Should terrorists be treated according to the Geneva Convention?

What were the sources used when they were 'documented' on this BBS? thanks in advance

 

The hypothermia case was reported by ABC News...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investiga...=1322866&page=1

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=104854

And the beating case was the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/i...agewanted=print

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=96656



Nice to see you come out of your hole after you ran away from the debate over the economy.

 

It was done by members of the government, either CIA or military, and since it was this administration that ordered legal briefs drawn up to justify torture, I can only assume that it was.

If you are asking if I have first hand information that GWB himself had full knowledge of these incidents, of course I don't. But if that is the standard it will take for you to see these people for what they are then you have already had too much of the GWB kool-aid.

 

No they were not. andymoon is attempting to use two isolated examples which were not authorized by the Adminstration (or the CIA manual that he linked to) to mislead us into thinking that these violations were encouraged by the Administration. It's typical liberal trash. Not surprised at all.

 

Michael Isikoff of Newsweek has uncovered two internal administration memos - a draft memorandum from White House Chief Counsel Alberto Gonzales recommending that the Geneva Conventions not be applied to the conflict in Afghanistan and an urgent response from Secretary of State Colin Powell disagreeing with that recommendation and many of Gonzales' arguments.

In a report on ABCNews.com, meanwhile, Jake Tapper and Clayton Sandell quote two former Judge Advocates General (JAG) who charge that the uniformed military was overruled when it tried to make sure the Geneva Conventions be applied to all detainees in U.S. custody.

The memoranda and interviews also make clear:

Senior Bush political appointees devised a legal basis to systematically circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions largely to protect themselves from future domestic prosecution for war crimes.

Objections and warnings from Secretary of State Colin Powell, his legal advisor, and senior Pentagon officials were brushed aside.

The former JAGs state flatly that had their advice been heeded, the abuses in U.S. facilities would not have happened.

In his memo, Gonzales demonstrates an enormous talent for justifying setting aside a century of U.S. policy. Highlights of the memo to President Bush (January 25, 2002):

Gonzales says the "new paradigm" of the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Gonzales outlines the pros and cons of applying the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. He is prescient in his prediction that a failure to apply the Conventions across the board "could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."

He rejects his own argument, concluding that "our military remains bound to apply the principles of GPW [Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War] because that is what you have directed them to do."

Gonzales also notes that "It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 (of the US code, the War Crimes Act). Your determination [to bypass the Geneva Conventions] would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=79532

 

the answer is right there in the explanation of the GC......these scumbags dont wear uniforms...they wear typical clothing....they also target civilians....they do not deserve any protection afforded under the GC

 

some people just can't resist a chance to defend torture

 

They should be treated the same as our people who have been captured are being treated. (civilians too...)

 

beheaded on national tv? i agree

 

Uprising don't you think Americans are better than terrorists?

 

You're right I probably should've but my point was that even non-uniformed combatants, saboteurs or spys are still subject to some level of Geneva Conventions. Anyway I refer directly to that paragraph in my response.

Not exactly. The Admin. has argued whether those protections are due to what they call Enemy Combatants. To their credit they're not arguing completely throwing them out but whether they can be finessed enough, such as using military tribunals for court trials but at the same time Admin. lawyers have made the argument that the Executive branch when dealing with Enemy Combatants need not be bound by international law, including Geneva Conventions., and also that Guantanamo isn't US territory so that actions there aren't bound by US law including US treaty law like the Geneva Conventions.

 

Yeah, I do. Which does kind of say the opposite of my last post.

But I personally feel different about Terrorists than I do about a Country's army etc. Having been around a number of attacks, and having a friend seriously injured....I've kind of lost my....can't think of the correct word here, respect wouldn't be correct because I never respected them. I just hate how they target civilians who have nothing to do with fighting.

The title of this thread refers to terrorists in general, not just the fighters in Iraq.

I kind of like the Saudi solution for them....dead on site.

 

you know i think even the most liberal of us could somehow be 'ok' with treating actual terrorists brutally. however given that this administration has repeatedly captured COMPLETELY innocent people due to whatever reason...i think its especially dangerous to allow such a free hand.

 

if our military had in captivity a KNOWN terrorist, as opposed to "suspected" or "terrorist by association", I would not be against torture.

determining KNOWN vs SUSPECTED......... priceless.

 

That's the 3rd Geneva Convention the 4th also includes civillians and people caught in a war zone or occupation who aren't uniformed including spys saboteurs and etc..

As a side note consider that US special forces often engage in missions not in uniform yet in what are considered war situations and where the Geneva Conventions apply. Also soldiers being humans aren't in uniform 24/7 during wartime. If it is uniforms then even an enemy that abided by the Geneva Conventions could sidestep it by capturing a soldier on leave or while they were taking a shower.

 

fair enough.....but those un-uniformed forces aren't targeting civilians....and ONLY civilians

 

haven't there been a lot of military deaths? how can you say they are only attacking civilians?

plus who knows what 'they' constitutes. i'd reckon there are many factions in the insurgency which makes them all strange bedfellows. and i'd imagine some are probably more opposed to harming civilians than others. so who engages in the fact finding mission?

 

but it all started with the terrorists attacking completely innocent civilians