Geneva Convention/Terrorists; protecting hatred

[Wren57]

With the abundance of liberals today, it somewhat surprises me we don't have more on HST (or perhaps they are silent due to not wanting to state opinion or too ignorant to compile a complete, coherent opinion). Whatever the case, it just shocks me. I was debating the application of Geneva Convention to terrorists per Sec. Gonzales on www.my350z.com, and there are very well articulated (although ultimately wrong ) liberals there, but there don't seem to be any here. Correct me if I am wrong, but here it seems to be the right-wingers (myself included), the middle, a few liberals (chriscantskate actually had good opinions when he used to post in political threads), and then the people who say that everyone is wrong and they are right.

Anyway, what does everyone think about Gonzales more-or-less authorizing torture of terrorists, citing it is not mentioned in the Geneva Convention?

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention1.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention2.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention3.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention4.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol2.html

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by highlander

Anyway, what does everyone think about Gonzales more-or-less authorizing torture of terrorists, citing it is not mentioned in the Geneva Convention?

forgive me for not reading that book you posted first but im gonna take a stab in the dark at what is going on... we're tourturing terrorists to try and get info out of them, then saying its ok cause its not in the geneva convention?

well... if thats the case, i have to strongly disagree with it. we are the ultimate world hypocrate, we deemed sadam(im not trying to tie iraq into this, just making a point) an evil person worthy of overthrowing via military force(this wasnt the only reason, but after the WMD thing fell through there was the "well he is a shithead to his people so its still ok" argument) for tourtuing his own people, and for what reason? to get info out of them. they COULD have been trying to overthrow him, and he may have known that they couldnt, but wanted to nip it in the bud if possible. now im not trying to say that he is right or wrong, but it happened. it looked bad to the rest of the world but in his mind, in his place, it was an acceptable way to conduct interrogations.

now the united states, the land of liberty and justice, who had the god given right to play world police is turning around and doing the exact same thing? why? because some of the people living or passing through our country might be terrorists? tourture is a fast and not always accurate way to get a confession out of someone. you strap me to a spring board and pump 10,000 volts through me i'll tell you who shot kennedy. its not going to be right, but if you think i know, and i tell you what you wana hear to get you to stop shocking the shit out of me, im more or less happier than i was 5 mins ago, and you think you're interrogation went off great and a huge step forward in stoping terrorists or what have you. i really dont like this cause if just ONE person is really innocent and has to be put through that hell because our semi-accurate intellegence points the finger, hell will break loose over the world. if we do this, we're no better than any 3rd world dictator. maybe its my pride getting in the way, but i'd rather be known for living what we speak and giving every person an equal opportunity to plea their case or whatnot, instead of pushing said ideas on one country then turning around and doing the exact opposite cause its for OUR greater good... no wonder everyone hates us.

[GT40FIED]

I thinkthe reason you don't find so many classic liberals voicing their views is because people are starting to realize there isn't just 2 trains of political thought. More and more people don't think of themselves as liberal or conservative. Most people of the thought that you can only be one or the other would probably label myself as a liberal, but I still like my tobacco, my guns, and my big loud cars. I think people just see what they want to see when they look at the other side of that fence.

As for Gonzales' authorization of torture, that's a touchy one. One could make the argument that it has the potential to save lives, I suppose. The flipside of that would be that it's a slippery downhill slope. I mean...who do we decide to torture? Is there a criteria? Surely most of the people in Guantanimo Bay don't have detailed information of future actions or current hierarchy (many may not even be part of a group...simply fighting for ideological reasons). But then it becomes a challenge to identify who knows what and when such tactics are justified. Taken from Article 3, part 2 of the General Provisions:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now to me that would define most (though not all) terrorists as POWs and thus entitled to rights under the Geneva Convention. If they're not a militia, they're usually part of an organized resistance movement. I suppose the next question becomes whether or not we want to violate those protocols (although I'm sure others will differ from my interpretation of that) in order to protect innocent lives should we ever be struck again. There's really almost too many factors to consider here...but in principle I would say any torture of a detainee would violate what I see as part of the Geneva Convention. Then again...we're the U.S. government. It's not like anyone knows what we're really doing at any given time. I don't think anyone's looking to protect hatred, per say. I think any logical human being would be against hatred. That's like saying you're for creating jobs. Who's going to argue with that? I think it's more about, as Chris pointed out, maintaining a legitimacy within the world community. With great power comes great responsibility and since we're leading the charge to be in the moral right, it's up to us to maintain a higher standard. It's about sticking to the letter and the spirit of the rules, not trying to find loopholes in them.

Edit: Since Chris posted as I was typing, some of this has been edited for brevity to not duplicate stuff he already said. Woot.

[Wren57]

Good points so far guys. I certainly am against torture for the hell of it, but if we have reason to believe a terrorist is witholding information that could save lives, it is my strong belief that we should do anything and everything possible to try to extract that information. The problem is the media and the public. Torturing for information is happening; make no mistake. However, it hasn't leaked yet (except Abu Grahb sp?). I'm not arguing the morality of torture, as that is a whole other issue. I think first we should focus on the legality (of lack thereof) of torture.

Steve, what you posted is very interesting. Might I point out one line;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The thing that strikes me most about this is that they DO NOT have a sign/uniform. Therefore they do not meet all conditions required to apply to the Geneva Convention.

[V8killimports]

Actually they have violated many laws and customs of war, and cannot be considered POWs under current guidelines. If you want them to be considered POWs you would need to rewrite a number of guidelines. The ones you pointed out are part, but the rules go well beyond that.

For example, if I am captured I should be treated as a POW and protected under guidelines set by the geneva convention. But if I attempt an excape, and kill a guard in the process I am no longer protected by the geneva convention, no longer a POW, and now a criminal and able to be tried, imprisoned, and executed for murder. But as it stands, and due to terrorist groups open actions, they gave up their POW status (which they were never qualified for in the first place) long ago.

And on a side note... some pussies describe sleep deprevation as torture. You wanna talk about torture I can get you in contact with my best friends dad who spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton..

[V8killimports]

And none of these terrorists have fixed signs or anything visable at a distance.. in this case they are talking about either a uniform, or even some type of armband. What these terrorist do day to day in the states, iraq, or where ever actually falls under the espionage category.

[GT40FIED]

True...they don't have uniforms...although I'm sure they'd wear 'em if they could afford 'em. Seriously though, that's what I mean about finding loopholes and splitting hairs. They fall under the spirit of the convention, if not the letter of it. Anyone can look at it and understand it's meaning and being in the position we're in, I don't think we should try and skirt that idea. Trust me, I would like nothing more than information that could protect people at home as well as our troops abroad even if I don't agree with the job they have to do, but as Chris said, it becomes tricky when people will tell you just what you want to hear to get out of hell. Legally I'm sure there's an army of lawyers ready to throw depositions and briefs all over the place to quickly label these people non-members of the Geneva Convention but once again I would hope we don't go looking for holes or spelling errors to make us feel better. Like I said...it's a slippery downhill slope. If it's ok to torture them in detainment, does it become of to torture them on the battlefield? Does it make that one guy (Marine, was he?) innocent of killing that Iraqi "insurgent" because the guy wasn't fighting to the letter of Geneva? This is one of those cases where legality and morality are hard to seperate.

[V8killimports]

What torture are they talking about BTW? I am sure it's sleep deprevation at the most we are talking about which is NOT torture.

Also, the insurgants would NOT wear a uniform.. at most they could just have an armband, or certain colored headwrap.. something like that. But this groups' whole strategy is blending in with local population so they can attack first without being discovered. Identifying themselves would help us a great deal.. which is why they won't.

And I really find it sad that the press focuses on things like sleep deprevation as torture while you have a US citizen captured, who I bet you will end up having his head sawed off with a knife.. perfect balance.. the sleep deprevation is just as horrible if not worse..

[V8killimports]

And like I said they DO NOT fall under the geneva convention.. If they wore a simple armband or something along those lines.. and didn't specifically target their own people, then you might have a good arguement.. but they don't.

[GT40FIED]

So to that effect, where does the Geneva Convention start? If they're not members of a militia or organized resistance movement (which they clearly are even if they do lose points for not following one criteria of Geneva), what are they? Combatants? Civilians? If you dug hard enough through the GC (sorry...I'm getting sick of typing it out every time), I'm sure you could probably find some provision protecting them. The whole point of the GC is that once captured your enemies be treated humanely. You don't have to coddle them...just don't hook a car battery up to their nuts. I totally agree with you, Mike as far as what we're doing in contrast to what they're doing...but they didn't sign the GC and we're the ones trying to take the high road here. If we wanted to fight dirty, that wouldn't be too hard.

[V8killimports]

Actually just the fact that they didn't sign it pretty much disqualifies them from it I believe. Granted, because we signed it we are to follow the rules and treat POWs and certain groups outlined in a decent manner.. but again, they don't fall under that. I don't know what they are.. they are combatants.. not civilians really.. so I dunno, but are not POWs if captured.

Again it's funny how you have fuckers who don't play by the rules, but will be the first to call you a cheater. I saw fine.. you don't wanna play by the rules.. fine.. we really don't either.. now you're gonna pay the piper mother fucker.

[GT40FIED]

So if they're not POWs they'd simply be detainees, right? Don't detainees as well have some sort of protection under the GC? I'm not saying we should serve them caviar (sp?) on toast points...but I don't think torture does anyone any good. First of all it sure as fuck doesn't help the person being tortured. Secondly it won't give us much clout in the world community. Sure...there are people who think we can go it alone and fuck the what the rest of the world thinks of us. These people are what I like to call "morons". Sure...militarily we might be able to swing it alone...but if we start pissing enough people off we'll suffer economically and we give creedence to those who wish us harm. My point is that regardless of whether this sort of thing is spelled out explicitly in the GC or not, if we want any sort of standing in the world when it's all over we need to exercise a bit of restraint with those in custody.

BTW Chris...given enough time, I'm sure I could prove that I killed Kennedy. Disregard the fact that I was born almost well over a decade later...I think I could pull it off.

[V8killimports]

Again.. funny how the terrorists don't have to follow any rules whatsoever.. wreak havoc all over the world.. are actively pursuing chem, bio and nuc weapons, don't care who, where, or how they kill people. And the question that gets raised is "aww they can't sleep because the military plays marching music loud.. isn't that aweful?". No who gives a shit.. If you are gonna tease a big dog prepare to get your ass chewed. And if you want them classified as a POW that's fine whatever.. this war can last 50 years for all we know. So they can be detained for that long. I can't stand when people point fingers at the wrong shit.. that's like some woman getting raped in plain view in the middle of the street, but everyone devotes their attention to the 8 year old kid shoplifting a candy bar.

And what torture exactly? Again I see nothing that shows torture or mistreatment towards the detained criminals at Gitmo.

[GT40FIED]

Well...you can condemn wrong doings on both sides of the lines. I remember agreeing with you in the thread about the guy who executed the Iraqi guy...this isn't a whole lot different. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but we (I believe) have a duty to treat detainees/prisoners humanely so long as they're in our custody. If we start behaving like terrorists in tactics and ethics, how can we claim to be any better than them? Let them keep up their stupid bullshit...it's not like they're going to win anything by doing so. At least we'll save some face in the world spotlight.

I don't think we're talking about actual acts of torture undertaken yet...but that Gonzales guy pissed a lot of people off by saying something to the effect that he wasn't opposed to torture. Oh well...it's not like our last attorney general was that much of a gem.

[Mischief]

You're all wrong I'm right.

[V8killimports]

Ok.. save face in the world, or save 1000s (or more) people. Again.. if guy X knows of a terrorsit plot to set off a nuke that is in NYC. It is already there let's say.. the terrorist cell has the means to set it off and level the city.. and detainee X knows.. what should we do? Make sure he gets plenty of rest.. food, and the A/C works in his cell?

Again, they wanna be treated like POWs then run around in some sort of uniform to make the game fair. If they want to play dirty and suckerpunch us every chance they get, expect the same in return.. so not.. they do not fall under the GC.. and that is completely their choice..

[GT40FIED]

But how do you acertain what detainee X knows for sure? Like Chris said, you can get information out of just about anyone. It just might not be right. With all of those people it'd be almost impossible to make sure who knows what. Then, if you do start torturing someone, where do you draw the line before you decide he doesn't know anything or whether or not he's telling the truth? Do you take him right to the edge of death and then, if he hasn't spoken or if he's spoken but given incorrect information, do you let him go? Do you lightly "jog his memory" and hope he's got a weak will? This is another example of a slippery downhill slope where judgement takes the place of reason. There are no rules for torture and as much as I'd love to see some tip save innocent lives, I don't think it's worth the moral inequities of torturing people who know nothing ad nauseam to attempt to get information. Hell...we have one of the most evolved intelligence gathering communities in the world. Using torture to get information would insult said community. Either you have faith in the intelligence collected or you use torture. You pick.

[ChrisCantSkate]

v8.. i can see what your saying and where your coming from. they are in the "loop hole" that i guess techniquly allows us to do whatever to them. but you see... thats exactly why people hate us. i dont know why this hasnt been brought up but isnt it sodium penathal or something along those lines thats a truth drug? the only way to get any info out of terrorists would be to take away their free will since time and time again they have proven they will die for what they believe in. i know you dont care about face with the rest of the world, but i believe we can still play world police but do things right and not stoop to their level, and not piss off the next generation of terrorists in the process. i mean.. tourturing people? what is this the 6th century?

[IALuder]

am i the only one who wants to kill Rice? i think she a retard. actaully id liked to take over the whote house by force. take them all out.


anyways......continue.

[V8killimports]

Well they are not in a "loop hole". They are not POWs as the current GC defines them. If they chose to follow the rules and they really wanted to be treated as POWs it would be pretty easy for them to do so.. but they don't want to wear a uniform or identifiable symbol or anything to that nature.. among other things.. If you want to play the game follow the rules. It's pretty simple really.

And like I said I have heard no reports of torture at gitmo.. but I have heard of terrorist torturing people left and right. Let's talk about that. Again.. focused on the evil americans.. always the americans who cause problems. Remember.. there was no OIF or OEF before 911.. there were no detainees before 911.. but this is all the evil americans fault.

I mean come on.. stop lettig the media run your life.. a man gets his head sawed off in the street, while iraqis are doing naked pyramids in a prison. What does the media focus on? The naked pyramid.. the terrorists can do no wrong. The media is the terrorists/insurgents biggest propaganda tool and people don't even realize it.

[IALuder]

i realize the media is fawking gay. but what they did in that prision is still not right. if they didnt do it, then maybe the media wouldnt have been all over it.

the media is out there to show what we are doing wrong more then they are? i dont think so. the media is only around are soilders so it makes it harder for them to see what these so called "terriorist" are doing. they see the aftermath not them doing it. so its hard for them to say well this is exactly how it happened.

how can you call them terriorist? if they invade here and i went out and kill a bunch of them, does that make me a terriorist? has it occured to anyone that maybe they are just killing us for us being there period.

[V8killimports]

Ok.. someone invades us, so you fill your honda with 1000lbs of explosives and drive it into your local highschool.. what does that help? The TERRORISTS are attacking local population, iraqi police, among others more than they are attacking troops nowadays.

[IALuder]

i would if i could pack that amount of explosives in my honda. but thats not my point.

the TERRIORIST are only attacking the gerenal public to keep them from voting. to make are whole purpose of being there ONE BIG FAILURE. which it was from the begining.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Well they are not in a "loop hole". They are not POWs as the current GC defines them. If they chose to follow the rules and they really wanted to be treated as POWs it would be pretty easy for them to do so.. but they don't want to wear a uniform or identifiable symbol or anything to that nature.. among other things.. If you want to play the game follow the rules. It's pretty simple really.

it is a loop hole for us, not them. it somehow gives us the right apparently to tourture because they dont follow the traditional military uniform. its just like the british vs. the revoulonists, we were a different type of army to deal with, and shit had to adapt. its a different kind of battle.

And like I said I have heard no reports of torture at gitmo.. but I have heard of terrorist torturing people left and right.

then what is this all about if we havnt been tourtuing people? i was under the assumtion we have been. i dont watch the news since its so biased one way or the other.

Let's talk about that. Again.. focused on the evil americans.. always the americans who cause problems. Remember.. there was no OIF or OEF before 911.. there were no detainees before 911.. but this is all the evil americans fault.

when your in control of the entire world, you have to set an example. lead by demonstration, not by preaching one thing and doing another. take an unbiased look at this. they are wrong, we can be just as wrong, but justify it by a 50 year old piece of paper written in results of world wars. but if they tourture one of our troops then its the end of the world. dont get me wrong, i dont want to see one of our boys hurt, and i dont think that we should shrug it off if any of our tropps are injured in any way, but its because they treated people in their own country(its not exactly their people most the timecause of the diverse religous standpoints in that part of the world) that we have been able to justify overthrowing power. its just hypocritical, and everyone but americans see it.

and to reiterate a point since i think you think i mean we're toruturing iraqi's, i used sadam and his tourture methods as an example of a government tourturing a disassociated group of indiviuals. he could have thought they jepordized his power, thus shocked the shit out of them to get info. and what are we doing? taking in people who we think are terrorists then doing the same thingtourture of some sort, not neccisarily hooking jumper cables up to someone) cause it jepordizes our safty/power. in the later part of operation iraqi freedom i remember alot of people falling back on "well he may not have had actual WMDs but he was an evil person who was very cruel to his people" which in my eyes is 100% completely fine, if thats what you come out and say, and thats what you stick to. but you cannot turn around and do the same exact thing to a different group of people, for almost the same reason. just because we operate under freedom and democracy, and fight for the rights of everyone in the world(that is what we're doing right) dosnt mean we have to follow it. does it?

I mean come on.. stop lettig the media run your life.. a man gets his head sawed off in the street, while iraqis are doing naked pyramids in a prison. What does the media focus on? The naked pyramid.. the terrorists can do no wrong. The media is the terrorists/insurgents biggest propaganda tool and people don't even realize it.

your trying to justify us being able to get away with stuff because of our enemies doing worse. i dont let the media run my life, the only paper i read is the wallstreet journal sometimes, and my school paper about local news and sports. i refuse to read political stuff in the paper because of how bisaed it is. i didnt even read anything about the topic at hand, i simply stated my own opinion on what i think about us tourturing people

[V8killimports]

Nonono.. I am not talking about iraq.. I am talking about the people being help at gitmo. I used iraq as an example.. and no I don't think what was done in the prison in iraq was right at all, and was so happy when that arrogant fuck got 10 years of ass pounding handed to him. What I was saying is that it amazes me when small shit which is NOT classified as torture (i.e. sleep deprivation) makes huge headlines, while a guy getting his head sawed off, of a suicide attack on a wedding is printed in tiny tiny writiing on page A22 on the newspaper shadowed by the walmart ad. Get what I am saying?

You make is sound like with the few.. very few inexcusable incidents tha have happened, that people are out here shooting people at random, anally raping people with bayonets and doig shit like that on a daily basis.. and that's not right.

Iraq aside, the detainees at gitmo do not fall under POW status. Like I said earlier.. Here I will give you an example...

Let's say we are at war with the USSR (former). I am captured and taken prisoner. I am to be treated as a POW and whether or not that happens is yet to be determined. But I have an opportunity to escape, but I may have to kill a guard in the process... here are the consequences of that:

A) if I kill the guard as a non combatant I am no longer a POW but now a national criminal.. just like anyone else. And can now be tried for murder. When the war is over, I no longer go home with the rest of the POWs. I am USSR property, and the US has no leverage to work with to get me back any longer.

B) I do not kill the guard. I am recaptured and maintain my POW status.

Now the choice is yours, but be aware of the consequences. If I knew I could get away without a doubt.. would I kill the guard? In a second.. but there will be consequences.

So let's look at the detainees/insurgants. They wear no identifiable uniform or markings which actually qualify them as spies or persons involved in acts of espionage. The difference is having something as little as an armband.. or "black pajamas" like the VC had.. whatever. But they choose to blend in with local population.. and are passig themselves off as civilians or NON COMBATANTS, which is not allowed. So because of this they are not considered POWs when captured.

Now with all that crap aside... no they don't fall under the GC.. and yes may be tortured..maybe. But should we? Who knows.. is there a right answer? Nope.. but like I said earlier.. let's get upset about brutally executing random people in the streets of Baghdad before we worry about a detainee not getting his full 8 hours sleep...

Priorities..

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Now with all that crap aside... no they don't fall under the GC.. and yes may be tortured..maybe. But should we? Who knows.. is there a right answer? Nope.. but like I said earlier.. let's get upset about brutally executing random people in the streets of Baghdad before we worry about a detainee not getting his full 8 hours sleep...

Priorities..

i completely understand what your saying. i dont think that the media is doing a good job at all on bringing us the "news". but whatever way you slice it, i dont think tourture is a good method of interrogating our captives, regardless of what we're allowd to to do them, and what we think they might know. they've proven that death is not only unfeared, but honored if its for a good cause in the eyes of many of the civilizations over there. it just brings us down to their level, and i'd rather keep my pride than be no better than them.

[ChrisCantSkate]

oh, since i didnt read any of the actual artical at hand, what were we doing to them anyways? just sleep deprevation?

[V8killimports]

Imagine you and the woman you love more than anything.. getting married.. then comes a fucking lunatic with an ambulance full of explosives (which happened a few weeks ago), and everything changing.. that's the kind of tactics these pussies resort to. How does that have anything to do with voting or any other bullshit going on there?

And I have not read anything about torture at gitmo. Most I ever heard of was sleep deprivation which was discounted I believe.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Imagine you and the woman you love more than anything.. getting married.. then comes a fucking lunatic with an ambulance full of explosives (which happened a few weeks ago), and everything changing.. that's the kind of tactics these pussies resort to.

this might sound asshole-ish, if so, my bad. but thats the truth of whats going to happen when we stick our heads in their part of the world. thats who they are and what they do. we knew this going in there, since thats why we went in there. now that we brought it upon ourselves to take control, we're going to loose some good men and women because of what we took upon ourselves to try and police it.

[V8killimports]

Actually this, and things beyond this have happened there for quite some time.. along the same lines, saddam's oldest son was infamous for doing things like kidnapping a newly wed wife, even on her wedding day, and holding her captive for months while he raped and tortured her, until he finally killed her. He did the same with children as young as 12 years old.. but now he is dead.

[IALuder]

^damn thats to bad. didnt we kill him? opps.

as for what that has to do with voting. if there were going to be mass people in a small building voting. wouldnt that make it a huge target? so wouldnt they want to take advangte and drive a huge ass bomb in there? thats why no is going to vote and yet part 2 of this war is a failure.

[GT40FIED]

To clarify...this isn't about acts of torture that have occured thus far. It's about that Gonzales guy who's poised to take over as attorney general and his stated opinion that he basically thought torture was the way to go. So, in respone to that, Wren asked whether or not torture was legal under the GC. To my knowledge no reports of torture have come out of Gitmo.