http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1975027

So did the Geneva convention writers not realize that getting information from a captured foreign soldier may provide intelligence that could save lives. Sure they did, but they still said torture was a greater evil.

So is a person who is fighting a guerella war against a much more powerful enemy not entitled to protections because they won't line up in front a a tank with their Ak-47 and be killed, instead they hide a bomb. Does this make them not entitled to the same basic human rights against torture?

Look captured prisoners SHOULD be interrogated. Whether it is a captured Nazi, a captured Iraqi soldier, or a captured insurgant. All could hold valuable information that can save lives. So why should the "line" where we cross over into unacceptable torture be different. Because of the clothing being worn? Seriously, is that the arguement.

Especially the Army manual should be consistant between all. I even think the CIA who capture "suspected terrorists" should abide by the same code of conduct. The CIA should not have special exemptions.

What if these guerillas use innocent people or children as shields? What if they send children armed with explosives as human bombs against our troops? What if these guerillas attack from schools, hospitals, and religious establishments? Should we let them snipe? Should we avoid defiling a mosque with unwashed nonmuslims, or go after some of these guerillas?

I just love it when these “freedom fighters” storm out of a mosque to attack our troops and then retreat to the safety of that same mosque. These people love it when we play by their rules.

What the heck are you talking about. This is about prisoners.

If a guy jumps out of a mosque and shoots at us, then he put the mosque in harms way and we shoot back.

But if we capture him, and put him in jail, that does not give us the right to use different interrogation techniques than if he jumped out of another building.

Can't you realize, if you sink to their level, you are no better than them. So because they decapitate people, it is OK for us to do so? Why don't you realize that having a rule against torture does not make us weak, it makes us superior.

That's a pretty wide term.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

torture is any act that is dehumanizing, immoral, or brutal / violent towards another in the hopes of attaining either information or gratification

in the case of dehumanizing the enemy or making them witness and act that would be either against their morals or religion it is considered a more vague form of torture because its "in the eyes of the beholder" yet still torture all the same

ie : making the "terrorist" prisoners disrobe or watch other members of the same sex perform lude acts

i think that all POW's should receive the same rights under the Geneva convention that we would expect if we were the ones being held prisoner

edit ::
dictionary.com definition, which i think describes torture quite fully in almost all aspects

__________________
i'm not a democrat, quit calling me one

Sorry...still too loose.

Is forcing someone to listen to keith urban "dehumanizing?"


I know more than a few women who find a sexy calendar at their male co-worker's workspace to be "discrimination." I don't consider it so.

those terms are somewhat amorphous and largely exist in the eye of the beholder. Surely you can be more specific.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

well i hardly consider it likely that we'll force some random iraqi prisoner to listen to keith urban..but in their case displaying images of male nudity is most definitely torture because it's against their religion, and we know this when we force them to look at the pictures / other nude prisoners...

so, with the knowledge of how the image / act will be perceived, it is a form of torture, because we know how they feel about such acts, and do them any way in disregard

__________________
i'm not a democrat, quit calling me one

Anyone who has ever done intellegence work will tell you that confessions you get useing torture are worthless. The only reason to torture is because you are a sick freak who enjoys seeing people suffer.

although I don't have much sympathy for people who fight wars where innocent civilians are the main victims you have to look back into history to see where all this started.

Most wars were fought with army against army in the past. The civilian population was never involved as war was fought useing what they consider as "civilized warfare". That all changed during the civil war in the U.S. with Union General William T. Sherman who marched from Atlanta to Savannah burning civilian houses, their farm crops, raping and murdering the population. No troops of any consequence were opposing him and he waged total and ruthless war against the unarmed civilian population. It was him who defended his actions by saying "War is Hell". defeat the population and their will to wage war and their armies will be defeated.

So I find it funny that now that others in the world have taken these new cowardly war tactics, started by the U.S. themselves, are now complaining about them. What goes around comes around. Maybe the U.S. government should have thought about the consequences before introducing such a barbaric new way to wage war to the world.


.

.

Even trying to define torture is not the point.

The point is, should captured prisoners with intelligence information that could save lives have different "limits" for interrogation depending on if they are from an army, or an insurgant or a "suspected" terrorist. I don't think so. I think the "gray area" is where and why we ended up with Abu Ghraid. It is why we ended up with secret prisons and claims of torture in Guantanamo.

Should the Geneva convention apply to all our prisoners? Sure, that is why it was created. Either you are a prisoner of war, or a criminal. To create a "new" catagory to get around the rules that apply to the existing ones is nothing but a farce to break the existing rules.

What was Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, criminals or enemy combatants. Could they be tortured in case they were in cohoots with others? If so, could they be tortured when first "suspected" or would they have to be convicted of the crime first?

Generally, I don't think the USA has a widespread policy of torture. But I think that by not saying, all our prisoners will be held to Geneva convention standards, then people did not know where the line was. So if abuse did occur, they weren't sure if they should tell a superior or not. The distinction was blurred, intentionally by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, so that they could justify abuse in a few limited instances. But then, since the line was blurred, others did not know where to draw it and more abuse occured.

I think we need to go back and redraw the line, a single line, for our prisoners.

look at some of the more modern interpretations of the Geneva Convention. I don't consider making someone look at photos of naked men all that torturous. Wish I had some right now, in fact.

Anyway, this was fun, off to dinner with the boyfriend, who will almost certainly benefit from this thread.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.