If the U.S. doesn't follow the Geneva Convention...?

Question

& we have engaged in the torture of "prisoners" which many of whom have been found innocent, then why are we appalled when our soldiers are tortured?

It is horrific what happened to U.S. soldiers but the U.S. should set the example in the world and we haven't. Btw for those of you who only watch 'faux news' there have been prisoners that have been tortured to death - whether they are soldiers or not shouldn't matter. Don't be hypocrits!

Answer 1

I think when we become them that we are losing the war. To torture or kill innocent civilians is just plain wrong and I do not care which side is doing it. I think that the ones responsible ought to be held accountable for their actions and the one most responsible, the president should have to stand right beside them in an international court and defend their actions. I feel that Bush is guilty for leading us into the war for no good reason in the first place and he and his cabinet should be tried as war criminals. It would give me more pleasure then it should for the camera's to be on when they dragged him down the white house steps in hand cuffs and leg irons and wearing an orange jumpsuit to take him to this trial.

Answer 2

The US does follow the Geneva Convention, one of the few countries that does, and has not violated the rights of any prisoners. If you are referring to Guantanamo, those being held have not been declared Prisoners of War, but enemy combattants. Also, even if they were POWs, the Geneva Convention does not call for a tribunal until after hostilities have ceased. Since we are in an ongoing shooting war, the enemy combattants do not have to be 1) taken to a tribunal to determine whether or not they should be considered POWs; 2) be given a trial if enough evidence is found to merit charges.

The type of "torture" the US has been accused of is primarily sensory deprivation: changing temps (hot and cold), denying sleep, requiring detainees to stand or hold a position for long periods of time. These techniques are not comparable to beating, stabbing, burning, maiming or beheading. That is why the US is appalled when the US follows the Geneva convention, but the insurgents commit violent acts resulting in the dismemberment of US soldiers.

Answer 3

Just how much do you REALLY know about the Geneva Convention anyways? Enough to make you dangerous, probably. Did you know the Geneva Convention does not apply to everyone? Terrorists are not covered under the G.C. Not just any rag tag militia is covered either. Al Capone and his gangsters did not fall under the GC. In fact, the GC is very specific on what "forces" fall under its provisions.

I suggest you do a little more research. BTW, what do you consider torture? Panties on heads. Missing a meal or two? Dog collar around the neck. I've heard of fraternity rituals that are worse than that. I call torture, beatings, rape, extreme physical pain, breaking bones, poking out eyeballs, etc. I dont consider taking away a persons Quran, or prayer blanket as torture.

So, I reject ur entire argument wholeheartedly. Those prisoners are some of the best treated human scum on this planet. They certainly are treated much better by us than they would treat our troops if the roles were reversed. They would really torture, rape, and murder our boys and girls. They would not provide bibles, special meals, or prayer blankets. They would not provide medical care. They would probably cut off the heads of many on film for the worlds viewing pleasure.

Narrow minded people like you discust me. You see america bad and everyone else good. Your question shows either ignorance, or maybe you are just trying to be provocative. Either way, its ignorant.

Answer 4

2 problems with you question.
First, we have not violated the Geneva Convention. That applies only to uniformed combatants. Our 'enemy' is not uniformed.

Now, since the question relies on the first part being true the remainder of it fails. But I will continue on...

Your question implies that we should not be "appalled when our soldiers are tortured." However we should be as a reaction to the inner humanity of a person AND to the patriotic ties that should exist amongst Americans. What does that mean?

1) Seeing anyone tortured should warrant outrage. That is why we were also outraged with Abu Ghraib. That is part of being a member of humanity.
2) We should be able to disagree amongst each other within our borders but stand united against the enemy. So when they torture our own we should be outraged.

Answer 5

Not saying thtat torture from anyone in any form is right, but technically we have not broken the geneva convention. The Geneva Convention is implace to protect soldiers--however the definition of such is:
(Geneva Convention Part 1 Art IV)
(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; (uniform)
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

These terrorists that have undergone this so called "torture" do not fall under the geneva convention...they have no uniforms, never follow the "customs" of war, and have no recognizable command echelon (just a few considered "leaders" is not a command structure).

and

to your statement "why are we appalled when our soldiers are tortured." Did you really need to ask that? (Obvious hypothetical situation) If you knew someone that was tourturing people, and found out his daughter was taken and tourtured...would you not feel for that person? Not only is "revenge" usually wrong/bad, they are never tourturing the same people that allegedly tourtured the terrorist counterparts...they are tourturing soldiers who had nothing to do with that.

Not only do we feel bad for our troops/are appaled it is happening, you should be too. There are very few people who were accused of this in the US military, it should not blind us to the plight of the other thousands of soldiers. And most of the country is appalled that we engaged in tourture as well.

Semper Fi

Answer 6

First, the Geneva Convention is for attrocities against a military power designated by a uniform. No uniform, no protection under the convention.

Second, sleep deprivation and other tactics to make a person easier to deal with isn't torture

Third, the enemy has a hand book and step 2 if captured is to cry torture...

Answer 7

This question is just one more example of the moral equivalent arguments Liberals love. They use moral equivalency to "accuse, abuse, excuse or confuse." For your information, those two soldiers were not just tortured. They were beheaded, mutilated and disemboweled as well.

And who says the U.S. doesn't follow the Geneva Convention? Or has "engaged in the torture of prisoners.... "? It sure wasn't anyone who loves this country.

Answer 8

I seriously doubt if we are using 'torture' on prisoners that would be against the Geneva Convention. We are probably using pressure such as sleep deprivation. That hardly compares to the vicious torture that those rotten b#%&rds used on our two soldiers. For you to make that comparrison means that you should consider getting out of this country. Move to France.

Answer 9

Who the hell cares? No one follows the Geneva Convention, in fact many people said it was a waste of time, and the past couple of years have proven that right. I'd torture terrorists myself if I was in Guatonamo.

Answer 10

Because torturing prisoners is appalling.

If the US is in fact torturing prisoners, then all involved should be brought up on war crime charges. We need to apply the same rules to our leaders that we apply to other countries.