Is this hypocritical of Americans?

[Orsorum]

I am referring to the attitude regarding the torture of POW's and "enemy combatants" (as the Pentagon so delightfully refers to them). We regard the torture of POW's to be despicable, wrong, and sickening (as it is!). However, how does one then deal with the many calls in our populace and our government for the use of torture as a means to extract information from Al Queda operatives (or POW's who have not been charged with crimes)? Are we somehow morally superior, despite our actions or their consequences?

I am not equating our leadership with the Iraqi leadership, on any level, but I am asking why there is a seeming lack of accountability and moral buffer in regards to the US government interrogation and treatment of Al Queda operatives at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan. Despite the obvious need for isolation when regarding Al Queda suspects, why are they not being accorded their rights as per the Geneva convention?

 

[HappyGamer2]

yep good point, ask bush, as if he cares

 

[Bleep]

I think you have your facts wrong. There have been several people let go from Giitmo and have been interviewed after being back in Afganastan and they did not tell of any torture, in fact one of them said he was treated well.

Bleep

 

[RyanM]

We do not torture POWs. POW means "Prisoner of War." War is defined as a conflict between two powers.

Al Qaeda is not a power. They are a group of international terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands worldwide. As such, when arrested, they are merely prisoners, NOT prisoners of war. Their treatment is not regulated by the Geneva convention.

And if we turn them over to a government who's willing to resort to "nonstandard interrogation practices" to extract information, we certainly can't be held liable for what that country does to the prisoner, can we?

 

[Orsorum]

The "enemy combatants" captured in Afghanistan must be designated by a competent tribunal as either POW's or merely captives. As of yet, we have seen no such tribunal. Until that occurs, all captives are to be treated as POW's. After that point, Afghan POW's and Al Queda captives can and should be accorded different rights, according to US and UN law.

For the members of Al Queda who were not members of Afghanistan's armed forces, the provisions of the UN and general provisions of human decency still prohibit torture from being used.

 

[Leon]

The "enemy combatants" captured in Afghanistan must be designated by a competent tribunal as either POW's or merely captives

Neither. They must be designated as terrorists (which they are), and dealt with as such.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: MachFive

And if we turn them over to a government who's willing to resort to "nonstandard interrogation practices" to extract information, we certainly can't be held liable for what that country does to the prisoner, can we?

Article 130
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.
Article 131
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

If you are referring to the act of turning them over to Russia or China, etc, these countries are subject to the Geneva convention as much as we are. If you are referring to deporting them to Cuba or some other country, I refer you to article 12:

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Leon

The "enemy combatants" captured in Afghanistan must be designated by a competent tribunal as either POW's or merely captives

Neither. They must be designated as terrorists (which they are), and dealt with as such.

This has not been dealt with by a competent, impartial tribunal. Show me any provision in international law that deals specifically with the treatment of "terrorists" as anything less than a case involving at least basic human rights.

 

[mastertech01]

How many have we murdered since capture? We may be lucky to see a couple live POW come back after the last report of more bodies found...

 

[Leon]

US Military Tribunal handles the cases. If you think they are not "impartial", well, too bad.

Don't dodge the subject, Zakath15. Answer my question - provide detailed proof that AlQaida combatants are being "tortured" and denied their basic human rights. Until then, your whole "argument" is null and void.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
How many have we murdered since capture? We may be lucky to see a couple live POW come back after the last report of more bodies found...

I may have confused people with my posts in the thread, I apologize for any inconsistencies. Let me see if I can clarify my thoughts.

I am worried about the use of torture being justified by the comparable treatment of US POW's by Iraqi forces. While the actions of the Iraqi military are reprehensible, that should not and does not justify our retaliation in like manner. Likewise, I believe that prohibition should apply to captured Al Queda operatives. While the abuse has not been systematically verified, there have been suspicions - the two men reported dead at a base near Kabul Link (listed as a homicide) - and there have been calls by some for the use of torture in extreme cases (such as with Abu Zubaydah).

This frightens me, for reasons I have already made clear. This is a slippery slope, and without clear checks and balances throughout the whole process, the potential for abuse is enormous.

Where Guantanamo largely figures in is the United States' willingness to comply with the Geneva convention in its entirety, and its use of other nations' unwillingness as justification for military action. This now mostly works out to legal issues, ones that seem petty but are still crucial. We saw the power of dehumanization and the suppression of the legal process in World War II. We must not allow that to happen here.

Red Cross account
Amnesty International
Last Link

 

[ElFenix]

have we tortured them? until we do so we're not hypocrits.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
have we tortured them? until we do so we're not hypocrits.

Read my post right above yours.

And, with that, I'm going to bed. I have a long day tomorrow. Hopefully some people understood what I was trying to say; if not, I apologize for my lack of further clarity.

 

[tcsenter]

The "enemy combatants" captured in Afghanistan must be designated by a competent tribunal as either POW's or merely captives. As of yet, we have seen no such tribunal. Until that occurs, all captives are to be treated as POW's. After that point, Afghan POW's and Al Queda captives can and should be accorded different rights, according to US and UN law.

You do, of course, realize that the US officially signed the Geneva Convention with stated reservation. That means we only agree to certain parts of the Geneva Convention, but not others.

At any rate, we treat POWs and captives substantially better than any enemy we've ever faced in armed conflict has treated ours and indeed better even than most countries we haven't faced in armed conflict would treat enemy captives.

While Jane Fonda was being a willing puppet for Communist propaganda in Vietnam, prodding American POWs to say they were grateful for the 'lenient and humane treatment' by their benevolent captors, guess who in fact was enjoying that 'lenient and humane treatment' as POWs? Yep, enemy POWs in American custody, while our guys were being strung from the ceiling, beaten, starved, tortured, and killed.

Though a Hollywood production, the scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" depicting the dilemma over how to deal with the German WWII prisoner were in fact an accurate portrayal of the US military's policies and views of summary executions and torture. No other country on God's green earth - not one country - can match the United States' long-standing record of humane treatment of enemy captives during war.

It is far more likely that a US citizen suspected of committing a serious crime in the 1940's would be subjected to beatings at the hands of Los Angeles or Chicago police detectives to extract a confession than an enemy POW at the hands of US military personnel.

The US doesn't torture POWs, period. We do use interrogation methods including psychological ploys which are 'harsh' without being brutal, but being subjected to inhospitable treatment is not torture.

 

[Orsorum]

You do, of course, realize that the US officially signed the Geneva Convention with stated reservation. That means we only agree to certain parts of the Geneva Convention, but not others.

I did not know that, actually. Do you have a link as to what aspects we omitted from the agreement?

 

[Orsorum]

I just wanted to add a side note - I find it interesting that so many of you older, wiser folks mention Jane Fonda, and often - maybe you remember it more vividly or with more anger than you think I or those my age do. I find her actions despicable and in no way acceptable or appropriate; she is a traitor and deserves to be treated as such.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[joohang]

Interesting thread you got here, Nate. I have my eyes on it. Good reads.

BTW, how you doing?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I just wanted to add a side note - I find it interesting that so many of you older, wiser folks mention Jane Fonda, and often - maybe you remember it more vividly or with more anger than you think I or those my age do. I find her actions despicable and in no way acceptable or appropriate; she is a traitor and deserves to be treated as such.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

hanoi jane should have been tried and executed just like a non-celeb would have been. she was OJ part 1. politicians will go way out of their way not to have anything remotely to do with her

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: ElFenix
have we tortured them? until we do so we're not hypocrits.

Read my post right above yours.

And, with that, I'm going to bed. I have a long day tomorrow. Hopefully some people understood what I was trying to say; if not, I apologize for my lack of further clarity.

oh, and remember that all sorts of bad sh!t was done by the US but the public education system will brainwa... i mean, socially indoctrine people to not know that anything happened and so the institutions will remain pristine.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: joohang
Interesting thread you got here, Nate. I have my eyes on it. Good reads.

BTW, how you doing?

I am good, starting a new quarter; my classes are challenging, but if I can focus and figure out some way to deal with what I suspect is chronic depression, I think I'll be okay. Are you still planning on coming to the UW? How are your classes going?

Still on for going to a soccer game in July?

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: joohang
Interesting thread you got here, Nate. I have my eyes on it. Good reads.

BTW, how you doing?

I am good, starting a new quarter; my classes are challenging, but if I can focus and figure out some way to deal with what I suspect is chronic depression, I think I'll be okay. Are you still planning on coming to the UW? How are your classes going?

Still on for going to a soccer game in July?

Moving to PM now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I am referring to the attitude regarding the torture of POW's and "enemy combatants" (as the Pentagon so delightfully refers to them). We regard the torture of POW's to be despicable, wrong, and sickening (as it is!). However, how does one then deal with the many calls in our populace and our government for the use of torture as a means to extract information from Al Queda operatives (or POW's who have not been charged with crimes)? Are we somehow morally superior, despite our actions or their consequences?

I am not equating our leadership with the Iraqi leadership, on any level, but I am asking why there is a seeming lack of accountability and moral buffer in regards to the US government interrogation and treatment of Al Queda operatives at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan. Despite the obvious need for isolation when regarding Al Queda suspects, why are they not being accorded their rights as per the Geneva convention?

The red cross has been out to gitmo, everyone is being treated by the Geneva convention. Can this issue go away now?

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I am referring to the attitude regarding the torture of POW's and "enemy combatants" (as the Pentagon so delightfully refers to them). We regard the torture of POW's to be despicable, wrong, and sickening (as it is!). However, how does one then deal with the many calls in our populace and our government for the use of torture as a means to extract information from Al Queda operatives (or POW's who have not been charged with crimes)? Are we somehow morally superior, despite our actions or their consequences?

I am not equating our leadership with the Iraqi leadership, on any level, but I am asking why there is a seeming lack of accountability and moral buffer in regards to the US government interrogation and treatment of Al Queda operatives at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan. Despite the obvious need for isolation when regarding Al Queda suspects, why are they not being accorded their rights as per the Geneva convention?

I don't recall any calls in our government to use torture as a means to extract information from Al Qaeda prisoners. Where did you hear this? I've only seen speculation (from the populace and the media) as to whether torture is ever justified.

As for the many calls in the populace, I think that's mainly just talk. We might talk about it but when it came time to actually do it, most of us would not be able to actually torture someone. We're basically just venting our anger. That's the big difference. Don't equate "talking about it" with "actually doing it".

There really has been no evidence that we use torture. We might have handle some people roughly at first but I haven't seen any evidence that we actually tortured anyone. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence the enemy is "doing it".

So, to answer you question -- no, I don't think we're hypocritical.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: joohang
Interesting thread you got here, Nate. I have my eyes on it. Good reads.

BTW, how you doing?

I am good, starting a new quarter; my classes are challenging, but if I can focus and figure out some way to deal with what I suspect is chronic depression, I think I'll be okay. Are you still planning on coming to the UW? How are your classes going?

Still on for going to a soccer game in July?

I think I suffered from chronic depression during my graduate years at Maryland too. I had a hard time focusing and motivating myself and I sometimes wonder if I could have gone further if I had been happier with my life. I hope you find a way to deal with it.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: ElFenix
have we tortured them? until we do so we're not hypocrits.

Read my post right above yours.

And, with that, I'm going to bed. I have a long day tomorrow. Hopefully some people understood what I was trying to say; if not, I apologize for my lack of further clarity.

Maybe my eyes are really small this morning, but I don't see where any of your links say we are "torturing" people at Gitmo. Here is a quote from your own link......

The prisoners are questioned in a row of hastily constructed plywood huts. There is no torture at Guantanamo Bay but without the carrot of release it is not easy to get information from the men.