2007-12-09 03:01:43 · 6 answers · asked by somber 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It would sure beat the rusty butter knife scenario.
Have you ever talked to a former POW? They went through a lot worse. The facts are that other countries use real forms of torture when it suits them...lots of POW's never are heard from again and only their fellow prisoner's can tell us what probably happened...
2007-12-09 03:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
.Exactly what "country"are we talking about? Last time I noticed we were not engaged in a war with a country that signed the Geneva Convention.
Thugs, murderers, mad bombers not fighting for a signatory of the Geneva Convention do not fall under its provisions. As far as I know we have not waterboarded a soldier of a country that signed the Convention, have we?
2007-12-09 03:10:05 · answer #2 · answered by Bob W 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If both countries are signatories of the Geneva Convention, then they are bound by it. If only one is, then neither is bound by it. Witness the Japanese in the Second World War. They were not signatories, therefore were not bound by it. The American POWs of that war, were treated in an abominable manner.
2007-12-09 03:09:15 · answer #3 · answered by Beau R 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
by American POWs, I take it you mean prisoners captured by the US.
We are not at war and the Taliban, Al Qaida, and Iraqi insurgents are neither 'uniformed' nor 'soldiers' nor 'of a signatory nation' So the Geneva Convention does not apply.
If it did, then they could all be shot as out-of-uniform spies and saboteurs,
That being said, I think 'water boarding' is stupid.
2007-12-09 03:13:02 · answer #4 · answered by BruceN 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Does mommy know you're playing on the computer?
BTW, are beheadings covered in the Geneva Convention?
2007-12-09 03:10:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes...better than the beheadings and hanging them off bridges. Get a clue junior.
2007-12-09 03:08:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋