Is The Geneva Convention Antiquated? Should There Be Exceptions?

[Martin]

on a unrelated note don't you think your sig is kinda stupid, considering Egypt, Pakistan and Russia are all opposed to the war?

 

[Lucky]

Actually I was watching C-SPAN Last night and they were airing interviews given in 7/96 to the National POW Musuem by all of the gulf war POW's...the female medic's interview I saw said that they were fairly professional to her and did not molest her at all.

 

[Ornery]

You think my sig is antiquated?

It's just a nod to one smart fvcker, who had Saddam pegged within a week of 9-11. He assumed we'd have more support, but he sure as hell hit the nail on the head in every other way. I'll keep it a while...

 

[Ornery]

• NATO approved.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• NATO approved.

so you mean that Nato should rule on what is a crowd control agent and what is a chemical weapon?

on what laws? and how would it be possible to keep politics away from the process?

 

[Ornery]

This ain't rocket science. You say X, Y and Z tear gas can be used, and that's it. We're not trying to pull a fast one. It would just be preferable to shooting people, that's all.

 

[Czar]

true, but a clear cut law that cant be debated usualy works best, thats why we had this "serious consicuenses" problem

 

[Ornery]

I sure know some clear violations when I see them. :disgust:

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
...can we really take the moral highground?

Yep, yep yep. Our record speaks for itself. The 9-11 attack set the new standard, not us.

Our record? Of denial of POW status in order to take part in grey areas of legality? Or our detainment of suspected terrorists indefinitely and without charge? Or our support of/alliance with countries with very dubious human rights records? Hmm...

Right on Koni, we tend to bend the rules to suit our needs. To say "they determined their treatment" or something is wrong, you should hold yourself to the standards you set. Would you give potential terrorists due process or just throw them in jail and that be it? If anything is un-american, that is.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I sure know some clear violations when I see them. :disgust:

well, same was done with the taliban when they were brought to cuba

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that the war against terrorism required a new way of thinking and new concepts. >>

AKA We don't want to have to treat them by Geneva Convention. We want to be able to torture them and/or transport them to countries where we know they will be tortured. Woohoo for American elitism...

Hey dumbfusk! Show me ONE, just ONE, instance where the intent of the convention has been violated.

Then compare the treatment of US Soldiers when POWs by the Iraqis!

EVERY FEMALE TAKEN AS POWS ARE RAPED! Most are gang raped! You DO NOT read about this in our media, but it is well known by our Service Men and Women!

Others are shot and tortured...

Take the Geneva Convetion and shove it up your Elite arse!

How about not affording POW's POW status? Lets us do whatever we want to them. And "shove the Geneva Convention up my elite arse" ... right ... impeccable argument. If they treat us badly, we should treat them badly! Hmph.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: sean2002

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ornery
...can we really take the moral highground?

Yep, yep yep. Our record speaks for itself. The 9-11 attack set the new standard, not us.

Our record? Of denial of POW status in order to take part in grey areas of legality? Or our detainment of suspected terrorists indefinitely and without charge? Or our support of/alliance with countries with very dubious human rights records? Hmm...

If you feel for them so much but all means go stay with them, I sure they would be glad to see another America hater.

*sigh*

Yet another idiotic argument. Just because I disagree with certain American policies and actions does not make me an "America hater." And yes, I do feel for HUMANS as a whole; since when is that a bad thing? I believe that all humans should be afforded the same rights, Iraqi or American.

 

[Ornery]

...all humans should be afforded the same rights, Iraqi or American.

We didn't shoot them on the spot, which was the fate of their comrades in Afghanistan. They are NOT being executed like our boys in Baghdad (not proven... yet). They are getting FAIR treatment AND by the law.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that the war against terrorism required a new way of thinking and new concepts. >>

AKA We don't want to have to treat them by Geneva Convention. We want to be able to torture them and/or transport them to countries where we know they will be tortured. Woohoo for American elitism...

Hey dumbfusk! Show me ONE, just ONE, instance where the intent of the convention has been violated.

Then compare the treatment of US Soldiers when POWs by the Iraqis!

EVERY FEMALE TAKEN AS POWS ARE RAPED! Most are gang raped! You DO NOT read about this in our media, but it is well known by our Service Men and Women!

Others are shot and tortured...

Take the Geneva Convetion and shove it up your Elite arse!

How about not affording POW's POW status? Lets us do whatever we want to them. And "shove the Geneva Convention up my elite arse" ... right ... impeccable argument. If they treat us badly, we should treat them badly! Hmph.

Yes, how about that...dream! The Pows that are now incarcerated by the US are at least a thousand times better treated than the inverse.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that the war against terrorism required a new way of thinking and new concepts. >>

AKA We don't want to have to treat them by Geneva Convention. We want to be able to torture them and/or transport them to countries where we know they will be tortured. Woohoo for American elitism...

Hey dumbfusk! Show me ONE, just ONE, instance where the intent of the convention has been violated.

Then compare the treatment of US Soldiers when POWs by the Iraqis!

EVERY FEMALE TAKEN AS POWS ARE RAPED! Most are gang raped! You DO NOT read about this in our media, but it is well known by our Service Men and Women!

Others are shot and tortured...

Take the Geneva Convetion and shove it up your Elite arse!

How about not affording POW's POW status? Lets us do whatever we want to them. And "shove the Geneva Convention up my elite arse" ... right ... impeccable argument. If they treat us badly, we should treat them badly! Hmph.

Yes, how about that...dream! The Pows that are now incarcerated by the US are at least a thousand times better treated than the inverse.

Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric, bla bla bla. Have anything real to say?

 

[Ornery]

True, true, true. Facts suck, eh?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that the war against terrorism required a new way of thinking and new concepts. >>

AKA We don't want to have to treat them by Geneva Convention. We want to be able to torture them and/or transport them to countries where we know they will be tortured. Woohoo for American elitism...

Hey dumbfusk! Show me ONE, just ONE, instance where the intent of the convention has been violated.

Then compare the treatment of US Soldiers when POWs by the Iraqis!

EVERY FEMALE TAKEN AS POWS ARE RAPED! Most are gang raped! You DO NOT read about this in our media, but it is well known by our Service Men and Women!

Others are shot and tortured...

Take the Geneva Convetion and shove it up your Elite arse!

How about not affording POW's POW status? Lets us do whatever we want to them. And "shove the Geneva Convention up my elite arse" ... right ... impeccable argument. If they treat us badly, we should treat them badly! Hmph.

Yes, how about that...dream! The Pows that are now incarcerated by the US are at least a thousand times better treated than the inverse.

But they aren't treated that well either. If we were fighting a war against GB, for example, the POWs would be treated much better than the Taliban and Al-Queda prisoners are treated. What ground can this country stand on if we condemn Saddam for torturing people and then do it ourselves? The minute we start breaking our own rules, curbing citizen's rights, and treating people that are clearly POWs badly, what is their left to fight for?

 

[Ornery]

If we were fighting a war against GB, for example...

They would have declared war and not killed civilians by the thousands...

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ornery
If we were fighting a war against GB, for example...

They would have declared war and not killed civilians by the thousands...

Haha. Did we declare war? Did/do we call them POWs? No. The coin flips both ways...

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Ornery
If we were fighting a war against GB, for example...

They would have declared war and not killed civilians by the thousands...

So, we should counter their terrorism with terrorism of our own?

 

[Ornery]

The coin flips both ways...

Damn! I think he's got it!

1. They started it.
2. They're getting much better treatment than they've givin our people, and
3. We're playing by the rules to boot!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
You think my sig is antiquated?

It's just a nod to one smart fvcker, who had Saddam pegged within a week of 9-11. He assumed we'd have more support, but he sure as hell hit the nail on the head in every other way. I'll keep it a while...

He also assumed the US would be pursuing Iraq because of terrorism, but as we all know that's not the case.