Has the US withdrawn from the Geneva Convention?

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060605/ts...a7gF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Pentagon to omit Geneva ban from new army manual: report

New policies on prisoners being drawn up by the Pentagon will reportedly omit a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment."
Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, the Los Angeles Times said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could end a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes the new guidelines public, the report said.




It appears the Bushies have withdrawn from the Geneva Convention without telling them...or the American public.
Ask any service person, they are for remaining in the Geneva Convention. I am guessing its only chicken hawks who never served that think withdrawing is a good idea.

 

[ahurtt]

If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional war, why should you?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060605/ts...a7gF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Pentagon to omit Geneva ban from new army manual: report
New policies on prisoners being drawn up by the Pentagon will reportedly omit a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment."
Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, the Los Angeles Times said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could end a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes the new guidelines public, the report said.









It appears the Bushies have withdrawn from the Geneva Convention without telling them...or the American public.
Ask any service person, they are for remaining in the Geneva Convention. I am guessing its only chicken hawks who never served that think withdrawing is a good idea.

P.U.
I smell Rummy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional whar, why should you?

There you go, the Official resident Republican Montra that the U.S. is an Official Terrorist Country.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional whar, why should you?

How about:

A. We consider ourselves to be a civilized nation.

B. We signed the treaty.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional whar, why should you?

Because we're supposed to be better than they are. We're not supposed to lower ourselves to their level.

 

[Steeplerot]

Feh, we failed at being the shining beacon of liberty, time to cut off the tail that wags the dog, cut the military by 3/4 and they will not be able to harm anyone/overthrow democracys/meddle in others affairs much less kill any more brown skinned people to appease our own funda-headcases no less brutal and bloodthirsty then the taliban or any radical islamic, just defend our country, as they should be doing only.

military=bureaucratic waste and nothing less then a tool for lobbyists and multinational profits.

*is still waiting for the "peace dividend"*

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional whar, why should you?

There you go, the Official resident Republican Montra that the U.S. is an Official Terrorist Country.

No surprise...read his sig for some real pretzel logic.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Feh, we failed at being the shining beacon of liberty, time to cut off the tail that wags the dog, cut the military by 3/4 and they will not be able to harm anyone/overthrow democracys/meddle in others affairs much less kill any more brown skinned people to appease our own funda-headcases no less brutal and bloodthirsty then the taliban or any radical islamic, just defend our country, as they should be doing only.

military=bureaucratic waste and nothing less then a tool for lobbyists and multinational profits.

*is still waiting for the "peace dividend"*

Such an attitude works great when there is no one knocking at your door.

Should such an attitude existed in WWI, WWII, Korea or Post WWII Europe; consider where the world might be.

Playing ostrich only works when there are no predators.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional whar, why should you?

How about:

A. We consider ourselves to be a civilized nation.

B. We signed the treaty.

To answer A: We are only civilized as long as it is convenient for us. Our altruistic zeal is going to be the end of us. We are not that high and mighty. Our $hit stinks like everybody elses. If it comes down to us or them, I pick us.

To answer B: All things come to an end. All contracts eventually expire.

I say we do unto others as they would do unto us.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: ahurtt
If your enemy doesn't have the limitation of being bound by the Geneva Convention in an unconventional whar, why should you?

How about:

A. We consider ourselves to be a civilized nation.

B. We signed the treaty.

To answer A: We are only civilized as long as it is convenient for us. Our altruistic zeal is going to be the end of us. We are not that high and mighty. Our $hit stinks like everybody elses. If it comes down to us or them, I pick us.

To answer B: All things come to an end. All contracts eventually expire.

LOL Your depressing view of humankind, and your glib disrespect of treaties aside, I see absolutely nothing valid nor compelling about your argument. NEXT!

 

[Genx87]

Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Feh, we failed at being the shining beacon of liberty, time to cut off the tail that wags the dog, cut the military by 3/4 and they will not be able to harm anyone/overthrow democracys/meddle in others affairs much less kill any more brown skinned people to appease our own funda-headcases no less brutal and bloodthirsty then the taliban or any radical islamic, just defend our country, as they should be doing only.

military=bureaucratic waste and nothing less then a tool for lobbyists and multinational profits.

*is still waiting for the "peace dividend"*

Such an attitude works great when there is no one knocking at your door.

Should such an attitude existed in WWI, WWII, Korea or Post WWII Europe; consider where the world might be.

Playing ostrich only works when there are no predators.

I don't see the whole World threatened by Saddam pulling U.S access to the Oil.

I don't see the whole World going to War over four planes hijacked in the U.S. because of our lax security.

Only the U.S. acting as an Imperilistic bully.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

And technically we are not at war. Can we STFU and bring everyone home then? I suppose we should start chopping their heads off and sending Iraqi kids into "suspected" insurgent houses strapped with C4. Who needs rules and such, they are so limiting.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

"Terrorists" fight for many causes, such as anti-communism (cuban right-wingers), anti-leftist (contras, timothy mcvey) anti-abortion (christian wingnuts), and even freedom and liberty (george washington) and yes, sometimes when poked for long enough by imperialism muslims do too. Imagine that.

terrorism= catch phrase for people up against a far superior force.

peace through superior firepower vs. peace through partisan action, same difference.

I am sure the romans thought the germans were terrorists as they sacked rome fed up with being invaded for 100s of years of pax-imperialism.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

And technically we are not at war. Can we STFU and bring everyone home then? I suppose we should start chopping their heads off and sending Iraqi kids into "suspected" insurgent houses strapped with C4. Who needs rules and such, they are so limiting.

If we arent at war and they arent fighting under a national banner. Then what does the geneva convention have to do wit it?

The rest of your response is a typical irrational response to a legitimate question.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

"Terrorists" fight for many causes, such as anti-communism (cuban right-wingers), anti-leftist (contras, timothy mcvey) anti-abortion (christian wingnuts), and even freedom and liberty (george washington) and yes, sometimes when poked for long enough by imperialism muslims do too. Imagine that.

terrorism= catch phrase for people up against a far superior force.

peace through superior firepower vs. peace through partisan action, same difference.

Yes those suspects in Canada must have been fighting that evil Canadien style imperialism.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

"Terrorists" fight for many causes, such as anti-communism (cuban right-wingers), anti-leftist (contras, timothy mcvey) anti-abortion (christian wingnuts), and even freedom and liberty (george washington) and yes, sometimes when poked for long enough by imperialism muslims do too. Imagine that.

terrorism= catch phrase for people up against a far superior force.

peace through superior firepower vs. peace through partisan action, same difference.

Yes those suspects in Canada must have been fighting that evil Canadien style imperialism.

Those whackos are religious extremists, same deal as christians bombing the mideast home countries. Terrorism has many many faces, it is nothing less then a means to an end, some valid, some not. It all depends on history and who is the victor/writer.
In the end their will always be terrorism when there is one group of people exploiting others and the opposition is vastly outnumbered, this is how our own country came about against the greatest superpower in the world.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

And technically we are not at war. Can we STFU and bring everyone home then? I suppose we should start chopping their heads off and sending Iraqi kids into "suspected" insurgent houses strapped with C4. Who needs rules and such, they are so limiting.

Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ. But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal? You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need. Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now. Times change. New rules apply.

Us having to abide by all provisions of the Geneva Convention while our enemy probably only vaguely knows of its existence from some obscure reference in some history book is like us lining up in a nice little line on the battlefield wearing bright red coats while our enemy hides in the trees and picks us off. We saw where that strategy got England in the revolutionary war. If you are serious about winning a war, you will adapt your tactics and strategy and do what has to be done to win. Otherwise, you loose.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

And technically we are not at war. Can we STFU and bring everyone home then? I suppose we should start chopping their heads off and sending Iraqi kids into "suspected" insurgent houses strapped with C4. Who needs rules and such, they are so limiting.

Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ. But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal? You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need. Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now. Times change. New rules apply.

Times change none in the matters of human insinct in war, it is brutal, we should always be the one who shows we are above being barbarians, lest we become one ourselves.

Call it altruistic all you want, but this is what should set america apart, if not, then just be honest and say we need the oil and strategic bases and too bad world FU. Becasue that is basiclly what iraq is about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ.

But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal?

You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need.

Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now.

Times change.

New rules apply.

You sound just like rummy, Bush, Hannity and the rest of the Republicans.

I bet Murdock and all of the Republican based Media is chomping at the bit for the kind of ratings they would get putting that on TV.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
Terrorists dont fight under a national banner do they?

And technically we are not at war. Can we STFU and bring everyone home then? I suppose we should start chopping their heads off and sending Iraqi kids into "suspected" insurgent houses strapped with C4. Who needs rules and such, they are so limiting.

Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ. But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal? You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need. Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now. Times change. New rules apply.

Times change none, human insinct in war is brutal, we should always be the one who shows we are above being barbarians, lest we become one ourselves.

Call it altruistic all you want, but this is what should set america apart, if not, then just be honest and say we need the oil and strategic bases and too bad world FU. BEcasue that is basiclly what iraq is about.

It is good to be altruistic, but not when it comes at the expense of also being realistic. I am not advocating we start beheading detainees on TV but come on. . .humiliating and degrading treatment is just that. The only thing it actually hurts is the ego.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ahurtt


It is good to be altruistic, but not when it comes at the expense of also being realistic. I am not advocating we start beheading detainees on TV but come on. . .humiliating and degrading treatment is just that. The only thing it actually hurts is the ego.

Is that all? Or does it empower the enemy? That is what it comes down to.

A insurgency is fueled by the common people, screw them over and watch a insurgency grow.

Lets be "realistic" here, doing this does nothing but further their cause labeling us as barbaric invaders. We have given them a huge victory, and any soldier as a POW should expect nothing less then barbarism when he himself shows nothing less to his enemy.

In other words driving away anyone actually wanting to help iraqis to serve in the armed forces. (as if this was ever the plan)

The military shall be part of the realm of religious zealots, sadists and power trippers. Not peacekeepers with this mentality. Exactly what we are "fighting" against.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ahurtt
Even if the US were to disregard the Geneva Convention, I don't think we would go so far as to resort to beheading people on camera and holding them for ransom and suicide bombings and tactics of the ilk that the "terrorists" employ.

But if we have to make somebody a little uncomfortable or humiliated to glean some information which could save innocent lives, what is the big deal?

You can't just coddle these bastards and expect to get the information you need.

Some parts of the Geneva Convention are just too idealistic and altruistic to apply to a situation like the one we are in now.

Times change.

New rules apply.

You sound just like rummy, Bush, Hannity and the rest of the Republicans.

I bet Murdock and all of the Republican based Media is chomping at the bit for the kind of ratings they would get putting that on TV.

Well let's hear your proposal for how we get the job done, Dave. Bearing in mind that times right now are how they are and we can't just wave a magic wand and undo what has already been done, how would you propose we go forward? Realistically, not idealistically, how should we move ahead?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Feh, we failed at being the shining beacon of liberty, time to cut off the tail that wags the dog, cut the military by 3/4 and they will not be able to harm anyone/overthrow democracys/meddle in others affairs much less kill any more brown skinned people to appease our own funda-headcases no less brutal and bloodthirsty then the taliban or any radical islamic, just defend our country, as they should be doing only.

military=bureaucratic waste and nothing less then a tool for lobbyists and multinational profits.

*is still waiting for the "peace dividend"*

Such an attitude works great when there is no one knocking at your door.

Should such an attitude existed in WWI, WWII, Korea or Post WWII Europe; consider where the world might be.

Playing ostrich only works when there are no predators.

Don't know much about ostriches do you? But it's not surprising you use a long debunked myth . . . and still use it improperly.

Ostrich use their beak/head to dig out nesting areas for eggs. If threatened while sitting on the nest, a hen might press flat to the ground in an attempt to blend in. If that doesn't work, the next is most likely kicking your arse.

Sadly, our ignorant and arrogant society has no concept of how to use an array of strategies and tactics to achieve a goal. Hopefully, new leadership will exhibit such skills and lead us out of this morass of asinine behavior.