Are Beheadings Covered by the Geneva Convention?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Sep 21, 2006.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Ann's in top form with this article. I think McCain's pandering to his liberal constituency on this issue. Why in the world would you extend the provisions of the Geneva Convention to a gang of outlaws who fight for no country or flag; wear no uniforms (except for a face mask), give allegiance only to a "religion", and have no respect or belief in the principles hammered out in the Geneva Convention? In this case, I say fight fire with fire until you are victorious; then you can try to make nice, upright, civilized people out of these Islamofacists--if that would in any way be possible.

    Are Videotaped Beheadings Covered by Geneva?
    By Ann Coulter, Human Events
    Septemeber 20, 2006

    Sen. John McCain has been carrying so much water for his friends in the mainstream media that he now has to state for the record to Republican audiences: "I hold no brief for al Qaeda." Well, that's a relief.

    It turns out, the only reason McCain is demanding that prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and other atrocities -- be treated like Martha Stewart facing an insider trading charge is this: "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."

    McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner -- or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" -- want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture. Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame.

    As Graham explained, he doesn't want procedures used against terrorists at Guantanamo "to become clubs to be used against our people." Actually, clubs would be a step up from videotaped beheadings.

    Or as the New York Times wrote in the original weasel talking points earlier this summer: "The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it's changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies."

    There hasn't been this much railing about the mistreatment of a hostage since Monica Lewinsky was served canapes at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton Hotel while being detained by the FBI.

    The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won't die. It's worse than the idea that paying welfare recipients benefits won't discourage them from working. (Some tiny minority might still seek work.) It's worse than the idea that taxes can be raised endlessly without reducing tax receipts. (As the Laffer Curve illustrates, at some point -- a point this country will never reach -- taxes could theoretically be cut so much that tax revenues would decline.)

    But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese -- enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

    By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?

    It doesn't even work with the Democrats, whom Bush kept sucking up to his first year in office. No more movie nights at the White House with Teddy Kennedy these days, I'm guessing.

    It was this idea (Be nice!) that fueled liberals' rage at Reagan when he vanquished the Soviet Union with his macho "cowboy diplomacy" that was going to get us all blown up. As the Times editorial page hysterically described Reagan's first year in office: "Mr. Reagan looked at the world through gun sights." Yes, he did! And now the Evil Empire is no more.

    It was this idiotic idea of being nice to predators that drove liberal crime policies in the '60s and '70s -- leading like night into day to unprecedented crime rates. Now these same liberal ninnies want to extend their tender mercies not just to rapists and murderers, but to Islamic terrorists.

    Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill had a different idea: Instead of rewarding bad behavior, punish bad behavior. How many times does punishment have to work and coddling have to fail before we never have to hear again that if we treat terrorists well, the terrorists will treat our prisoners well?

    Fortunately, history always begins this morning for liberals, so they can keep flogging the same idiotic idea that has never, ever worked: Be nice to our enemies and they will reward us with good behavior.

    Never mind trusting liberals with national security. Never mind trusting them with raising kids. These people shouldn't even be allowed to own pets.

    If the Democrats and the four pathetic Republicans angling to be called "mavericks" by the New York Times really believe we need to treat captured terrorists nicely in order to ensure that the next American they capture will be well-treated, then why stop at 600-thread-count sheets for the Guantanamo detainees? We must adopt Sharia law.

    As McCain might put it, I hold no brief for al Qaeda, but what would better protect Americans they take prisoner than if America went whole hog and became an Islamic republic? On the plus side, we can finally put Rosie O'Donnell in a burka.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17148
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    It is obvious that ANY treaty (including the Geneva Conventions) is only as good as the signatories' adherence to it. The worst part of the Geneva Convention is that it extends its tenets to non-signatories as well. I suspect some bleeding heart liberal put that little twist in there.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Treat captured prisoners with dignity ? The liberals can't even treat the President of the United States, religion, unborn children or our education system with dignity. Anyone who buys this sentiment needs several well placed kicks in the ass.
     
  4. Nuc
    Offline

    Nuc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,377
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +141
    I strongly believe in freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

    The Geneva Convention is unfair and obsolete in the sense that countries must adhere to it, but how do you get a free floating, intercontinental, international group like Al Qaeda to follow it? Then when you catch them they hide behind their national origin and claim their rights.

    The Geneva Convention did not envision a time when the enemy would not be a specific country or alliance.

    If Al Qaeda wants to hide by not having a specific location or country, maybe Al Qaeda members should not be entitled to international conventions. Treat them like aliens landing on planet earth if they are stateless.
     
  5. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    It is ironic that the current batch of terrorists do not view beheading, rape, torture and/or mutilation as cruel and unusual unishment. Maybe we should adhere to THEIR standards!
     
  6. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Too bad McCain and Lindsay Graham weren't smart enough to think of that.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    McCain exposed---Again--Hopefully all doubts about his unsuitablity for President have been confirmed. Why anyone would want a wussy in the White House in times such as these is beyond me.
     
  8. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Now McCain is a wussy? The man is simply trying to remind people what The US is and all about. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom from torture. McCain was exposed to such harsh treatment in Hanoi. If you don't like him, then don't vote for him, but don't belittle what he has done for this country. Calling him a wussy does just this.
     
  9. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    This would be the American way. (heavy sarcasm)
     
  10. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    Not anymore. now the American way is to first ignore, then bribe and finally appease.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
beheading geneva conventions
,

geneva code beheadings