Why is the U.S. so sensitive to captured enemy combatants?

Question

We give captured terrorists three meals a day, places to exercise, all the items they need to property practice their religion, we give them Korans, prayer rugs, religiously sensitive diets, regular bathing...

When THEY kidnap innocent citizens, these practitioner of the PEACEFUL religion of Islam usually chop those poor people's heads off...

But guess which side gets the media criticism?

I say it's time to fight fire with fire. Every time we capture one of them, we should draw and quarter the vermin, piss on the body, and then bury it in a bag of pigs blood.

Answer 1

Sorry to burst the bubble of all the "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!" people, but the 'captured enemy combatants' are, in fact, not protected or granted any rights by the Geneva Convention... yep, it's true.

The insurgents we capture in Iraq are considered, in international law, to be "non-uniformed combatants." As I stated earlier, they have no rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, and in previous wars were usually immediately shot upon their capture. We, however, do the nice things for them as the above questioner pointed out.

Therefore, it is wrong that the good name of the United States should be dragged down in the international community for our treatment of captured insurgents. I don't know about "fighting fire with fire," but I do know that the noble efforts of our brave troops in Iraq should not be stained with the false accusations and criticism of the liberal left.

Answer 2

"THEY" do not always chop people's heads off. This has only happened to Nick Berg, Jack Hensley, Kenneth Bigley, and Eugene Armstrong.

So, realizing that, the twenty-four murdered in Haditha, the eleven in Ishaqui, the Mahmudiyah rape, the Abu Gharaib torture, as well as the Bagram torture, the Mukaradeeb murder of fourty-two civilians, and the rape and murder of Fakhriya Taha Muhasen and her family seems a lot worse, doesn't it?

Now, I'll be the first to admit we have a very lax prison system, but many of those who get the special privelages are only suspected, or simply being questioned. Apparently, we torture the P.O.W.'s.

Understand, also, that the American media has more access to what is going on with American soldiers, so they report on them more. If they were on the other side, they may report on abuse, killings, and rapes carried out by Iraqis, because I'm sure there are more than we hear about, but our media doesn't have access to those lines, do they?

Also, not every Iraqi militia fighter is someone who beheads their victims, nor was every American soldier involved in Abu Gharib or Haditha.

It's a huge problem when we have such disrespect and a lack of knowledge of an opposing army and their culture.

Answer 3

If we treat these prisoners in the interesting way you described, then we would in fact be no better than they are. And then what right would we have to denounce what they do? We can't stoop down to their level, and being a country in such an international position as we are, we should be setting an example.
Besides, all that this sort of treatment will trigger is even more hatred towards us, and more people willing to join the terrorists, quite counterproductive if we're trying to get rid of them.

Answer 4

We follow the Geneva Conventions on the Care of Prisoners of War because we are the Good Guys. They mistreat and execute the people they take because they are the Bad Guys. Anymore questions?

Answer 5

We dont do this because we are meant to be the civilised West. Start killing prisoners and torturing (bit late for that really..*cough*Abu Gahrib) and we lose the war for hearts and minds. We're just Terrorists with cruise missles when we start doing that

Answer 6

Because we signed the Geneva Convention.

Answer 7

We're nice that way. The problem is, no one puts the facts out there in the way you just said it.

Answer 8

3500 have been released in Iraq

Answer 9

We don't want to stoop to their level.