Geneva Rules?... Hmm, nah

Part of "supporting the soldiers", entails knowing what the soldiers are doing.
If they were raping children, we have the right to know.
If they are defacating on an accused prisoner, we have the right to know.
If they are contravening an international agreement, we have the right to know.

I do not want to support a soldier or group of soldiers who defy international law or demonstrate an inability to act in a manner consistent with the ideologies espoused by the countries they represent.

"International Law"

What a joke.

candidone1 wrote:

Part of "supporting the soldiers", entails knowing what the soldiers are doing.
If they were raping children, we have the right to know.
If they are defacating on an accused prisoner, we have the right to know.
If they are contravening an international agreement, we have the right to know.

I do not want to support a soldier or group of soldiers who defy international law or demonstrate an inability to act in a manner consistent with the ideologies espoused by the countries they represent.

"International Law"

What a joke. Who's going to enforce that so-called law, Belguim?

If you don't have the wherewithall to enforce a law, you effectively ain't got a law.

What has the Canadian government charged Mohamed Harkat (who has been in custody there for years) with? Hmmm?

Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1974188

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged on Wednesday a debate within the U.S. government on whether an Army manual now under revision should permit different interrogation methods for "enemy combatants" than for traditional prisoners of war.

The Pentagon set out to revise the Army Field Manual, which sets standards for interrogations of prisoners, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, but its completion has been delayed repeatedly.

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.

Detainees at Guantanano Bay are more akin to pirates than soldiers. It would be more applicable to apply international law related to handling captured pirates to them rather than the usages of war.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?

Do you have the decency to even admit that if it is true, it wouldn't be a good thing?

Snood -- I don't mean to assign homework for you; but since you're a soldier on active duty, would you mind looking up what the current field manual actually says? It would be nice see the actual text that some in the Pentagon wish to change.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Despite the flippant attitude presented by McG, this is a huge problem... do people on the Right really think that it doesn't matter that we are preparing to abandon Geneva convention guidelines for the treatment of prisoners?

Are prisoners now, in fact, assumed guilty?

Cycloptichorn

Can you post something a little more convincing then "unnamed sources" says...

Perhaps a copy of the government order saying they are planning to abandon the Geneva convention guidlines, or perhaps a memo from Cheney detailing the same?

This is at least the second time you've posted drivel of this type. Would you care to respond the Duck's post?

FreeDuck wrote:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1974188

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged on Wednesday a debate within the U.S. government on whether an Army manual now under revision should permit different interrogation methods for "enemy combatants" than for traditional prisoners of war.

The Pentagon set out to revise the Army Field Manual, which sets standards for interrogations of prisoners, in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, but its completion has been delayed repeatedly.

Congress last year passed a law championed by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain to prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners and to create uniform standards for treating them.

The law called for interrogators to abide by standards enshrined in the Army Field Manual.

...

"It clearly is designed to comply with the law, let there be no doubt about that," Rumsfeld said.

Here's an idea for ya: RTFA before you spout off crap like your above post.

Quote:

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.

Those are not 'anonymous sources,' they are Cheney's chief of staff and the Undersecretary for Intelligence, directly quoted.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

"There is a debate over the difference between a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention and an unlawful combatant in a situation that is different from the situation envisioned by the Geneva Convention. And those issues are being wrestled with at the present time," Rumsfeld said.

Congress last year passed a law championed by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain to prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners and to create uniform standards for treating them.

Just that some one says it has been done is good enough for you cyc? Is that the standard you bear?