How does present US law on interrogation and enemy combatants differ from US law in previous conflicts?

Question

Looking for serious answers and sources, please. Maybe we will all learn something. Thanks!

PS I asked a similar (but not the same) question a few hours ago - you might want to look at it to get more details.

Answer 1

Actually it does not differ all that much. The Geneva convention only applied to signatories and those that are regular forces and comply with the convention.

A person that is captured if they refuse to comply with the basic information requirements to the convention do not have to be afforded any of the protections.

Further, a non-governmental military or paramilitary group that is not a a regular force of a waring faction, or is not a local defending force (i.e. is not associated with a government in the conflict) are not afforded the protections of the Geneva convention.

What this law really does is it modifies a United States law banning the use of torture on any prisoners. It does not modify the rules of war or the rules of prisoners of war.

So let's say for instance the US forces capture and Iraqi regular soldier or Iraqi farmer fighting US Soldiers, and captures a Saudi in Iraq fighting US forces. The US cannot use torture against the Iraqi because he is protected under the Geneva Convention 4. The Saudi is screwed, he gets no protection.

However, most interrogators will tell you that torture does not yield good information. The information is usually unreliable and you could find a better source of information quicker then torture usually yields information.

Answer 2

simple and serious bush F*&cked up everything the tactics that he uses are head on when back in president clintons and even before him they were smart and strategic they looked for points that would cripple the enimeis defences if they captured it helped keep causaualties to a minimum bush goes in and shoots and bombs everything no stratergy at all as far as interogation in those startegic days then only important millitants were captured and interrogation was less brutal and more mind games now he takes every one half of them were just told 2 shoot american soilders and have no idea wats going on and he just beats the **** outta them

Answer 3

I think that its just one more thing to people lost his freedom...
Think if a person do something good but the government don't like it or other person and say that person is terrorist, well this person can considered enemy combatants, but he isn't it , but don't have right of defense ... and they will do practical like drowned and put the person in a cold room ... well ... u gonna say every thing that they want... to escape this things ... But that person is culprit???

Answer 4

IT DOESN'T REALLY! THE GERMANS WEREN'T TREATED ANY DIFFERANT,THE VIETNAMESE,THE KOREANS,NONE HAD SIGNED THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND WE STILL KEPT WITHIN THE LAW!THIS WAS A LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW THAT WAS CLOSED DUE TO THE TERRORIST NOT BEING FROM ANY ONE ARMY! NOTHING HAS CHANGED AS TO HOW WE TREAT THEM..THE GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT IS TORTURE HAS BEEN KEPT,,GREAT QUESTION,HOW MANY DO YOU THINK WILL GET THIS RIGHT?

Answer 5

This one is very vague and even condones the use of extreme torture.

Bush believes that unless major organ damage is caused it is not torture.

Answer 6

formerly US followed the Geneva convention and other human rights treaties and criticised other regimes including Iraq for their human rights abuses, now it follows the Patriot Act it developed for itself, and F**ck the UN or anyone else who disagrees with it in the name of freedom and democracy.

Answer 7

Formerly it was not allowed to get a confession by a***aping the detainee.