Yes, of course it does. If a country starts a war by invading its neighbors, the rest of the world is right to do what is necessary to take out that aggression. We were right to repel Iraq from Kuwait (they invaded a neighbor), but even in that action, the prudent (and wise) thing to do was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and then hold those borders, sanction Iraq, and get Saddam to give up WMDs. We did all of that with virtually zero civilian casualties. In WWII, Germany was responsible for the civilian casualties (Germany's civilians as well as the civilians killed by Germany) because they were the aggressor. They invaded other countries with no provocation and the Allies were not responsible for civilian casualties as they were simply defending themselves. This war has been very different. Saddam, even though he had some paperwork errors regarding WMDs, was not overtly hostile toward his neighbors and was in no position to even defend his country for more than three weeks. He was completely boxed in and contained and could not have been a threat for at least a decade. Despite all of this, GWB decided to invade and as such, it is the "coalition" who are the aggressors and therefore responsible for the civilian casualties. I know there might be some lame justification usually in the name of "liberation" or "punishing the murderous Saddam," but Saddam was no threat, not a gathering threat, not even a significant threat. Just did. Please get it straight. I do not have a "side," I am not a Democrat, I am not even a liberal. 2004 was the first time I have voted for a Democrat in well over a decade. If Saddam had been murderous and hostile toward his neighbors or anyone else for that matter, then the invasion would have been justified. He wasn't and it wasn't. Uh, you have a penchant for the dramatic, huh? Saddam did not rate a nuclear weapon even in 1991. He was a second rate thug whose army wilted in front of the US forces in Desert Storm. Then, his country endured over a decade of sanctions during which, Iraq disarmed and her military was decimated to the point that the US was able to invade and take "control" of the country in three weeks. The military obviously does not simply go out to kill civilians "en masse," in a just war. In a just war, we go to drive the aggressors out of the occupied territories. In this case, we are the agressors, invading and occupying a country that was not a threat and could not have been a threat for at least a decade.
And it would have been a sad day to be an American. Just like the day that our Attorney General nominee actually had the audacity to write a legal brief justifying torture. Sad.
The standard you establish is crazy. Countries can do anything when responding to aggression and they aren't responsible because they aren't the aggressors. That is your standard. Saying we could have nuked Bagdad is not dramatic, its well within the scope of your standard. Saddam started the war, so we could have done any scale of damage to Iraq and been justified. Your ad hoc denials of the specific situation are weak and only work against your own standard. THIS is ok with you but torturing a terrorist isn't? If the ends justify the means, which you seemingly willingly adopt, then why ISN'T torture ok? You've screwed yourself on this one. Andy, you need to read a history book. They called it 'terror bombing' because it specifically targeted the civilian population. The bombing didn't stop when Germany or Japan were driven out of 'occupied territories.' Google Dresden or firebombing and Japan. Those weren't actions of self defense. But these are ok with you and torture of an individual isn't. Again I say your priorities are screwed up. Yes, you are against the war in Iraq. THAT is a 'side.'
That was in the 1980s, while the US was still supporting Saddam. After GWI, Saddam did nothing of the sort.
This is an absolutely FALSE statement. WE started the war, not Saddam. Saddam offered to allow CIA and FBI operatives into Iraq to confirm that they were indeed disarmed. GWB ignored that and invaded. Thus, WE are the aggressors here, not Iraq. Again, that was after THEY ATTACKED US!!! The "terror bombings" (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were justified since we were trying to end the war that THEY started. Once a person is captured by any army, they are entitled to the protections that the Geneva Conventions set out and that includes being free from torture.
Calm down, in my original 'nuke bagdad' example I was talking about the first Gulf War. Of course the administration offered to deescalate before intervention (often sited as the proof that humanitarian concerns were not the motivation of the administration) and Saddam refused, so your facts are a little off anyway (not that its relevant to this discussion). Sorry but this is just wrong. At the point of Dresden and other terror bombings, all occupied territory had been recovered. Japan and Germany could have been isolated and sanctioned, as you defend with Iraq. But they weren't. Your standard is just silly. Its like saying I can kill the school bully because he stole my lunch money. The Geneva Convention is meant to protect members of a state in a war against another state. Not members of a non state actor like a terrorist organization. For example, a member of an army caught out of uniform can be executed, did you know that? Why? Because the Geneva convention was set out to protect specific actors, not anyone in any conflict. In the end you say the ends justify the means in one example but not in another. That just doesn't hold up. If its ok to kill millions of innocent civilians to end a war, why not torture a few individuals? Because of the Geneva Conventions? Weak. Because 'torture is wrong?' Weak. If your 'principles' are determined on an ad hoc basis, then they aren't principles at all.
Right but andy claims saddam wasn't 'hostile to anyone' which is not true. he hadn't been murdering kurds because there were no fly zones etc.
I believe it is YOUR facts that are a bit off. GWB never offered to deescalate the war. Saddam offered to allow the FBI and CIA to verify what the weapons inspectors had already found (that Iraq had disarmed) and it was the administration that refused and in doing so, went back on the idea of war as a last resort and instead pursued an elective war that did not have any justifiable reason for happening. As far as the "nuke Baghdad" during GWI, that still would not have been justified since we were able to drive Saddam out of Kuwait in a matter of a few weeks. Bombing predominantly civilian populations to cause the enemy to acquiesce was part of WWII (pre-Geneva anyway) because that war went on for so many years that one of the only ways to make (Japan specifically) the Axis surrender was to bomb their civilians and shake the confidence of the populace in their leaders. Japan and Germany needed to be overthrown, not sanctioned. They started a World War through aggression and invasion of many neighbors. Iraq invaded one tiny little nation and then ran away, tails between their legs, when a real army showed up to confront them. You are welcome to believe Gonzales' "analysis" of the GC rules if you like, but it is wrong to torture people, which is the reason that we signed the Conventions in the first place. Besides, with the insurgents in Iraq, what "uniform" should they be wearing when they are just trying to get what they view as the aggressors out of their country. They are as deserving of the protections of the GC as any state-sponsored military man. You can think of both of those reasons as "weak" if you like, but if you so believe, then you will not be surprised when OUR soldiers are tortured and I assume that you will fully support the tortures' right to do what they want since we apparently are. We are supposed to be held to a higher standard. If we want to lead the world because we are morally superior, we need to actually ACT morally superior. Torturing people on the basis of legalese doublespeak attempting to justify such torture is wrong. BTW, the latest reports show that this torture has been a prime reason that Iraqis do not support our presence. Clearly, this policy has had some major backlash and will continue to until someone slaps our leaders across the face and tells them that TORTURE IS WRONG.
After GWI, Saddam was not hostile to his neighbors or to the Iraqi populations that were out of favor. The fact that it was enforced with no-fly zones is a red herring. After GWI, there was no provocation whatsoever, but we still invaded. That makes the United States the aggressor in this action.
I was replying to bobrek's post. But I would say that only indicates that the no-fly zones and inspections were working, or at least could have been prolonged. There wasn't a need to invade when we did.
You're just moving your standard to suit your needs of the moment. First it was if they are aggressors, then they hold all responsibility. Now you're changing it with each step you take backwards. Either actions are justified depending on the situation or they are never justified. You claim killing millions of innocent civilians is ok but torturing an individual is not. That is the crux of our disagreement. I think you've lost the plot when you think the plight of one is more important than that of millions. Your analysis of WWII couldn't be MORE incorrect. The fire bombings in Japan and Germany, and the atomic bombings in Japan were absolutely UNNECESSARY. Truman and Eisenhower specifically address this in their diaries. You are just wrong. In addition, the Geneva Convention concerning POWs was signed BEFORE WWII, so your caveat about bombings being PRE-Geneva show just how little you know about the subject. EDIT: FB points out there is a fourth convention that was post WWII, so maybe that's what you're referring to. Oh, so its the NUMBER of neighbors invaded that matter. Or is it the SIZE of the neighbor invaded?Its ok to kill millions of civilians if an aggressor invades TWO little countries, or one BIG country, but not ONE little country, lol. What a clear standard your principles encompass. Your standard is getting somewhat confusing... Well, andy, if my analysis is wrong then please explain why you can execute a soldier caught out of uniform. That's not my or Gonzales's analysis, that's the worlds analysis as practiced since the Convention came into existence. If they are terrorists from other places then uniforms won't help them. If they are Iraqi military then that is the uniform they should be wearing. Pretty simple stuff here. Since our soldiers are representatives of a nation state, and since they wear uniforms proclaiming such, I do not think they should be tortured. If one of our spys gets caught, the rules of the game say he is toast. That's how it works. Ok, so is your position that we are morally superior? On what basis? Should we attack all of Islam that does not meet our standard of morality? You know, those that don't give equal rights to women, for example? It seems to me that you are the one engaging in doublespeak about morality and ends/means. You try to claim BOTH, lol, while condemning those that disagree with you. THAT is rich. Yes, there was no discontent before Abu Grab . Besides, I have already pointed out that sweeping up civilians and engaging in practices such as happened at Abu Grab is counterproductive. Go back and read my posts earlier in the thread. However, that does not mean there is no place for torture, only that it should be applied judiciously, if at all. If you believe the ends justify the means, which you clearly state you do, and want to defend that, and you do, then you have no ground to declare torture offlimits. The only issue for someone who defends ends/means is whether or not torture is EFFECTIVE. You have NO BASIS to claim ANYTHING about morality, since you don't believe in that.
EDIT: gene i did some looking around and 'trial' is mentioned in several places, so I guess there is some DP required. No, the convention just doesn't cover them. That's my point. The convention was to set out rules about how to treat military representatives of nation-states when captured in war between nation states. A soldier out of uniform is outside that boundary, and presumed to be a spy - and not within the protection of the convention. Its the method of delineating who is and who is not a military representative of a nation state - the uniform. Terrorists are by definition NOT representatives of a nation state. They are OUTSIDE the convention. The flip side is that a nation state will be held accountable for violations of the convention. No such balance exists when dealing with a supranational terrorist organization.
The fourth geneva convetion was established specifically to deal with how to treat civilians. The Geneva conventions cover both civilian and military personell.
A terrorist or insurgent does not fit the definition of 'civilian' set out in the convention. Again the conventions were set out to defend members of nation states. The first standard it sets out is that it concerns someone 'taking NO part in active hostilities.'
In this new paradigm I have no problem equating the treatment of " terrorist" with spies and treating them with the generally accepted standards, those much more harsh than uniformed combatants. The problem seems to be identifying them with some degree of certainty so that you don't torture or summarily execute an innocent in a case of mistaken identity. In the case of the prisoners at Guantanmo, without some accepted form of a trial how would you know they are in fact terrorist? On the battlefield I believe the standards are lower because the threat is more immanent. Actions by a non-uniformed persons that are reasonably interpreted as threatening could be reason enough for summary execution, though in the rercent case of note it would be fair to have a judicial review as to whether the young marines interpretation was in fact reasonable. I think in context it was but it could easly go either way in some other person's mind.
You actually caused me to doubt myself, so I looked it up. The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 MUST have happened before WWII, huh? I think the "plight" of one person being tortured by the aggressors in a war is more important than the "plight" of people being bombed in a war that they started in which their country was the aggressor. Torture is absolutely wrong, but sometimes bombings are necessary. In hindsight (as Eisenhower and Truman's diaries were), the firebombings and nuclear bombs may have been the wrong way to approach the situation, but hindsight is 20/20. When you twist my words (apparently in your mind, I have been pretty clear), I guess it is confusing. It is not the NUMBER of nations invaded that is the issue, it is the size of the problem that is the issue. Hitler took control of virtually all of Europe and continued invading to the point that he actually had the hubris to start a land war in Asia, an action that has been disastrous for many an invader, including Napoleon. That is a far cry from invading a tiny little swatch of land before being driven out (in a few weeks, mind you) by a vastly superior force. Saddam did not cause anywhere near the destruction that Hitler did and as such, his aggression did not rise to the level that would require such drastic steps as "nuking Baghdad." We did what we had to do in WWII because it appeared necessary to win the peace there. We did what we did in Iraq (in '02, not '91) on an elective basis with no justification. We are the aggressors there, which makes torturing their citizens a MUCH worse offense than the aforementioned bombings, which happened during a time of war. BTW, even during WWII, we did not torture the Japanese in internment camps, nor did we round up every German we could find and torture them. There are some things that a civilized society does not engage in and torture is one of them. This is one of the main reasons we codified those beliefs in the Geneva Conventions. I personally don't think you should be able to execute an out of uniform soldier. And if they believe the Iraqi military is simply a puppet of the US? What then? These people are, by and large, Iraqi citizens who do not want the US in their country. They are as deserving of the protections of the Geneva Conventions as anyone else, IMO. Sure, if our spy is caught in enemy territory and won't proclaim his nationality (as they are trained), then they know what they signed up for. The difference is that WE are the invaders in this instance and we decided to not only invade, but then torture the citizens. No, what I was saying is that we invaded on the basis that Saddam was a bad man who shouldn't be in power. That is taking the position of a morally superior nation. Just because our enemy is so barbaric that they will behead innocents does not give us the right to torture. A morally superior people would treat even prisoners of war (which those prisoners difinitively are) as they would want prisoners caught by the enemy to be treated. And yet you continue to take the position that torture in some circumstances is justified. I guess I might be able to agree with you if we had any information at all about the circumstances under which torture is OK and I would further side with you if the process was open (as it has not been in Gitmo and Iraq). However, the US government is reserving the right to take prisoners for an indeterminant amount of time and treat them however they see fit. That is wrong. The ends can justify the means, but in the case of Iraq and Gitmo, the ends simply do not justify the means that are being used. The evidence that I have seen leads me to believe that torture is NOT being applied "judiciously." It is being used as a primary means of interrogation for prisoners and that is absolutely wrong. I might see a justification in torturing someone that we KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt has information regarding, for example, a bomb planted in the US. It might be justifiable to torture an actual terrorist in order to get specific information. That is not what is happening here. We are torturing Iraqi citizens despite the fact that they do not have any usable information. We are doing this over the cries of such horrible organizations as the *gasp* Red Cross. Even though it is generating resentment among the very people we are supposed ot be "liberating," we are continuing these practices and people like you are justifying those actions. Disgusting. You need to think again if you think you know something about my opinion on morality. It is apparent that you have a VERY twisted view of my opinion regarding morality.
