The Bush Administration is trying to re-write the G Convention to allow some forms of torture. I think this would only serve to danger our own POW's. This law has been in effect for years. Should we lower ourselves to this level?
2006-09-19 13:33:23 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Other countries torture. maim and behead our Troops. If it is not permantly diabling, go for it.
2006-09-19 13:37:45 · answer #1 · answered by Boredstiff 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It's right to want clarification on what is precisely allowed within the broad terms used. We had been using the law as a guide line because the broad terms are open to debate and then we get censored for playing loud music in cold rooms, slapping some on the belly and so forth. I don't know if YOU think that is torture or not, but I do not think it is. It may be your sorry *** that tough interrogations will save. As far as our own POWS, they have been subjected to evil tortures and treatments in most of the wars past. Don't tell me that what we are doing here will make any difference on how our guys are treated. Comprendo?
2006-09-19 21:26:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No! If the military, FBI, and the CIA read the Geneva Convention more carefully, they would get the picture on how to give the POW's from the ongoing war on terror their due rights and treat them humanely. I think Bush wants to throw that out of the window and try them in a military tribunal. That's JUST plain wrong!
2006-09-19 20:39:21 · answer #3 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is not about re-writing or lowering one self, it is about your and my security, I am a military person, and not American, but sometimes results require drastic action. As a ex-soldier, the enemy do not care about any G-Convention if they lay there hands on you. If the Bush adminastration want to change it for the better of the people, so be it and support him, as I do not think he have personal pleasure or dictatorship in mind when he recommend the changes. War have very little humanity, and if "alternative measures" can avoid attacks, support them, and look at the long term benefits.
2006-09-19 20:47:32 · answer #4 · answered by Pete 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not actually redefining the Geneva Convention, though that may be another of those misconceptions that it is a lost cause to fix.
Bush is trying to retroactively change the definition of war crimes under federal law (18 USC 2441), which was "any violation of the Geneva Convention" to instead be "these specific acts,......"
The current laws make torture illegal. Torture is defined as any actions that cause permanent physical or psychological damage. The current laws (18 USC 2441) also make AND humilating or degrading treatment illegal.
2006-09-19 20:35:54 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
well, we shouldnt worry about "lowering" ourselves to any level. That is just foolish when things count. what we should worry about it whether or not it is effective, and worth the bad publicity. If they can get useful info out of a terrorist that prevents another 9/11 im all for it. If all they are doing is wasting time giving america a bad name beating false confessions and answers out of innocent people, then no. Most actual "torture" doesnt work, and probably never has. It may play a part, softening them up, but drugs and cross questioning would play a better role, most intelligence agencies know all this. It seems more of a political play than a real question.
2006-09-19 20:38:35 · answer #6 · answered by rand a 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
"O’Connor said he found no evidence that any Canadian police, intelligence or other officials played a direct role in Arar’s detention by U.S. authorities in September 2002 or in the American decision to send him to Syria.
But the Mounties shared information about the Ottawa-based telecommunications engineer with American anti-terrorist agencies both before and after he was detained.
Among other things, the RCMP wrongly described Arar to the Americans as "an Islamic extremist suspected of being linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network."
2006-09-19 21:11:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The canadian police accused a man of being a terrorist. The news was in Globe and Mail today. The guy has a muslim name, but nothing to do with terror. He spent one year in jail, and now the government said he was innocent. Well, he was tortured, but he survived...
2006-09-19 20:44:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not.
People, even suspected terrorists, have basic human rights and one of them is freedom from torture or any other form of coercive interrogation.
If they do not want to give information freely and voluntarily, they should not be compelled to.
If this increases the risks of more attacks, so be it.
2006-09-19 20:41:58 · answer #9 · answered by Rochester 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what makes you think that nations that do not observe the gc will start if the president wants to continue.."what some folks call torture"...the detainees get 3 squares a day...health care...prayer 5 times a day...their food is better than they ever received before...as opposed to beheadings...beatings...hangings...disembowelment[japanese],,electrocution[nazi's]...executions.[battle of the bulge-malmedy]..nazi's....please...get a clue.
2006-09-19 21:22:35 · answer #10 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i was in Viet Nam, long ago. so were 2 of my brothers, 4 uncles and 11 cousins. we didn't have the money or inclination to flee to Canada. i would do anything i could to protect their life or the life of any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. i learned that the VC and The PAVN troops, for the most part, never heard of Geneva, and didn't even know (or care) that there was a convention there.
2006-09-19 20:38:42 · answer #11 · answered by ron m 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋