APP - Marine who built Gitmo: US lost moral high ground

Socrtease said:
REally? Example? What good useful intell did waterboarding get us?
Click to expand...

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2803874.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009082804015

Socrtease said:
And so in the attempt to defeat evil men, it is acceptable to behave in an evil way? The ends justifies the means comrade?
Click to expand...
Again you equate what they did with what we did, an indefensible position at best. :)
 
I have heard repeatedly (and accepted) the statement that the Geneva Convention does not provide protections for terrorists.

Does anyone have a link for this? And is this the original GC or the most recent (and therefore the correct) GV?
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Click here for just a sample. There are many, many more.
Click to expand...

LOL, pull the other one, it's got bells on. This was written by a blogger. He could be you or me, and certainly has no authority behind him. Furthermore, he wrote the paragraph below, yet his entire site is dedicated to praising conservatism and bashing liberals. It's also comical that his criticism of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is the number of pages in the opinion. Something tells me he never actually read it.

"If you are looking for regurgitated Republican or Democrat rhetoric, you are in the wrong place. I write what I think, based on what I know, supported by facts I can prove, and stated in simple common sense terms anyone should be able to comprehend. I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a son and a brother, a conservative, an entrepreneur and a writer, in that order. I don’t vote for (R)’s or (D)’s, but instead for individuals. Not on the basis of what they promise to do for me, but on the basis of who I believe will protect real American values worth protecting."

http://jb-williams.com/
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Click here for just a sample. There are many, many more.
Click to expand...

What the blogger at that link is quoting is the original Geneva Convention. The later GC covered far more (due to the atrocities of WWII).

"Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war."

That is clearly not restricted to military personnel.

"Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."

This clearly means the USA is responsible for the actions of those in charge of the prisoners at Abu Graib.

"Part I. General Provisions

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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."

The bold printed material directly refutes the information given in the link to the blog. It does not matter whether the other party is bound by the Geneva Convention. We are bound by it.

The above quotes came from: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
 
WinterBorn said:
What the blogger at that link is quoting is the original Geneva Convention. The later GC covered far more (due to the atrocities of WWII).

"Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War

Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war."

That is clearly not restricted to military personnel.

"Art. 29. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."

This clearly means the USA is responsible for the actions of those in charge of the prisoners at Abu Graib.

"Part I. General Provisions

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

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."

The bold printed material directly refutes the information given in the link to the blog. It does not matter whether the other party is bound by the Geneva Convention. We are bound by it.

The above quotes came from: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
Click to expand...
if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
 
Damocles said:
if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
Click to expand...

Yes, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. If you signed on as a party who obeys the Geneva Convention, you apply those laws regardless of whether your enemy does so.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. If you signed on as a party who obeys the Geneva Convention, you apply those laws regardless of whether your enemy does so.
Click to expand...
No, the latter. The "said power."

If they accept the provisions then you are bound to do so as well, even if they are not a signatory. If, however, they do not accept or adhere to the provisions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top