What Will Future Generations Say?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Adam's Apple, Jun 7, 2005.

  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
    One of Sowell's best columns, IMHO

    June 7, 2005
    What Will Future Generations Say?
    By Thomas Sowell for The New Republic

    We may look back on some eras as heroic -- that of the founding fathers or "the greatest generation" that fought World War II -- but some eras we look back on in disbelief at the utter stupidity with which people ruined their economies or blundered into wars in which every country involved ended up worse off than before. How will people a century from now look back on our era?

    Fortunately, most of us will be long gone by then, so we will be spared the embarrassment of seeing ourselves judged.

    What will future generations say about how we behaved when confronted by international terrorist organizations that have repeatedly demonstrated their cut-throat ruthlessness and now had the prospect of getting nuclear weapons from rogue nations like Iran and North Korea?

    What will future generations think when they see the front pages of our leading newspapers repeatedly preoccupied with whether we are treating captured cut-throats nicely enough? What will they think when they see the Geneva Convention invoked to protect people who are excluded from protection by the Geneva Convention?

    During World War II, German soldiers who were captured not wearing the uniform of their own army were simply lined up against a wall and shot dead by American troops.

    This was not a scandal. Far from being covered up by the military, movies were taken of the executions and have since been shown on the History Channel. We understood then that the Geneva Convention protected people who obeyed the Geneva Convention, not those who didn't -- as terrorists today certainly do not.

    What will those who look back on these times think when they see that the American Civil Liberties Union, and others who have made excuses for all sorts of criminals, were pushing for the prosecution of our own troops for life-and-death decisions they had a split second to make in the heat of combat?

    for full article:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-6_7_05_TS.html
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. nosarcasm
    Offline

    nosarcasm Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    931
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +68
    actually both sides in the heat of battle killed POW. Sometime even
    outside the heat of battle.
     
  3. alien21010
    Offline

    alien21010 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    103
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    There are many instances, in many conflicts, in which both sides of opposing forces killed PoWs. PoWs, that both sides recognized as PoWs.

    While I agree that the Geneva conventions should be adhered to as strictly as possible, there are times in which it is impossible to literally apply them to every situation. Human emotions such as: frustration, anger, hatred, and bigotry will always get in the way of a perfect use of the Geneva conventions.

    Classifying PoWs as Enemy Combatants, in order to circumvent the Geneva conventions though, is not legitimate.
     
  4. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Read the article again. It is about far more than POW's.
     
  5. alien21010
    Offline

    alien21010 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    103
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    Using the rationale, that because they do not follow the Geneva conventions, we should not, is absolutely flawed.

    Not only does it set a bad precedent for our troops, and for other nations (seeing how we are supposedly the world leader in human rights), but it also means that PoWs in future wars will not be guaranteed protection under the Geneva conventions.

    Hate to say it, but the guy writing this article is an idiot.

    Justify the torture of human beings again. I still fail to see a legitimate reason for torturing prisoners of war, especially when it has been proven that information gained under torture is extremely sketchy.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'm sorry, how old are you? There has been no justification of torture. However regarding this from the article:

    Maybe you don't know it, but there are reasons for 'exceptions' in any agreement. It's why they are inserted into the agreement. In this case, most of those held in Gitmo are not POW's. By the nature of what they did, they are exempt from the conventions. That does not mean they can be treated 'inhumanely' which is also noted in the conventions. They may be held without trial though, which is an argument running on another thread.
     

Share This Page