniques' has been revoked, which leaves just Category I and Category II for interrogations. Technically.)

As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one. Hardly a high standard Brandon. And not a standard someone should hold if they want to point fingers at others.

Who we are fighting should have no bearing in our standards of decency. Otherwise you can justify almost any act.

Those that don't abide by the Geneva Conventions should not be treated by the Geneva Conventions.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Quote:

Those that don't abide by the Geneva Conventions should not be treated by the Geneva Conventions.

I see. So the US is no longer subject to the Geneva Convention because we didn't abide by it.

Our soldiers thank you Baldimo for your wonderful support of them.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

To declare that the Geneva Convention does not apply, Powell contended, "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions, and undermine the protection of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general." Powell also listed other negative consequences, such as undermining support among allies, and that it could even provoke investigations and prosecutions of U.S. troops by foreign prosecutors.

Brandon9000 wrote:

As far as I know, prisoners captured in a war have never been allowed to go to court as if they were accused of civil crimes.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. However, having said that, it is evident that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you seem to have no interest whatever in the fact that the scum we are fighting commit sins a thousand times worse than ours. No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one. Hardly a high standard Brandon. And not a standard someone should hold if they want to point fingers at others.

Who we are fighting should have no bearing in our standards of decency. Otherwise you can justify almost any act.

Once again I will repeat that the people responsible for illegal treatment of prisoners must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law...No, no, no, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't get our own house in order, but you have a double standard a mile wide, and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

You justify the crime by saying someone else did a worse one.

Learn to read. You appear to utterly ignore what people say in their posts and just sort of make up opinions for them that you can then criticize.

My only point is that there needs to be some perspective. It is absurd to concentrate only on this sin of ours and yet seem to be uninterested in the fact that our opponents are deliberately murdering children.

It's not irrelevant. My point was that discussing this kind of thing but not that kind of thing is perverse. I refuse to comply with your idea that discussing the discussion is off topic.

I note from your post, your overwhelming concern for the child murdering and neck sawing that our opponents are guilty of.