Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8357 posts, RR: 47 Posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 855 times:
Quoting LA Times: WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.
Great... I hope the Pentagon will reconsider and agree with the State Department before Rumsfeld uses yet another chance to humiliate the country whose citizens liberated my country in WW2.
Could we please get less Amurracah and more America in the future?
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
The following is an insult aimed at the journalist (Julian E. Barnes) who wrote the article:
Quoting B757300 (Reply 1): Just more of the coordinated assault on the military by the media in hopes of turning the War on Terror into another Vietnam.
Anyway, could everyone please focus on discussing the issue as opposed to flinging the usual "the media only report bullshit" one-liners?
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Mrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 812 times:
Quoting Aloges (Thread starter): Great... I hope the Pentagon will reconsider and agree with the State Department before Rumsfeld uses yet another chance to humiliate the country whose citizens liberated my country in WW2.
Aloges,I don't feel the least bit humiliated by a discussion on the Geneva Conventions-although I'm trying hard to recall any time after WW2 that a nation or political entity in conflict with the USA actually FOLLOWED the Geneva agreements.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 805 times:
Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 5): Aloges,I don't feel the least bit humiliated by a discussion on the Geneva Conventions-although I'm trying hard to recall any time after WW2 that a nation or political entity in conflict with the USA actually FOLLOWED the Geneva agreements.
Does not give us a excuse to go overboard with tourture and all that , but humiliating degrading treatment !!???
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
MDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 802 times:
Anyway, could everyone please focus on discussing the issue as opposed to flinging the usual "the media only report bullshit" one-liners?
Sure, the article is self defeating ?? for anyone that bothers to read it.
From the article: "The senators objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as opposed to traditional prisoners of war."
Guess what?
They already don't get Geneva Convention protections.
The article intentionally obfuscates and misdirects the reader to make them believe that Geneva Convention protections are being withheld from persons that are actually granted them, then kinda just glosses over that one little important bit.
BTW: The author of the article may actually want to read the Geneva Convention before he attempts to introduce Article III again. It applies only to civil conflicts, specifically NOT to international conflicts.
As in most cases of military law or the Geneva convention... the accusers, yet again, have no clue.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 779 times:
Quoting B757300 (Reply 1): But as a side note, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.
Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 5): I don't feel the least bit humiliated by a discussion on the Geneva Conventions-although I'm trying hard to recall any time after WW2 that a nation or political entity in conflict with the USA actually FOLLOWED the Geneva agreements.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 770 times:
Aloges,
Under Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions you'll find the definitions of those that are subject to it. You will not find Terrorist amongst those persons listed. So if the Pentagon decides to leave out any reference to the Convention where is defines proper treatment of terrorists - I don't have a problem with that.
I think the article is poorly written . . . I think the author should go back and read the Geneva Conventions - perhaps have a copy handy - and reproduce this article and actually use facts and the actual Convention when he does so.
In the end, however, I'd hope to see the reference to the Convention remain.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 745 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 10): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 9):
I'd hope to see the reference to the Convention remain.
And on that, I'm glad to agree with you.
I will say, however, if it does not - although I'll be disappointed - it is not wrong. Have a look (you probably already have) at Article 4 . . . lays out pretty cleanly who get the royal treatment and who does not.
Mdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4097 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 733 times:
Quoting Aloges (Reply 4): Anyway, could everyone please focus on discussing the issue as opposed to flinging the usual "the media only report bullshit" one-liners?
Remember that's B757300's M.O. There's no way around it.
Whether it means terrorists are covered under the Geneva Convention or not, it is still one of the most important guideline produced in modern history and SHOULD be referenced so that soldiers know exactly what is and is not allowed.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8357 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, 
? for anyone that bothers to read it.
Printer friendly format 
