or should it remain as it is, to protect our troops if they ever got captured?
2006-09-15 08:23:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I strongly disagree with ammending it.
Torturing prisoners results in the loss of the so called moral high ground we had after 9/11 when we went to seek justice for our fallen countrymen. If we start torturing, what's next? Killing women and children to extract information?
Right now, we are better than they are and everyone knows it.
2006-09-15 08:28:10 · answer #1 · answered by Kevin 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No--A chicken hawk like W should listen to the people who know something about why the Geneva Conventions are necessary. John W. Vessey came into the army as a private and received a battlefield comission at Anzio. He was Reagan's joint chief of staff. His opinion can be found at
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/VesseyLetter.pdf
2006-09-15 20:14:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all it won't protect the troops.
I don't know if you remember what happened to the last troops that were captured. it wasn't pretty. I don't know how many details got out about what was done to them but it was very bad.
I would need to see the document. To say but to say in this war or any previous how did it protect the troops?
2006-09-15 15:48:01 · answer #3 · answered by bluefalcon_gillis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One, he wants clarification so that everyone knows exactly what they can and cannot do and there isn't any room for interpretation. I don't think that's a bad idea. Second, how many of these "insurgents" or "terrorists" follow or even think they have to follow the Geneva convention? The last time two of our soldiers were captured, they tortured them before they beheaded them. It was so bad that we had to use DNA samples to figure out who was who. I don't think that is allowed by the Geneva convention. So, how are the protecting our guys? Even the Nazis and the Japanese didn't follow them as closely as they should have in WWII. Yet, despite liberal whinings to the contrary, those we are imprisoned in Gitmo are well treated.
2006-09-15 15:29:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It should remain as is.
If, as Bush claims, we already follow the Geneva Conventions, why would we need to amend them?
2006-09-15 15:35:13 · answer #5 · answered by Kutekymmee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Geneva Convention rules were meant to be enforced for uniformed soldiers fighting for a nation, not terrorists.
Did the North Koreans honor them? How about the North Vietnamese? Al Queda? No, No,and No.
Bush wants Congress to specifically state what is allowed and what is not. So far they have generalities like don't demean.
2006-09-15 15:26:12 · answer #6 · answered by Kelly T 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Putting it mildly...Has Bush ever needed permission to not play by the Geneva Convention? Sort of a formality if you ask me. Regardless, it will occur w or w/o a signature saying it's ok.
2006-09-15 15:47:08 · answer #7 · answered by Adam 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva convention so as such have no rights and do not respect any rights
They should remain as is
2006-09-15 15:33:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You mean like the Americans that got be-headed?
My goodness, what would have happened to them if they hadn't be protected by the Geneva Convention?
2006-09-15 15:25:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
No I don't agree with him. He needs to know that the USA is not the representative of the entire world.
2006-09-15 15:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by july5_uk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋