We have finally stumped the pro-war crowd.

[DannyMay]

Have you noticed this issue has been on the board for 30 hours now, and they have all avoided it ? LMAO. No spin for this one so I will ask you guys again.



What do you pro-war guys think about our government crying about Iraq's treatment of our POW's when they have been gloating over the torture of Al Queda POW's ?

The only response we have gotten from a pro-war person was " We dont consider Al Queda to be POW's " I asked him, by the same reasoning couldnt Iraq kill all our POW's and say they dont consider them POW's ? No Response .

Any Idea pro -war folks, or you could just admit that in this instance our government is big fat hypocrites.

 

[Gargoyle]

Iraq could declare, as you stated, that our soldiers, are not pows and therefore kill all our pows, but they won't. Why? Because they are part of the United Nations and governed by the Geneva convention. Last time I checked, Al Qaeda was NOT part of the UN. It's a terrorist organization and therefore NOT protected by the Geneva Convention laws protecting POW's.

If I had in my custody a terrorist (Al Qaeda or other organization) who had knowledge of a major biological, chemical, or nuclear attack on...hmmmm, let's say Muncie, Indiana for all debatable purposes...then I would be all for the torturing of said terrorist if it extracted the information that would save American lives.

I don't believe it's hypocritical at all. We can play by 'their' rules, if they want.

 

[DannyMay]

These al queda prisoners are members of nations that are apart of the geneva convention, and thus it applies.

 

[Jazz]

Danny: no, it doesn't for terrorists - they are not fighting a war on behalf of their country, they're targeting and killing (for the most part) civilians, purposefully, for their own shitty cause.

You haven't stumped me on this issue of the Geneva convention - I've just ignored it. The issue for me is not the side issue (there is a very discernible difference between the two sides) but the sad horror that is the Iraqi regime. Sadder still is that the reason a cruise missile has not taken out their TV station is because according to reports they've situated a goddamn nursery in that building, with full knowledge the US will not attack.

A goddamn nursery. Human shields for their troops, stupid foreign human shields for propaganda, ambushing soldiers under the flag of truce - you would have a kiniption fit (and quite rightly) if the US did any of those things - defending these people with respect to the Geneva convention in this case is a complete, horrible joke, IMHO.

 

Danny May.

Torture is Torture.

Its about being humane. No difference. our government makes rules as they go, because they are the almighty.

It will bite all of us in the ass soon enough. If not directly, our children.

 

Most of the 'Geneva Convention' dealt with Combatants and what made a "Combatant" a Combatant was layed out in certain terms.

*Not sure* if non-uniformed people acting without a Nation's sanction were considered Combatants.

- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth

 

I don't think that there is a good response to this topic because it IS hypocritical. No doubt. If you ask me that you have someone that has the kind of information that would prevent what happened on 9-11, I say hold 'em down and I'll hook the jumper cables to his balls. I know that having said that means that I would condone the same thing happening to the captured allied forces. I would love to say that I unequivocally don't but the truth is that these are soldiers and know that this is always a possiblity. I never was comfortable with all the "rules and regulations" in war. It ALL seems so hypocritical. Kind of a "humane" inhumanity. My feelings instinctly say that I am totally against torture of any kind but if you tell me that someone has a member of my family captive and I have the person who knows where they are or can free them, again, I say pass the cables. Hypocritical---absolutely, but what else is Rumsfeld to say? It's a fine line.

 

[kayaman+]

"Torture is Torture."

Very true General.

If we justify it, someone else will justify using it against us.

Aside from that we are considered my many the most uncivilized, savage first world nation because of things like the use of the death penalty and the lack of gun control.

Torturing prisoners would do nothing to help our image nor international relations.

 

[Jazz]

btw, it may not be clear what I meant concerning Al Queda - I'm NOT saying they should be tortured because the Geneva convention doesn't apply to them - I'm saying the Geneva convention does not apply to them, so in some respects of the various articles the US is not obligated to apply them, just as they do not apply the Geneva convention to common criminals. Other laws apply in the case of Al Queda, including their lengthy detention. Would I condone torture? No.

 

[gamblingislife]

Khalid Sheik Mohammed Is being held in Pakistan by Pakistanian authorities. And if he's being tortured by them for information then as you anti-war guys say about US soilders tough shit.

 

[gamblingislife]

Oh by the way how many bullet wounds does he have in his head? And how many US soilders did Saddam torture in the first gulf war, try all of them. Don't try to compare the way we treat our captives with what they are doing to our soilders.

 

[Banned4Life]

>*Not sure* if non-uniformed people acting without a Nation's sanction were considered Combatants.

I would think they should be considered accused criminals and put on trial for their alleged criminal acts.

And Taliban prisoners are different from al-Qaeda because the taliban soldiers WERE fighting for a nation's army (in this case Afghanistan), and thus should be treated as POWs.

 

imo, the comment isnt worth a response.

 

[Firstcomesshockthen.....]

.

[This message was edited by The General on 03-24-03 at 09:42 PM.]

 

[DannyMay]

Razz,

Very honest answer. I am against the war but I still dont like seeing our P.O.W.'s like that. I am just saying that when Bush and our other leaders get all high and mighty it makes me wonder because our government does the same hideous things. (like allowing media with the units in a war zone).

FatFrank is right. I have researched it a little and there is great disagreement even amongst political scholars as to whether geneva convention would apply to Al Queda. My opinion is it definitly should.

However, the american taliban was fighting for the taliban and thus he would be covered under the rules. He was shown all over our television and asked far worse questions that the few I have seen the Iraqi's asking.

 

[radiofreecostarica]

Danny: no, it doesn't for terrorists - they are not fighting a war on behalf of their country,

This is BushLaw, not named in the Geneva Convention.
Like it or not, they are still citizens of UN member nations and signatories of the Geneva convention.

 

[Oceans11]

These guys are either POWS.
Or they are criminals.

Both groups have certain rights in a civilised society.

The nearest thing I can think of to compare Guantanamo with is the political persecution thats carried out in the mickey mouse countries of the world.

People that are banged away, no trial, no status, no rights.

Put them on trial, call them POWS, or let them go.

 

[Jazz]

eek: ah, not true, that they have certain rights in a civilised society - Al Queda are terrorists, they do not represent a government, so they have neither the rights of the country they are from nor do they have any rights that a U.S. citizen, even a criminal, would have.

Meaning, they are in a 3rd category apart from POW and criminal to whom the laws of a civilized society apply. For lack of a better word, call them a TIC (Terrorist in Captivity) who require different handling. Torture, no.

 

[Oceans11]

You're ducking the issue man.

Put them on trial, for their crimes.
or: Declare them POWs.
or: Let them go.

The only category LEFT, is political prisoner.

Guantanamo makes the USA look really bad in the eyes of other Western countries, (never mind the other places that dont like you anyway.)

Its basic International law, and separates the mickey mouse places from the half-decent places.

 

[Jazz]

Not according to a lot of legal experts, eek. I respect your opinion on this, if I had to choose I'd put them in a military trial with capital punishment as an option, but I don't have to.