Geneva Rules?... Hmm, nah

Walter Hinteler
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 11:24 am
The new US Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current version] will not contain a classified section, despite warnings from some in the Department of Defense that disclosing certain techniques would undermine the ability of interrogators to extract information, military officials said Tuesday.

Interrogation techniques originally slated to be classified will be released publicly in the new manual or abandoned by the military. Defense officials considered classifying portions of the manual to prevent enemy combatants from preparing for interrogations, but Congress resisted the idea, contending that it would cast doubt on US compliance with the Geneva Conventions.
Last week, DOD officials said the manual would not include references to Article 3 [text], the provision common to all four of the 1949 Conventions that bans "cruel treatment and torture" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" of detainees.

The Pentagon has been working on a new version of the manual since the prisoner abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison surfaced in 2004, but has struggled to come to an agreement on revisions.
Delays in releasing the manual have been attributed to attempts to legitimize different interrogation techniques and allow the Army to obtain timely intelligence from prisoners, while complying with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [document (via JurisLaw)], which explicitly prohibits any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of persons in US custody.

AP (via yahoo news): Pentagon won't hide interrogation tactics
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 05:21 am
U.S. revises rules for detainees

The treatment will now follow the Geneva Conventions it is said.


source: Chicago Tribune, 07.09.2006, page 13
0 Replies
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 08:09 am
PANAMA CITY, Nov. 7 -- President Bush, defending a clandestine U.S. prison system abroad for terrorism suspects, said Monday that his administration would continue to aggressively battle terrorism in sometimes unconventional but always lawful ways.



0 Replies
old europe
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 08:55 am
McGentrix wrote:
Candidone, you can't have a war where only one side fights by the rules. That's a losing cause. The other side has been invited to follow the rules of engagment and combat and have opted not to follow them.

Why should they fall under the protection of the rules when they are no longer in combat, but have been captured?

Ah. Interesting. "You can't have a war where only one side fights by the rules"?

Hm. Could anybody explain to me why the police should be bound by the law, then? I mean, aren't they fighting a losing cause? After all, all the criminals have been invited to follow the law, but have opted not to follow it!

And why should criminals protected by the law? Why should they get a proper trial? Why should they have any rights at all? Why shouldn't the police be able to execute a thief on the spot? I mean, he has chosen not to follow the law, right?

Hey, come on now....
0 Replies
Reply Thu 7 Sep, 2006 02:47 pm
To any end, by any means necessary.
This was once the mantra of the criminals and terrorists, but it is now the unofficial doctrine of the United States....
Sadly, the justification is to disregard the principles that they preach to individuals and nations because the other guys are doing it too.

There is an appeal to a really high standard with this administration.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 12:14:12