Why are new rules needed now, if US doesn't "torture"? Or if you believe the US is torturing prisoners, why is it moral and right to change the law to allow this?
2006-09-19 06:09:31 · 14 answers · asked by TxSup 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They aren't vague. It's just that we have been doing a lot of torturing these days and we have some very skittish "intel" folks who want to make sure they are not prosecuted and used as scapegoats for their "illegal and immoral" actions.
When someone asks you to clearly define all the things you think might be torture, they are looking to continue using or implement whatever you fail to mention on your list.
Really, shouldn't it be enough to say "don't torture". You know Clinton got into a lot of trouble with sex and trying to redefine it.
Seems our presidents always have their "defining" moments. Sex and torture....not really the kind of legacy our presidents should be leaving for us to reflect on.
2006-09-19 06:17:09 · answer #1 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The G.Convention was as result of the first global war (WW1). The industrial and technological revolutions caught up with civilization and the ability to kill with mechanical, gas, and envisioned biological means changed the rules of war.
The torture and prisoner treatment issues were merely footnotes. The bigger issues, mass genocide, were completely ignored, as were the footnotes, in WW2.
The proliferation of American lawyers and punitive suits have changed forever our ability to communicate due to the idiosyncrasies of the English language.
The international rules are out the window now. What is being discussed is how to keep the ACLU and relatives of torture victims from having any rights to punitive damages.
There is no morality in war, or politics.
For those who think that torture is an effective means of gathering the truth, please see the records from witches interrogations during the middle ages. The Vatican has a very large library full of forced "confessions" which contain many impossible "facts".
2006-09-19 13:29:53 · answer #2 · answered by Chronic Observer 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The arent vague, bush is just a moron, and he is saying that so that they can be changed to fit into what he wants them to be, probably because he is realizing that the current definition "violates what he has already done"lol. He is saying that they are vague so he can say "OOOOh, thats what that means. I didnt realize that you guys meant THAT." How is anything in there "vague"? They were written to clearly define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable when it comes to prisoners. No one else has had a problem conforming to it. No one else has called for them to be clarified. When yugoslavia captured two american peacekeepers just before the nato forces got into the whole kosovo thing, did Slobadan Milosevic have any problem treating them according to the geneva convention? No. He knew that if he didn't, there would be hell to pay.
2006-09-19 13:15:29 · answer #3 · answered by vanman8u 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He wants the "Geneva Convention according to Dubya".
2006-09-19 13:46:56 · answer #4 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cant fight a war with one arm tied behind your back. Right now, America and the coalition are the only playeres even half way playing by the rules. The enemy sees the compassion of the US and her allies as a weakness.
On the flip side, our enemy kidnaps "infidels" and proceeds to decapitate them on tape. We are fighting a barbaric enemy and in my opinion, need to fight fire with fire. We dont need to lower ourselves to their level but for God sakes, take the leash off of our military...
I DO advocate torture if it gets information and saves the lives of Americans and her allies. It doesnt matter if people want to recognize it or not, torture has been a part of warfare from the beginning. Anyone who opposes that, hasnt studied history very well. Given the opportunity, radical Muslims would kill every single American.
2006-09-19 13:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush threatened to stop the torture if the Senators who oppose it don't agree with him. The absolute height of arrogant, underhanded, immoral, deceitful double-talk. There are no words for the contempt I hold this man in.
2006-09-19 13:24:20 · answer #6 · answered by notme 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it used to be, the definition of torture was pretty obvious, and we had no problem adhering to that.
But now, the definition of torture has been expanded to include name-calling, deprivation of cable tv or internet access, even flushing a holy book is now being called "torture".
None of those are really torture, and they aren't what we signed up to geneva convention for.
2006-09-19 13:13:37 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
We didn't follow them. How many POW camps have you heard of us having? How many Vietnamese are looking for POWs? Guantonimo Bay is the only one we recognize. The CIA prisons aren't new either, the OSS started those prior to WWII.
2006-09-19 13:15:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who says we have it may be the spotlight of the worldwide instant media that has brought the treatment of prisoners and others to the public eye.
2006-09-19 13:14:36 · answer #9 · answered by medic 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Very carefully. I don't think the law should be changed
to satisfy the ACLU and the politically correct bleeding
heart liberals!!!!!!!!!!
2006-09-19 13:33:38 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋