Geneva Conventions

[Briareos]

Arghh I hate this stupid talking point. First off the left was going on about how Gonzalez (Might have been someone else but any rate) called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" he never said that he specifically refered to provisions in it for things like Compasses and scientific calculators being provided to prisoners of war. Also the Geneva conventions themselves do not apply to insurgents or Al Qaeda members as it is written specifically in them that if you dress as civilians and hide among them you are denied the protections of the Geneva conventions.

Also about torture. The manual used for POW's at the cuban base lay out the rules. We can't use a closed fist on them only the palm of your hand and only on the stomach. We do things like making their room temperature uncomfortable or forcing them to stand in a position for a long period of time. We also do waterbording which is the only thing I can see in the list that actually would make anyone uncomfortable about the treatment of our prisoners. The left loves to throw around words like torture but they seem unwilling to discuss actuall treatment of prisoners.

[Alex Scott]

Those are torture. In fact, the Soviets were pretty fond of forced standing, uncomfortable temperatures, and sleep deprivation. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12071.htm)

So this leaves me with one question: why are we using Soviet techniques in Guantanamo?

[Adam C]

Also the Geneva conventions themselves do not apply to insurgents or Al Qaeda members as it is written specifically in them that if you dress as civilians and hide among them you are denied the protections of the Geneva conventions.

Nope. The Geneva Conventions actually have provisions for dealing with these situations. Article Five of the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590008?OpenDocument) states that if there is any doubt as to whether the belligerent in question fits into the definitions for Prisoners of War (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/2f681b08868538c2c12563cd0051aa8d!OpenDocument) a competent tribunal shall determine their status, but until then they will enjoy the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. In the Fourth Geneva Convention the relevant article in this case is Article Four (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600008?OpenDocument) which states:

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Additionally Article 45 of the First Protocol of the Conventions (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750055?OpenDocument) states that " 3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750096?OpenDocument) of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention."

So yes, they are assumed to be protected under the Third Convention until a Competent Tribunal decides otherwise. The problem is that the Bush administration completely skipped that step with Guatanamo, holding them anyways under conditions not in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention and without a competent tribunal to deem them otherwise. Additionally the prisoners of Guatanamo have not been granted a fair nor regular trial, and I really doubt the competence of the military tribunals to provide one after hearing about this case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1809981,00.html).

[Adam C]

Also about torture. The manual used for POW's at the cuban base lay out the rules. We can't use a closed fist on them only the palm of your hand and only on the stomach. We do things like making their room temperature uncomfortable or forcing them to stand in a position for a long period of time. We also do waterbording which is the only thing I can see in the list that actually would make anyone uncomfortable about the treatment of our prisoners. The left loves to throw around words like torture but they seem unwilling to discuss actuall treatment of prisoners.

To add to what Alex said I quote http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750096?OpenDocument of Protocol I that I mentioned earlier.

2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:

(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:

(i) murder;

(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;

(iii) corporal punishment; and

(iv) mutilation;

(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;

(c) the taking of hostages;

(d) collective punishments; and

(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.

Mental torture applies to waterboarding since the effect is not merely physical but a form of mock execution.

Additionally, since when is physical coercion not torture?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Arghh I hate this stupid talking point. First off the left was going on about how Gonzalez (Might have been someone else but any rate) called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" he never said that he specifically refered to provisions in it for things like Compasses and scientific calculators being provided to prisoners of war. Also the Geneva conventions themselves do not apply to insurgents or Al Qaeda members as it is written specifically in them that if you dress as civilians and hide among them you are denied the protections of the Geneva conventions.

Also about torture. The manual used for POW's at the cuban base lay out the rules. We can't use a closed fist on them only the palm of your hand and only on the stomach. We do things like making their room temperature uncomfortable or forcing them to stand in a position for a long period of time. We also do waterbording which is the only thing I can see in the list that actually would make anyone uncomfortable about the treatment of our prisoners. The left loves to throw around words like torture but they seem unwilling to discuss actuall treatment of prisoners.

Look at it this way, if you were captured by another country, would you be happy with them treating you that way?

Discussing how it's alright to let these things happen to another human being - despite evidence showing that torture doesn't get you reliable information (nor does doing evil for the greater good ever seem to end well) - is really pretty sick, even with just the things you are talking about... but considering other reports/testimonies that have come out about what your government is doing to people they captured (and held without trial), then it's either self-imposed blissful ignorance, or really sick.

I'm actually amazed that the US government seems to have been able to open up discussion about torture being alright without an uprising of some sort.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Additionally, since when is physical coercion not torture?

Apparently when it involves an open palm on the stomach.

[Charles RB]

I always found it odd how the following:

We do things like making their room temperature uncomfortable or forcing them to stand in a position for a long period of time. We also do waterbording

would often be seen as not torture, even though they obviously are. What else would severe physical and mental discomfort designed to weaken people be called?

[Briareos]

Look at it this way, if you were captured by another country, would you be happy with them treating you that way?

Discussing how it's alright to let these things happen to another human being - despite evidence showing that torture doesn't get you reliable information (nor does doing evil for the greater good ever seem to end well) - is really pretty sick, even with just the things you are talking about... but considering other reports/testimonies that have come out about what your government is doing to people they captured (and held without trial), then it's either self-imposed blissful ignorance, or really sick.

I'm actually amazed that the US government seems to have been able to open up discussion about torture being alright without an uprising of some sort.

I'm also sure all the Nazi's in our POW camps didn't want to be captured to begin with as well.

[Michael P]

I'm also sure all the Nazi's in our POW camps didn't want to be captured to begin with as well.

What in the flying fuck does that have to do with anyone's point?

[Briareos]

My point is that we're not the bad guys. We're not the terrorists. There is no moral equivilancy between us.

[rick]

My point is that we're not the bad guys. We're not the terrorists. There is no moral equivilancy between us.


So torture is moral if you're the goodguy?

[Alex Scott]

My point is that we're not the bad guys. We're not the terrorists. There is no moral equivilancy between us.
So why are we acting like it?

Seriously, check my link: the very "interrogation" techniques you mentioned are the same ones used in Soviet Gulags. Just take a look:
In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksander Solzhenitsen describes Soviet interrogations including cases of forced standing and sleep deprivation: “Then there is the method of simply compelling a prisoner to stand there.” Among other techniques used to break prisoners was forcing them to stay in a fixed position for an extended period of time: “In the Novocherkassk NKVK, Yelena Strutinskaya was forced to remain seated on a stool in the corridor for six days in such a way that she did not lean against anything, did not sleep, did not fall off, and did not get up from it.” Solzhenitsen also describes sleep deprivation being used on a prisoner named Anna Skripnikova in 1952: “[The] Chief of the Investigative Department of the Ordzhonikidze State Security Administration, said to her: “The prison doctor reports you have a blood pressure of 240/120. That’s too low, you bitch! We’re going to drive it up to 340 so you'll kick the bucket, you viper, and with no black and blue marks; no beatings; no broken bones. We'll just not let you sleep.’ And if, back in her cell, after a night spent in interrogation, she closed her eyes during the day, the jailer broke in and shouted: ‘Open your eyes or I'll haul you off that cot by the legs and tie you to the wall standing up.’” Elsewhere, Solzhenitsen writes: “Sleeplessness . . . befogs the reason, undermines the will, and the human being ceases to be himself, to be his own ‘I.’”
Iran: According to country reports, common methods of torture used against political opponents in Iran were sleep deprivation and "suspension for long periods in contorted positions."

Iraq: Iraqi security services under Saddam Hussein regularly used food and water deprivation as a form of torture, according to the country reports.
Now what, exactly, makes it okay for us to do this?

Face it: these are things that bad guys do. And you are defending them.

[hyzmarca]

There is a huge and very important question that isn't being asked. In regards to forced standing, what would you do if the prisoner in question just said "screw you" and sat anyway?

[Jinxer]

There is a huge and very important question that isn't being asked. In regards to forced standing, what would you do if the prisoner in question just said "screw you" and sat anyway?

Why the question? You can't force a person to stand, it's physical coercion.

I'm also sure all the Nazi's in our POW camps didn't want to be captured to begin with as well.

Firstly, what?

Second, nobody wants to be captured. Just because someone doesn't enjoy being captured we beat them to make them like it?

[king mob]

My point is that we're not the bad guys. We're not the terrorists. There is no moral equivilancy between us.

We are, & there is. That's the problem.

[Charles RB]

My point is that we're not the bad guys.

When you torture people and detain people without trial to be tortured when they may not even be guilty, you're a fucking bad guy. Such acts are well-known as evil.

[Spike-X]

we're not the bad guys.

Why is that? Because you say it's so, it must be?

My son still sees the world in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys" as well.

He's six.

[Adam C]

My point is that we're not the bad guys. We're not the terrorists. There is no moral equivilancy between us.

What's striking about your response is that no one actually compared the United States Government, let alone the entirety of the U.S. to any terrorists. Moreover, one of the first people to chime in about the matter was an American, and a few more have chimed in since then. What does that tell you about the differing attitudes at work here when their response is to denounce the crimes of their government rather than engaging in apologia?

[Paul McEnery]

Why the question? You can't force a person to stand, it's physical coercion.

Point is, forced standing contains the threat of physical violence (beyond the fact that it is physical violence).

[Paul McEnery]

My point is that we're not the bad guys. We're not the terrorists. There is no moral equivilancy between us.

And people wonder why I insist that "terrorist" is an adverb, not a noun.

[Chris N]

My point is that we're not the bad guys.

And everybody else's point is that we shouldn't be.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

My point is that we're not the bad guys.

To them you are - especially Iraqi's, I mean their government followed the UN's ruling, the US's didn't.


We're not the terrorists.

You hold people without trial, on illegally gained evidence, that no one is allowed to see, at the whim of a small group of people, who may have gained their power illegally/wrongly, who regularly ordering the bombing of civilian areas...
There is no moral equivilancy between us.

Just keep telling yourself this.

And honestly, expect someone to care when an other country seizes power and does it to your people.

[bartl]

And people wonder why I insist that "terrorist" is an adverb, not a noun.
We are in agreement here. When Bush gave his first speech on the "war on terror/terrorism", the first thing I thought of was, "What about groups like the IRA?" It took me a while, but I finally did figure out an appropriate label: radical jihadists. For those who would like, the Christian equivalent would be "holy warriors".

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

It took me a while, but I finally did figure out an appropriate label: radical jihadists. For those who would like, the Christian equivalent would be "holy warriors".

Why radical?

Sure Jihadist would be enough.

(and why are they radical, when a christian is holy?)

[bartl]

Why radical?

Sure Jihadist would be enough.

(and why are they radical, when a christian is holy?)
I have a number of moderate Muslim friends, mostly Sufi in orientation. They explain jihad as a battle to overcome personal limitations, as opposed to a literal holy war to conquer the world. Yet, many of the soldiers are not at all fundamentalist in regard to the rest of their Islamic heritage (for example, according to the Koran, the area called Palestine DOES belong to the Jews, and Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran; there's a holy city mentioned, which some assume is Jerusalem), so calling them fundamentalists is not accurate, and calling them Jihadist is not sufficient. Hence, radical jihadists. Just as "jihadist" is the Islamic term that jihadists give themselves, the "holy" in "holy warriors" refers to Christian terminology for those using military or paramilitary means to gain what they consider to be religious aims.

Broadly speaking the radical jihadists are also holy warriors, but by usage, the former term is more commonly used with Islam, and the latter is more commonly used with Christians. "Crusaders" has come to mean fighting for any good cause, which has rendered its old meaning obsolete, except for those looking for a reason to take offense.