Is this hypocritical of Americans?

[Orsorum]

Please read the previous page, about ten posts up from the bottom.

I am sorry if I intimated to anyone that I thought torture was occurring at Gauntanamo. What I was referring to was the alleged homicides of two men at the US Army base north of Kabul, where they supposedly died because of wounds inflicted by their captors.

What I was referring to at Guantanamo is the legal status issue and the lack of any balancing of authority within the US government or from any outside authority.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Please read the previous page, about ten posts up from the bottom.

I am sorry if I intimated to anyone that I thought torture was occurring at Gauntanamo. What I was referring to was the alleged homicides of two men at the US Army base north of Kabul, where they supposedly died because of wounds inflicted by their captors.

What I was referring to at Guantanamo is the legal status issue and the lack of any balancing of authority within the US government or from any outside authority.

How the heck can you call Americans hypocrits when you are comparing alleged incidents to actual confirmed cases?


And personally, I think there needs to be more aggressive means of requesting information other than: "Please Mr. Abudabi, where is Mr. Saddam? Tell us, pretty please with sugar on top."

 

[Kaiynne]

Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree, there have been many studies showing that people are more than capable of torture, even on the flimsiest of pretexts. For example http://www.prisonexp.org/ The stanford prison experiment.

Also not a single person has so far in this thread addressed the most important point of the original poster. Which was not about torture but about the ILLEGAL detainment of ALLEGED "terrorists" and other combatants. This flies in the face of the Geneva convention, as his follow up posts clearly show if you read the quotes which he was so kind as to find for you. So until someone can come up with a lucid argument that shows that it is not hypocritcal to deny people their rights under the geneva convention, while at the same time denouncing your enemy for commiting them, I think the original point that the US is acting in a hypocritical manner. Let me make it clear for the more stupid people out there, Saddam is and has commited crimes which are outlawed by the geneva convention. So has the Bush administration, the difference is that Saddam cannot address his crimes, the US can by taking the current prisoners and treating them under the provisions of the convention, until this happens they cannot claim the high moral ground.

 

[Alistar7]

are you ever going to acknowledge the publicly available fact the red cross has been to gtmo and concluded no geneva violations?????


or does this fact shoot down your arguement that the US is a hypocrite?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: 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?

what about this ONE person???

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Kaiynne

Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree, there have been many studies showing that people are more than capable of torture, even on the flimsiest of pretexts. For example http://www.prisonexp.org/ The stanford prison experiment.

Also not a single person has so far in this thread addressed the most important point of the original poster. Which was not about torture but about the ILLEGAL detainment of ALLEGED "terrorists" and other combatants. This flies in the face of the Geneva convention, as his follow up posts clearly show if you read the quotes which he was so kind as to find for you. So until someone can come up with a lucid argument that shows that it is not hypocritcal to deny people their rights under the geneva convention, while at the same time denouncing your enemy for commiting them, I think the original point that the US is acting in a hypocritical manner. Let me make it clear for the more stupid people out there, Saddam is and has commited crimes which are outlawed by the geneva convention. So has the Bush administration, the difference is that Saddam cannot address his crimes, the US can by taking the current prisoners and treating them under the provisions of the convention, until this happens they cannot claim the high moral ground.

Disagree with what? A study showing the possibility of torture/abuse in a hypothical prison experiment is not the same as evidence that we are torturing prisoners at Gutamano Bay. From what I've read, the Red Cross has been there and said they are being treated according to Geneva Conventions. So why are people acting as if we are torturing them? There has been no evidence.

As for us being hypocritical, we are not complaining that Iraq is detaining our soldiers illegally. We just want them to be treated humanely and not tortured according to Geneva Conventions. In other words, treat our soldiers in the same way we treat your soldiers. I see no hypocrisy.

 

[SP33Demon]

Your link to the Kabul incidents isn't working, or it's very slow. To quote you: "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)."

You said suspicions. We can speculate all we want, but until we have the cold hard facts (that these men were murdered by our soldiers in cold blood) then we can argue. Ok? I can argue all day about whether I think Saddam's dead or not b/c he hasn't surfaced, but why bother????

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Your link to the Kabul incidents isn't working, or it's very slow. To quote you: "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)."

You said suspicions. We can speculate all we want, but until we have the cold hard facts (that these men were murdered by our soldiers in cold blood) then we can argue. Ok? I can argue all day about whether I think Saddam's dead or not b/c he hasn't surfaced, but why bother????

I can quote directly from that article; it is loading fine for me.

Ehsannullah, 29, said American soldiers who initially questioned him in Kandahar before shipping him to Guantanamo hit him and taunted him by dumping the Koran in a toilet.
(one paragraph down)
Merza Khan, who had been captured in northern Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban, said Americans in Kandahar tied him up and alternately forced him to lie face down on the ground, then squat with his hands on his head for hours. He also said he saw American soldiers throw the Koran on the ground and sit on it while in Kandahar.

The released prisoners' complaints come as the U.S. military is investigating the deaths of two Afghan prisoners interrogated at the U.S. military facility at Bagram air base, north of Kabul. A military doctor listed the two deaths as homicides, prompting the investigation. Human rights activists have also criticized the United States for detaining suspected terrorists indefinitely at Guantanamo and elsewhere without charging them with a crime.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Disagree with what? A study showing the possibility of torture/abuse in a hypothical prison experiment is not the same as evidence that we are torturing prisoners at Gutamano Bay. From what I've read, the Red Cross has been there and said they are being treated according to Geneva Conventions. So why are people acting as if we are torturing them? There has been no evidence.

As for us being hypocritical, we are not complaining that Iraq is detaining our soldiers illegally. We just want them to be treated humanely and not tortured according to Geneva Conventions. In other words, treat our soldiers in the same way we treat your soldiers. I see no hypocrisy.

If you read the link concerning the Red Cross visit, the RC made no such statement - the issue I have with the detainment of captives at Guantanamo is their legal status and associated rights under the Geneva Convention - the Red Cross, Amnesty International and many others have made statements clearly stating that the prisoners are not being given their full legal rights under the Geneva Convention. Tscenter made a dissenting comment stating that we had not agreed to the Geneva Convention in full - if someone can provide me an amended agreement that we made, I would appreciate it. I am merely going by the terms of the convention as listed on the UN Human Rights Committee Website.

I have made no statement indicating I think the detainees at Guantanamo are undergoing physical torture; I have made that clear in previous posts.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CPA

How the heck can you call Americans hypocrits when you are comparing alleged incidents to actual confirmed cases?
And personally, I think there needs to be more aggressive means of requesting information other than: "Please Mr. Abudabi, where is Mr. Saddam? Tell us, pretty please with sugar on top."

I'm sure you would love those more aggressive means when you're the one who's been arrested and not given a trial.

If there are men who have been detained and proven by trial either POW's or independent members of Al Queda by an independent governing body, then the entire issue gets resolved, and fairly easily. They are to be accorded different rights, as per the Geneva convention. Even then, the prevailing standard of international law is one that prohibits torture, in any form.

 

[tcsenter]

I am sorry if I intimated to anyone that I thought torture was occurring at Gauntanamo. What I was referring to was the alleged homicides of two men at the US Army base north of Kabul, where they supposedly died because of wounds inflicted by their captors.

First, it was a Defense Department medical examiner who classified the cause of deaths as homicide, triggering an investigation. If the military's 'unwritten' internal policy was to subject captives at Bagram to beatings, it wouldn't have allowed its own medical examiner to classify the deaths as homicides.

There is currently a criminal investigation underway to determine whether or not the deaths were the result of injuries inflicted from unlawful treatment. Why let it go that far? Just get your 'guy', a DOD medical examiner, to say the deaths were the result of injuries caused by something else, accidental or whatever, then bury those suckers. No suspicion, no investigation, no bad press, it all just 'goes away' without ever making the news.

There have been hundreds of prisoners interrogated at Bagram, these two deaths are the only deaths reported to occur there. The very fact there is a criminal investigation into the deaths means the military doesn't condone torture or beatings. If either of the deaths were caused by unlawful treatment, it means that someone took it upon themselves to inflict these injuries. That is an individual's criminal act, not a government's.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I am sorry if I intimated to anyone that I thought torture was occurring at Gauntanamo. What I was referring to was the alleged homicides of two men at the US Army base north of Kabul, where they supposedly died because of wounds inflicted by their captors.

First, it was a Defense Department medical examiner who classified the cause of deaths as homicide, triggering an investigation. If the military's 'unwritten' internal policy was to subject captives at Bagram to beatings, it wouldn't have allowed its own medical examiner to classify the deaths as homicides.

There is currently a criminal investigation underway to determine whether or not the deaths were the result of injuries inflicted from unlawful treatment. Why let it go that far? Just get your 'guy', a DOD medical examiner, to say the deaths were the result of injuries caused by something else, accidental or whatever, then bury those suckers. No suspicion, no investigation, no bad press, it all just 'goes away' without ever making the news.

There have been hundreds of prisoners interrogated at Bagram, these two deaths are the only deaths reported to occur there. The very fact there is a criminal investigation into the deaths means the military doesn't condone torture or beatings. If either of the deaths were caused by unlawful treatment, it means that someone took it upon themselves to inflict these injuries. That is an individual's criminal act, not a government's.

That was information I was not aware of, most of it due probably to my own laziness.

If that is the case, that is good, and I applaud the government for their actions on the matter. Guantanamo remains as an issue; I'm eagerly awaiting to see the provisions of the Geneva Convention we did not agree to. (I don't mean that as sarcasm, I'm genuinely interested to see what we opted out of)

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: StormRider
Disagree with what? A study showing the possibility of torture/abuse in a hypothical prison experiment is not the same as evidence that we are torturing prisoners at Gutamano Bay. From what I've read, the Red Cross has been there and said they are being treated according to Geneva Conventions. So why are people acting as if we are torturing them? There has been no evidence.

As for us being hypocritical, we are not complaining that Iraq is detaining our soldiers illegally. We just want them to be treated humanely and not tortured according to Geneva Conventions. In other words, treat our soldiers in the same way we treat your soldiers. I see no hypocrisy.

If you read the link concerning the Red Cross visit, the RC made no such statement - the issue I have with the detainment of captives at Guantanamo is their legal status and associated rights under the Geneva Convention - the Red Cross, Amnesty International and many others have made statements clearly stating that the prisoners are not being given their full legal rights under the Geneva Convention. Tscenter made a dissenting comment stating that we had not agreed to the Geneva Convention in full - if someone can provide me an amended agreement that we made, I would appreciate it. I am merely going by the terms of the convention as listed on the UN Human Rights Committee Website.

I have made no statement indicating I think the detainees at Guantanamo are undergoing physical torture; I have made that clear in previous posts.

When I said that the prisoners were being treated according to Geneva conventions, I meant the following

Over the past 12 months, ICRC teams have spent about 33 weeks in Guantanamo Bay interviewing prisoners and checking basic issues such as food, hygiene facilities and access to exercise and fresh air.

From what I've read the Red Cross did not come up with anything wrong with the way we are treating the prisoners. Their main contention is their legal status.

BTW, how would we treat them differently if they were catagorized as prisoners of war?

 

[tcsenter]

If you read the link concerning the Red Cross visit, the RC made no such statement - the issue I have with the detainment of captives at Guantanamo is their legal status and associated rights under the Geneva Convention - the Red Cross, Amnesty International and many others have made statements clearly stating that the prisoners are not being given their full legal rights under the Geneva Convention.

Bullsh-t. I don't care what the far-flung wackos at Amnesty for [Criminals] International think.

The Red Cross, however, is another matter, and the Red Cross has repeatedly stated there is z-e-r-o evidence the Guantanamo detainees are being mistreated, denied medical care, abused, or tortured. The nature of the Red Cross' complaint is a mere legal formality, they want the legal status of the detainees to be clarified, as opposed to the muddled legal status the US currently claims for them.

What do legal formalities matter if in fact the detainees are being treated in a manner which substantially adheres to Geneva Standards, even if not "to the letter" of Geneva requirements?

As for a link to any official source of what portions of the Geneva Convention the US did not consent to or the nature of its "reservations", I've been trying to find something myself without much success. I have only seen on CNN and the BBC News a list of parties to the Geneva Convention and their status. In both articles, the 'status' of the US was described as 'signed with reservations'. I have not been able to find out what those reservations actually are.

 

[yowolabi]

Tcsenter, I've done a lot of searching and I'm almost certain that we agreed in full to the Geneva conventions. I'm a pretty good researcher, and I could find nothing that indicated what you claim.

I believe you may have it confused with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Next, even when the United States does sign and ratify agreements, it fails to pass the legislation that would give them the force of law. Or the United States imposes so many caveats about particular provisions that the treaties' effect on American law is nil. One example is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States ratified with reservations to shield its laws allowing for the death penalty and protecting free speech under the First Amendment.

From this well written article that addresses many of the concerns that the topic starter has.

I understand your concerns Zakath15, which I take as you being worried that the fact that we don't follow international conventions to the letter, weakens our position when we demand that others do so. I have some of those same concerns. I would like us to follow the Geneva Convention to the letter exactly because of times like these, where someone has our troops and we need to have the moral high ground. I also want anyone who violates international laws to be tried for those crimes, but it is hard for the US to demand this when we refuse to sign anything that would put us in the same situation.

Basically, we're the strongest, and we're not going to let anyone weaker than us tell us what to do. It's a course we've chosen and we'll have to deal with some of the unfortunate consequences.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

If you read the link concerning the Red Cross visit, the RC made no such statement - the issue I have with the detainment of captives at Guantanamo is their legal status and associated rights under the Geneva Convention - the Red Cross, Amnesty International and many others have made statements clearly stating that the prisoners are not being given their full legal rights under the Geneva Convention.

Bullsh-t. I don't care what the far-flung wackos at Amnesty for [Criminals] International think.

The Red Cross, however, is another matter, and the Red Cross has repeatedly stated there is z-e-r-o evidence the Guantanamo detainees are being mistreated, denied medical care, abused, or tortured. The nature of the Red Cross' complaint is a mere legal formality, they want the legal status of the detainees to be clarified, as opposed to the muddled legal status the US currently claims for them.

What do legal formalities matter if in fact the detainees are being treated in a manner which substantially adheres to Geneva Standards, even if not "to the letter" of Geneva requirements?

As for a link to any official source of what portions of the Geneva Convention the US did not consent to or the nature of its "reservations", I've been trying to find something myself without much success. I have only seen on CNN and the BBC News a list of parties to the Geneva Convention and their status. In both articles, the 'status' of the US was described as 'signed with reservations'. I have not been able to find out what those reservations actually are.

Assuming that you are correct, and it is just a legal formality, why don't we do it then? It won't hurt us, but it'll help us a lot, because our detractors couldn't use this against us any more. As long as we 're in violation, even if it's relatively harmless, it can be used as an excuse for others to be in violation. Wouldn't you rather we did everything by the letter, so that we can have real outrage when someone does something wrong to us.

 

[tcsenter]

Tcsenter, I've done a lot of searching and I'm almost certain that we agreed in full to the Geneva conventions. I'm a pretty good researcher, and I could find nothing that indicated what you claim.

You give an excellent example of precisely what I'm talking about. The author states: "Next, even when the United States does sign and ratify agreements, it fails to pass the legislation that would give them the force of law. Or the United States imposes so many caveats about particular provisions that the treaties' effect on American law is nil."

Then goes on to give only an example of this, not an all-inclusive dissertation on every treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party.

I am 100% certain of what I read, I am just not 100% of where I read it (I hate that). To the best of my recollection, the US did not ratify all portions of the Geneva Convention unconditionally.

Assuming that you are correct, and it is just a legal formality, why don't we do it then? It won't hurt us, but it'll help us a lot, because our detractors couldn't use this against us any more. As long as we 're in violation, even if it's relatively harmless, it can be used as an excuse for others to be in violation. Wouldn't you rather we did everything by the letter, so that we can have real outrage when someone does something wrong to us.

This is really covering the same reasons why we scraped the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, because we were about the only country actually following it. Where a country 'claimed' to be following it, they wouldn't do so under 100% transparency to allow verfication as the United States does.

You're talking legal formalities, nothing more. What matters is how, in fact, the detainees are being treated. After all, that was the purpose of Geneva - ensuring certain minimum levels of treatment WRT POWs and detainees. We are meeting those minimum levels and we allow independent verification of that.

When the United States criticizes another government for failing to adhere to the precise letter of the Geneva Convention even though they are in fact adhering substantially to Geneva standards by treating their POWs and detainees as well as the United States does, and being transparent about it as the United States does, then that government can legitimately say 'Hey, we're doing nothing worse and nothing better than what you were doing in Guantanamo'.

What our actions do not legitimize is for a country to toss the Geneva standards out of the window completely, start executing, torturing, or mistreating POWs and detainees, then try to defend it by saying 'Well the US doesn't adhere to Geneva, either'.

Sorry, one does not equate to the other.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Tcsenter, I've done a lot of searching and I'm almost certain that we agreed in full to the Geneva conventions. I'm a pretty good researcher, and I could find nothing that indicated what you claim.

I believe you may have it confused with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Next, even when the United States does sign and ratify agreements, it fails to pass the legislation that would give them the force of law. Or the United States imposes so many caveats about particular provisions that the treaties' effect on American law is nil. One example is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States ratified with reservations to shield its laws allowing for the death penalty and protecting free speech under the First Amendment.

From this well written article that addresses many of the concerns that the topic starter has.

I understand your concerns Zakath15, which I take as you being worried that the fact that we don't follow international conventions to the letter, weakens our position when we demand that others do so. I have some of those same concerns. I would like us to follow the Geneva Convention to the letter exactly because of times like these, where someone has our troops and we need to have the moral high ground. I also want anyone who violates international laws to be tried for those crimes, but it is hard for the US to demand this when we refuse to sign anything that would put us in the same situation.

Basically, we're the strongest, and we're not going to let anyone weaker than us tell us what to do. It's a course we've chosen and we'll have to deal with some of the unfortunate consequences.

Thank you for the excellent article, it addresses the majority of what I was thinking of; your post addresses the rest, and struck my chord of thought almost exactly.

 

[Orsorum]

Tcsenter - I never equated the actions of the US or Iraqi government, and I stated that explicitly in my first post. The lack of legal recognition is important, regardless of how they're being cared for. If we expect the rest of the civilized world to adhere to the tenets of international law, it is (IMO) in our best interest to obey that same law to the letter.

 

[tcsenter]

Tcsenter - I never equated the actions of the US or Iraqi government, and I stated that explicitly in my first post. The lack of legal recognition is important, regardless of how they're being cared for. If we expect the rest of the civilized world to adhere to the tenets of international law, it is (IMO) in our best interest to obey that same law to the letter.

I didn't think you were equating the US with Iraq. You were buying into the same thinking which says there is always something 'right' in numbers, therefore all international laws and treaties are 'right' and we are 'wrong' for not signing them. Which is crap.

A million wrong people are no 'less wrong' because there are a million of them.

The United States of America is a democracy. The world stage isn't.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Tcsenter, I've done a lot of searching and I'm almost certain that we agreed in full to the Geneva conventions. I'm a pretty good researcher, and I could find nothing that indicated what you claim.

You give an excellent example of precisely what I'm talking about. The author states: "Next, even when the United States does sign and ratify agreements, it fails to pass the legislation that would give them the force of law. Or the United States imposes so many caveats about particular provisions that the treaties' effect on American law is nil."

Then goes on to give only an example of this, not an all-inclusive dissertation on every treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party.

I am 100% certain of what I read, I am just not 100% of where I read it (I hate that). To the best of my recollection, the US did not ratify all portions of the Geneva Convention unconditionally.

Assuming that you are correct, and it is just a legal formality, why don't we do it then? It won't hurt us, but it'll help us a lot, because our detractors couldn't use this against us any more. As long as we 're in violation, even if it's relatively harmless, it can be used as an excuse for others to be in violation. Wouldn't you rather we did everything by the letter, so that we can have real outrage when someone does something wrong to us.

This is really covering the same reasons why we scraped the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, because we were about the only country actually following it. Where a country 'claimed' to be following it, they wouldn't do so under 100% transparency to allow verfication as the United States does.

You're talking legal formalities, nothing more. What matters is how, in fact, the detainees are being treated. After all, that was the purpose of Geneva - ensuring certain minimum levels of treatment WRT POWs and detainees. We are meeting those minimum levels and we allow independent verification of that.

When the United States criticizes another government for failing to adhere to the precise letter of the Geneva Convention even though they are in fact adhering substantially to Geneva standards by treating their POWs and detainees as well as the United States does, and being transparent about it as the United States does, then that government can legitimately say 'Hey, we're doing nothing worse and nothing better than what you were doing in Guantanamo'.

What our actions do not legitimize is for a country to toss the Geneva standards out of the window completely, start executing, torturing, or mistreating POWs and detainees, then try to defend it by saying 'Well the US doesn't adhere to Geneva, either'.

Sorry, one does not equate to the other.

I heard on NPR that we didn't sign the mine treaty but we are adhering to it. By contrast, North Korea sign some agreements/treaty but cheated. While it's better to "talk the talk" and "walk the walk", if we could only do one, I'd rather we "walk the walk".

 

[exp]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Geneva convention apply specifically to soldiers *in uniform*? And was the decision to limit the GC's scope in that way not made for a very good reason? Of course I am not advocating torture, only suggesting that giving prisoners who were captured while fighting in civilian garb treatment equal to that afforded to their uniformed counterparts would be an unfortunately short-sighted policy.