do you think our soldiers are in jeopardy of the same in the future?
If so, would we be able to prosecute the offenders for war crimes?
2006-09-08 05:05:47 · 29 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thanks for your answers. I'm well aware of the beheadings and abuse of the captives taken by the "insurgents". My question speaks to that. Do we sink to the same level or do we behave acccording to international law and moral principles even though the enemy does not?
The question of have we tortured our prisoners goes beyond the panties on the head. Bush denied until this week the existence of secret prisons and now, voila, they exist. Cheney pushed for rejection of McCains anti-torture bill. Why do you think that is?
2006-09-08 05:27:09 · update #1
If the US violates and abandones the treaties that protect our own soldiers, we no longer have any recourse under those laws either.
A country cannot violate a treaty repeatedly and then claim protection under that same treaty. So, by violating the Geneva Conventions publicly and egregiously, the US is not only breaking international law (and federal law), but it is removing those protections from our own troops as well.
2006-09-08 05:09:49 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Well...right now when terrorist capture people...whether they're soldiers or just civilian workers trying to help rebuild their country...they (the terrorists) generally behead them. So it's hard to have much sympathy for any captives we take.
HOWEVER:
I'm not very politically correct, and I believe that western culture...with it's respect for individual rights, self-rule, and inclusion of women with the same rights as men is a BETTER culture than the general middle eastern Islamic fundamentalist cultures in which women are basically just "property". And I would like for us to act BETTER than the scum that we are fighting.
I would prefer that we NOT use torture...but I would have no problems in enforcing the Geneval Convention to the absolute letter. If an armed combatant is captured on the battlefield NOT in the recognized uniform of an internationally recognized army, then they can be considered a spy, stood against a wall, and shot.
But if we are going to use torture...then damnit, let's quit being hypocritical about it. If the CIA (or other government organization) is going to take certain prisoners off and subject them to various types of torture (or "enforced interrogation", if you prefer), then damnit...let's quit acting "shocked" and wringing our hands and sending lowly PFC's and corporals off to Leavenworth Military Prison when they're caught making prisoners pose for pictures with women's panties on their heads.
2006-09-08 05:19:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You seem to have a problem with your logic. Regardless of the United States stance and action towards "captives", the enemies of the United States are already torturing United States citizens and military personnel. Have you forgotten about the numerous beheadings, kidnappings, display of mutilated bodies? Do you think being placed in a dark sound proof room for hours on end equates with having your head slowly severed from your body utilizing a sawing action while you are conscious? Grow up!
2006-09-08 05:14:13 · answer #3 · answered by elephanthrower 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It seems to be so as the denial has reached the top and President Bush has denied doing so!
Prosecute the offenders for war crimes? Interesting! Who deserves the most to be tried for war crimes other than our President, who being the commander-in-chief is US Soldier No.1, especially when torture is also defined as a war crime - something similar for which Sadam Hussain is being tried?
2006-09-08 05:15:08 · answer #4 · answered by Sami V 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Our soldiers have been in jeopardy since time began. Do you think the Muslims are angry because we have the courage to fight them? The Muslims are angy because their 7th century life style is a little behind the times. They are angry because Islam is a 7th century religion and it's all they have. Christians and Jews and non-believers make the world go around and they are left in the dust. If Muslims want to destroy Israel and want to destroy America and information is the only way to stop that. We need to get the information any way necessary. The difference between civilization and the Muslims is that civilized people don't torture or behead civilians as a way of life. Muslims do.
2006-09-08 05:15:10 · answer #5 · answered by Zee HatMan 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course our soldiers will suffer the same fate, it's already happened. When those two kids were found dismembered, thrown along the side of the road. And even with as creative as this Pres is with his Loosey Goosey takes on law and rights and the Constitution we would have a long road to hoe if we thought we could try any torturers for war crimes
2006-09-08 05:11:56 · answer #6 · answered by Sidoney 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i detect torture to be an abomination except for one little section- if the threat of a nuclear or organic and organic attack is eminent and the the position abouts of the weapon can not be gained by technique of the different means it truly is okay, in my e book to whack off body factors - or by technique of the different effectual means mandatory- of a understanding participant if this can lead on to a discovery that ought to keep thousands of thousands or maybe tens of millions of lives. some thing below it is barbaric- how's that for a contradiction? i don't think of that terrorists deliver some thing extreme sufficient to the table to warrant torture no longer that they ought to not be feared its' in basic terms that the undesirable impact that this provides some thing else of the international ought to nicely be a techniques extra unfavourable contained in the lengthy run.
2016-11-06 21:55:26 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How could it possibly get worse than having your head cut off? Besides what the ACLU and the International Red Cross would call torture has nothing to do with the type of torture applied by the Islamic extremists or the Vietnamese.
2006-09-08 05:21:35 · answer #8 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In times of war I feel "an eye for an eye" is justified. Yet we continue to not take that path. I have yet to see or read about the good guys beheading or dismembering anyone. If what we've seen in the news that has been classified as torture (gymnastics and dress-up) is what you're referring to, you need to do a little more research as to what torture really is.
And a resounding NO to your second.
2006-09-08 05:23:28 · answer #9 · answered by budntequilla 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Our soldiers are already in jeopardy of it.
The terrorists don't play by the rules in this war, and neither should we.
Don't you remember the footage of a head being lopped off, shown on live TV?
We haven't stooped to that yet, so we're still taking the high road.
2006-09-08 05:13:11 · answer #10 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the religious nuts think an eye for an eye...
The winner prosecutes for war crimes.
Prisoners should always be treated humanely, and within the rules of the Geneva Convention, and according to common decency.
2006-09-08 05:24:49 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋