DOD survey finds ethical struggle in war

[maineman]

What terrorists wear a uniform that we are fighting?

Does this mean we are not fighting a war since no one on the enemy's side has a uniform?

Something's just not right....not just....imo...

As far as the assessing of the captured, I will take your word for it...

I think that the right feels that the fact that they are not members of an enemy armed force, that it is perfectly acceptable to torture them.

lol

 

[CSM]

I think that the right feels that the fact that they are not members of an enemy armed force, that it is perfectly acceptable to torture them.

lol

Big stretch there....the fact that they do not wear a uniform or other identifiying insignia places them in a category other than 'legal combatant'....
It is only acceptable to torture the really bad ones.

 

[maineman]

I have a philosophical problem with America torturing folks.....


and I happen to believe - as John McCain believes - that if we torture detainees at Gitmo and try to climb to some moral high ground by suggesting that they aren't covered by the GC and therefore torturing is perfectly OK, any and all enemies of the US in any and all future conflicts will not really accept that distinction and by toturing detainees at Gitmo today, we are telling all those enemies of the future that it is perfectly acceptable to treat American GIs captured in those future wars in exactly the same manner.

 

[red states rule]

I think that the right feels that the fact that they are not members of an enemy armed force, that it is perfectly acceptable to torture them.

lol

How would you get info from them?

Serve them cake and coffee?

They are not covered by the GC - so they have no protection under it

 

[red states rule]

I have a philosophical problem with America torturing folks.....


and I happen to believe - as John McCain believes - that if we torture detainees at Gitmo and try to climb to some moral high ground by suggesting that they aren't covered by the GC and therefore torturing is perfectly OK, any and all enemies of the US in any and all future conflicts will not really accept that distinction and by toturing detainees at Gitmo today, we are telling all those enemies of the future that it is perfectly acceptable to treat American GIs captured in those future wars in exactly the same manner.

Yea, coddle the enemy that will always win a war

 

[CSM]

I have a philosophical problem with America torturing folks.....


and I happen to believe - as John McCain believes - that if we torture detainees at Gitmo and try to climb to some moral high ground by suggesting that they aren't covered by the GC and therefore torturing is perfectly OK, any and all enemies of the US in any and all future conflicts will not really accept that distinction and by toturing detainees at Gitmo today, we are telling all those enemies of the future that it is perfectly acceptable to treat American GIs captured in those future wars in exactly the same manner.

As you know, and as I posted last night, I too am opposed to torture (in most circumstances). My opposition to torture has nothing to do with effectiveness (under certain circumstances, it can indeed be effective). My opposition also has nothing to do with what future enemies may do to our soldiers....I dont know how much more you can do besides the beheadings that are condoned currently. My opposition is based on personal belief...period. In truth, I would rather see our captured soldiers treated as we treat the prisoners in GITMO than the way the jihadists treat prisoners currently....if some lib/moralist can arrange that, they will be my hero.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Here are the definitions of enemy combatants and POW's as defined by the DoD and Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Conventions.


"From Department of Defense
Definition: (DOD) A detained person as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. In particular, one who, while engaged in combat under orders of his or her government, is captured by the armed forces of the enemy. As such, he or she is entitled to the combatant's privilege of immunity from the municipal law of the capturing state for warlike acts which do not amount to breaches of the law of armed conflict. For example, a prisoner of war may be, but is not limited to, any person belonging to one of the following categories who has fallen into the power of the enemy: a member of the armed forces, organized militia or volunteer corps; a person who accompanies the armed forces without actually being a member thereof; a member of a merchant marine or civilian aircraft crew not qualifying for more favorable treatment; or individuals who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces."


"Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 4 )

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention."

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 5)
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

 

[red states rule]

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

When did the terrorists start obeying these rules?

And when did the terrorists sign the GC?

 

[maineman]

As you know, and as I posted last night, I too am opposed to torture (in most circumstances). My opposition to torture has nothing to do with effectiveness (under certain circumstances, it can indeed be effective). My opposition also has nothing to do with what future enemies may do to our soldiers....I dont know how much more you can do besides the beheadings that are condoned currently. My opposition is based on personal belief...period. In truth, I would rather see our captured soldiers treated as we treat the prisoners in GITMO than the way the jihadists treat prisoners currently....if some lib/moralist can arrange that, they will be my hero.

your allusions to beheading presume that any and all future enemies of the United States would use such methodology. I have no doubt that jihadists will mistreat captured American servicemen regardless of how humane we treat Gitmo detainees. But I don't think one can logically make that argument for every country that we might find ourself in conflict with at any time in the future.

 

[red states rule]

your allusions to beheading presume that any and all future enemies of the United States would use such methodology. I have no doubt that jihadists will mistreat captured American servicemen regardless of how humane we treat Gitmo detainees. But I don't think one can logically make that argument for every country that we might find ourself in conflict with at any time in the future.

The blame America first crowd speaks again

Sen Durbin showed how the left views the US militray when he compared them to Pol Pot and Nazi's

 

[Care4all]

I have a philosophical problem with America torturing folks.....


and I happen to believe - as John McCain believes - that if we torture detainees at Gitmo and try to climb to some moral high ground by suggesting that they aren't covered by the GC and therefore torturing is perfectly OK, any and all enemies of the US in any and all future conflicts will not really accept that distinction and by toturing detainees at Gitmo today, we are telling all those enemies of the future that it is perfectly acceptable to treat American GIs captured in those future wars in exactly the same manner.

I believe this also, and I believe that America as a whole believes this also....

Only a few neocons are against this mindset....even though it HAS BEEN PROVEN that torture does not work and gives us false info....

Interrogations can still be done, and aggressive interrogations of the enemy captured can still go on....., we just should not ever torture anyone....the Bush administration has brainwashed many in america to believe torture is okay no matter what.... and that is something NEW....not something to be proud of either....imho.

 

[red states rule]

I believe this also, and I believe that America as a whole believes this also....

Only a few neocons are against this mindset....even though it HAS BEEN PROVEN that torture does not work and gives us false info....

Interrogations can still be done, and aggressive interrogations of the enemy captured can still go on....., we just should not ever torture anyone....the Bush administration has brainwashed many in america to believe torture is okay no matter what.... and that is something NEW....not something to be proud of either....imho.

So would rather have US troops and/or civilians die in attacks rather then do what is neccessary to obtain information that would stop the attacks?

BY all means - protect the "rights" of terrorists before anything else

 

[Dirt McGirt]

and I happen to believe - as John McCain believes - that if we torture detainees at Gitmo and try to climb to some moral high ground by suggesting that they aren't covered by the GC and therefore torturing is perfectly OK, any and all enemies of the US in any and all future conflicts will not really accept that distinction and by toturing detainees at Gitmo today, we are telling all those enemies of the future that it is perfectly acceptable to treat American GIs captured in those future wars in exactly the same manner.

According to some, if John McCain believes this then he must be leftist scum who hates America.

 

[Care4all]

So would rather have US troops and/or civilians die in attacks rather then do what is neccessary to obtain information that would stop the attacks?

BY all means - protect the "rights" of terrorists before anything else

Torture HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT to work... would YOU rather that more soldiers die because of FALSE information that you got out of a prisoner due to torturing them?

Not me!

We have very capable interrogators that have been trained to retrieve information from the enemy WITHOUT reaching the level of what is defined as torture! At least we did before President Bush.....

Care

 

[red states rule]

Torture HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT to work... would YOU rather that more soldiers die because of FALSE information that you got out of a prisoner due to torturing them?

Not me!

We have very capable interrogators that have been trained to retrieve information from the enemy WITHOUT reaching the level of what is defined as torture! At least we did before President Bush.....

Care

It seems you would rather have them die then violate the "rights" of the terrorists

 

[Care4all]

It seems you would rather have them die then violate the "rights" of the terrorists

I am a Law abider type person.... so YES.... I do believe in following the letter of the Law...

And for those laws that I reject and think are wrong or frivilous, I will fight like heck to have them changed or removed.....LEGALLY.

I don't want to VIOLATE our own laws, I could give two shits about the terrorist's thoughts on this are....other than the fact that WE ARE NOT TERRORIST and we should NEVER, EVER STOOP to their level of SCUM on anything that we do because if we stooped to their level that MAKES US NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM and the terrorists would have WON...because they would have changed us and taken us down to their level!


And I for one, am one American that would NEVER accept such!

Care

 

[red states rule]

I am a Law abider type person.... so YES.... I do believe in following the letter of the Law...

And for those laws that I reject and think are wrong or frivilous, I will fight like heck to have them changed or removed.....LEGALLY.

I don't want to VIOLATE our own laws, I could give two shits about the terrorist's thoughts on this are....other than the fact that WE ARE NOT TERRORIST and we should NEVER, EVER STOOP to their level of SCUM on anything that we do because if we stooped to their level that MAKES US NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM and the terrorists would have WON...because they would have changed us and taken us down to their level!


And I for one, am one American that would NEVER accept such!

Care

Nice attitude - but that way of thinking will never win a war

Terrorists are not covered under the GC nor are they entitled to US Constitutional rights

 

[Care4all]

Nice attitude - but that way of thinking will never win a war

Terrorists are not covered under the GC nor are they entitled to US Constitutional rights

We are at war with TERRORISTS, the Geneva Convention is a treaty that we abide by when we are at WAR....The terrorists would most CERTAINLY be covered by the Geneva Convention if they ARE who we ARE at war with, no?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

NO... they are no better than murdering psychos. But lets get back to the argument...

Provide some compelling evidence that the US is routinely torturing prisoners. That it is US policy to ignore US law and torture prisoners anyway.

 

[CSM]

your allusions to beheading presume that any and all future enemies of the United States would use such methodology. I have no doubt that jihadists will mistreat captured American servicemen regardless of how humane we treat Gitmo detainees. But I don't think one can logically make that argument for every country that we might find ourself in conflict with at any time in the future.

Agreed, but it cannot be arbitrarily dismissed either. I think that a good majority of the countries we may engage in the future will think much like the jihadists. Recent history shows that most nations (VietNam, Somalia, even Germany in WWII and now the jihadists) have ignored the GC.