would you let one suffer so many can be safe
2006-10-18 14:54:49 · 13 answers · asked by L1M1J1 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
i should have said totture, but i just can't handle all the crying assed idiots complaining, hell yes torture them.
2006-10-18 15:13:05 · update #1
Hell yes, a terrorist has no rights.
2006-10-18 15:03:08 · answer #1 · answered by cfoxwell99 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Geneva Convention applies only to uniformed soldiers of any recognized government. Terrorists are not soldiers of any government and therefore cannot and will not be covered by the Geneva Convention. I say YES, harsh treatment should be the least of their worries. They send little children to do their dirty work because they are cowards. They use innocent women and children as shields so that they can get away unscaved. They blow up building and buses with 10's and 100's of civilians in them just in the hopes of killing one or two soldiers. I say that if they are willing to go this far but not risk their own lives to get the job done then harsh treatment is like putting them up in a 5 star hotel. Just getting one can save the lives of hundreds that he would kill just to get one soldier.
2006-10-18 15:26:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only problem I have with physical torture is that the information gathered by such means can often be unreliable, as people will say anything to get it to stop. On the other hand, I don't believe we should consider making them be naked, getting dogs to bark at them, or flushing the Koran down the toilet torture, as has been done in the past. The thing is, the Red Cross is now complaining that Gitmo inmates are getting too fat. The fact that they are getting three squares a day, Korans, religious garb and set times to pray and the like makes me think we are treating these people too nicely, as they are subjecting our citizens, who are their prisoners, to far worse conditions. They have sawed our heads off, blown up our buildings, getting involved in un-uniformed combat and the like. Yes, their treatment should be harsher.
2006-10-18 15:03:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Define harsh treatment and under what conditions are you suggesting that the terrorist be subjected to it? Do you think they should withhold his prayer rug and Koran for a few hours? How about encouraging him to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers for a few hours? The words harsh treatment and terror mean different things to different people. That is what GW was wanting clarified here a while back.
2006-10-18 15:39:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing in the Geneva convention that prevents us from just lining up the terrorist when we catch them and shooting them on the spot.
During WWII, German soldiers caught behind our lines disguised as American MP's. They were lined up and shot. That is in compliance with the Geneva convention.
During WWII German commandos were landed via U-boat on the us coast. They were caught before they could perform any mischief. They were tried as spies in a military tribunal and executed by firing squad. That is in compliance with the Geneva convention.
Un-uniformed Taliban fighters captured with arms firing on american troops in Afgahistan are excluded from the protection of the Geneva convention. It would not have been a violation of the Geneva convention to have lined these people up right then and there on the battlefield and executed them as soon as we caught them. So they should count their lucky stars they lived long enough to be interrogated.
We still have the option of taking the ones in Cuba and lining them up and executing them right now. If anything less happens to them they should count their blessings.
2006-10-18 15:11:28 · answer #5 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Take into consideration that a terrorist would not hesitate 1 sec to cut off your head. I say give them everything they would dish out & more. The only thing they understand is brute force & thats all they will ever understand.
2006-10-18 15:05:15 · answer #6 · answered by oilfieldinsultant 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who terrorizes people, even those from the US, should be subjected to the same punishments. That's why Constitutional Rights experts oppose torture. Torture can be defined as what the US troops do when they rape, kill and maim. The rules have to be the same for everyone- a/k/a Geneva Convention.
2006-10-18 14:58:30 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If they are suspected of being a terrorist, harsh treatment may provide information that saves many lives.
If they are proven to be a terrorist, they should be executed.
2006-10-18 15:03:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between harsh treatment and torture. Yest I think harsh treatment for someone who would kill thousands is warranted.
2006-10-18 14:57:54 · answer #9 · answered by kny390 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's important to distinguish between a terrorist and a terror-suspect.
For example, consider: "Should murderers be treated harshly" compared to "Should people suspected of murder be treated harshly".
What if they're innocent?
2006-10-18 15:01:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋