Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Army Manual To Skip Geneva Detainee Rule  
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1315 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.
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting Aloges (Thread starter):
according to knowledgeable military officials

Media speak for "we pulled the story out of our a*sses".

Just more of the coordinated assault on the military by the media in hopes of turning the War on Terror into another Vietnam.

But as a side note, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 1):
Media speak for "we pulled the story out of our a*sses".

B757300 speak for "I have nothing but hatred for those who oppose my point of view, so I'll resort to personal insults"?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
so I'll resort to personal insults"?

Where's the personal insult?

I don't see it.

Quoting B757300 (Reply 1):
But as a side note, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Where's the personal insult?

I don't see it.

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.
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1272 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.

Perhaps you can think of one.



gene
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1265 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.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

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 !
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1262 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.

[Edited 2006-06-05 22:35:41]

[Edited 2006-06-05 22:36:43]

[Edited 2006-06-05 22:37:11]

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1239 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 1):
But as a side note, terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.

 checkmark 

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.

 checkmark 



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1230 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.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

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.  Smile



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1205 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.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4


User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4128 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1193 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."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Tries To Evade Geneva Convention posted Thu Sep 7 2006 15:01:35 by Texan
Indian Army Ready To Adopt Buddhia posted Sat Jun 10 2006 10:57:35 by HAWK21M
Excusses To Skip Work & Watch WC..... posted Mon Jun 5 2006 15:19:42 by YooYoo
Indian Army 1765 To Date In Pictures posted Mon Mar 7 2005 05:20:19 by HAWK21M
Can Someone Please Explain 'Auto-Manual' To Me? posted Sun Dec 26 2004 06:35:46 by Vafi88
US Army Tries To Recruit Directly In Mexico posted Thu May 8 2003 18:31:11 by Marcus
'We Wuz Wrong' - Geneva Conventions Apply To Gitmo posted Tue Jul 11 2006 16:07:41 by NAV20
To Geneva On March 2007, What To Expect? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 06:09:13 by Luisde8cd
How Army Medics Tried To Help Al-Zarqawi posted Sat Jun 17 2006 14:15:28 by Mrmeangenes
Choose One To Rule Your Life posted Sat Nov 12 2005 11:42:56 by Pe@rson