Degrading and cruel treatment of POWs is wrong. McCain asserts that if Congress were to give in to Pres. Chimp this could have an effect on future American POWs.
This man is a danger to our military.
2006-09-14 13:13:53 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
McCain and others are asserting that the US needs to abide by the treaty obligations it has accepted, and not engage in actions which violate the Geneva Conventions. And his arguments are valid.
By dropping out of the Geneva Convention, formally or simply by continually ignoring it, US troops would no longer be protected by it. That means that US troops would have no claim to UN intervention or fair treatment, in any future conflict, with Venezuela or Iran or Pakistan or China or the Sudan, or any current conflict in Lebanon, or Afghanistan, or Iraq.
Dropping out means the US has no legal basis to demand access for medical personnel, or the Red Cross, and no legal basis to demand that US forces imprisoned as prisoners of war be granted trials, or prisoner exchanges.
BushCo argue that terrorists don't follow those rules, so why should we? Well, if all the US is ever going to fight, now and in the future, are terrorists, then that might be a valid argument. But if we're ever going to fight against another nation again, we may not want to be so careless as to leave our troops without legal protection.
2006-09-14 14:27:14 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes McCain and Powell are right on this but of course no one that has never been in the military would know that. If you had gotten into a prison in any war from our side would you want the boys to be tortured or treated with dignity? What would have been the out come of D-Day had someone tortured the information out of our soldiers? Perhaps we would be speaking German now and living under a strict dictatorship.
2006-09-14 15:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by billc4u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
particular, that's what has been on the night information and that i'm having a confusing time wrapping my head around that one. Are the Republicans prepared to hunch so low to safeguard the torture concepts of the failed Bush administration by ability of disrespecting a former captured POW. I unquestionably have fairly some understand for McCain who spoke out against using torture by ability of the Bush administration. maximum experts understand that torture does not paintings and there have been many scientific that help this theory. There are greater valuable, greater cutting-edge strategies, to get carry of authentic advice from prisoners with out making use of violent strategies.
2016-10-15 00:24:03 · answer #3 · answered by swett 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I respect what McCain went through in Vietnam, but I also think it affected him in a very bad way. Post traumatic stress syndrome can be a very real psychologic problem for years after the initial trauma. And as a POW himself, McCain could understandably be biased against any type of interrogation technique.
Powell is also a very great man in his own right. But being a great man doesn't necessarily mean that he is correct on a particular issue...in this case POWs.
Getting necessary information from terrorists is crucial to our country's survival. It is a dirty job, but no less necessary.
2006-09-14 13:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you torture people they may give you wrong answers just to get you to stop. In any case the loss of our prestege in the world makes it not worth doing. We just look like nazis to the rest of the world. If you think I'm wrong just see what countries will sign on with us if the chimp wants to go to war on iran. I hear Tony Blair is getting replaced-that give you a clue?
2006-09-14 13:35:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course they're right. Bush acts like unless he gets this special legislation, terrorists can no longer be questioned....not true. They just cant be tortured, which is what Bush has been guilty of since before Abu Graib. I mean, who really believed that he had Alberto Gonzales and others studying the legalities of torture just for the exercise. Of course he was allowing torture of prisoners. Now he wants after-the-fact immunity for that.
2006-09-14 13:17:26 · answer #6 · answered by lucyanddesi 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Like it could get any worse than being beheaded, disemboweled and having your remains dragged through the streets or hanged from under a bridge.
2006-09-14 13:17:18 · answer #7 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋