That was the FOURTH Convention. Not the one we're addressing. The Geneva Convention with respect to POWs was in 1929, mr rolleyes. That would make it before WWII. What? Your blathering has no discernable standard by which to judge a situation. A terrorist is more important than a CIVILIAN (ie someone NOT taking part in hostilities)? You are CRAZY. By your analogy it would be better for millions of Americans to die through terrorist bombing than for one terrorist to be tortured, right? Am I reading your words correctly? The bomings weren't necessary but they were necessary. That makes sense. You justify the killing of millions of civilians, even though many of them had no part in decision making that led to war. At the same time you claim torture is absolutely wrong, and consider the recipient (maybe Osama himself) MORE important than those MILLIONS of civilians.... Wow. I can only say I am MASSIVELY relieved to know you are not in charge. Ok, so now its not the number of countries, or the size of the countries, but the size of the destruction. Gee, I guess I'm just off base claiming you are continually changing your standard to fit your need of the moment, lol. I guess it wouldn't have been 'just' to stop Hitler when he first invaded Poland, rather only when he'd taken over most of the continent , which is an example of how stupid your 'standard' is. The Soviet Union west of the Urals was considered Europe, btw, not Asia. No, as I've mentioned above, your assertion that what we did in WWII was 'necessary to win the peace' is INCORRECT. Get it? The assumptions on which you base your conclusion are WRONG. Historically INACCURATE. International law recognizes the doctrine of removing a dictator as legitimate. There is your justification. Look it up. Same doctrine recognized by the UN and everyone else that enabled intervention in Bosnia and for Kosovo. Happy? As for 'torturing their citizens,' who said citizens? What about AQ? Surely you're not suggesting that ALL the insurgents are Iraqis? That would be incorrect, as even Iraqi sources put the insurgents at 1/4th outsiders, including AQ. And this IS A TIME OF WAR, in case you missed it. Keep trying... Uh, yeah those would have been our own citizens. Why would we torture them? LOOK UP the TITLES of the Geneva Conventions you are talking about. They deal with how we treat THE ARMED FORCES of other nation states, except for the fourth convention, which deals with civilian treatment in a time of war. They don't seek to make ABSOLUTES about behavior in 'civilization.' Congratulations. You have your opinion. Don't try to pass it off as accepted doctrine. The idea is to protect innocent civilians, and to accord certain protection to representatives of a nationstate at war with another nation state. People dressed as civilians are not given protection because they are ENDANGERING innocents NOT involved in hostilities. They are increasing the number of innocents that get hurt or killed. They are blurring the lines between combatants and civilians. It is tactically advantageous for EVERY army to do that, but 'civilized' countries didn't want wholesale slaughter of civilians to be the NORM. You asked me if I wanted our soldiers to get tortured. I said no, because unlike you I have a simple standard set by which to judge whether or not you fall under the Geneva Convention. If you are representing yourself as a soldier of a warring nation, ie if you are wearing a uniform, then you are protected. If you aren't, you aren't. Easy simple standard. If we catch an AQ operative and then torture them to get information, that falls outside your example, right? So why is it wrong? Because we invaded Iraq? Why does that protect AQ? They are the aggressors, right? They attacked us, right? In one of my first posts I agreed that Abu Grab was not good, rather counterproductive. So what is your position. We should not torture because we are the aggressors. But we are NOT the aggressors with AQ, so it should be ok to torture them, huh? So are we a morally superior nation or not? If not then where does that leave you? Its ok for us to torture because we're not morally superior? Congratulations again, you're chasing your own tail. If we are is it because we are morally PERFECT? I don't think so. Its because we don't routinely kill our own population en masse, its because our leader doesn't kill his opposition, its because our people get to CHOOSE our leader (at least every 8 years ), its because our prisons are not filled with political prisoners, and because the opposition does not disappear into unmarked graves. It just fantasyland to assume that to be morally SUPERIOR you have to be morally perfect. Hence, NO absolutes. You justify the killing on millions of innocents, even though it WAS RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME that it was unnecessary. I justify torturing AQ operatives, which truth be told I'd have a lot easier time having on my conscience than Dresden. Morally wrong? I don't know. Who cares. Its at least counterproductive. At its base it makes no sense to detain and torture en masse. However as I've indicated before, I'd have no problem torturing the **** out of Osama or his henchmen, to get whatever info available. You shouldn't either (and you don't apparently). OK, this looks like a breakthough. I think we're agreeing here. By your own words, though, 'torture bad' is not absolute. There are circumstances when you would find it acceptable. Me too. It shouldn't be used on anyone and everyone. I agree. Agreed. I have no idea about your morality. Mainly because you claim two anti-thetical positions at the same time. If the 'ends justify the means' then the world of 'absolutes' is closed to you. You cannot claim something is absolute, a line never to be crossed, and then say that the ends justify the means. The whole idea of the ends justifying the means is that you would cross hitherto assumed absolutes to achieve the end.
Is what is good for America the same as what is good for humanity? Is peace a threat to the political establishment? There are always other options to torture, no matter the situation. It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
That's because no one ever got in trouble for doing it. Japanese internment was nothing compared to atrocities the Americans and Russians committed on their enemies in WW2. When Zhukov rolled into Berlin it was not a good place to be, unless you were a very angry Russian soldier interested in some serious rape and pillage. The Allies gave Berlin to the Russians knowing full well what they would do. Not a whole lot of handwringing was done about it either. I'm not saying the practice is on the up and up morally speaking...but neither is the institution of war to begin with.
