The Geneva Conventions.

[laughingimp]

Part I, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions reads as follows:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

Comments

[budobudo]

I would consider being detained at all "humiliating and degrading" and to be "cruel treatment and torture."

The international community will never be satisfied. Even if we treated prisoners as gods. Their opposition to the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror is political in nature and not true moral outrage.

“Cleaning up our act” will only serve to sooth our conscience which, while noble, gains us exactly no support from the majority of countrys that presently oppose the war. It would take an un-reasonable, and unbalanced optimism to believe otherwise.

[moonchylde]

Then just call me insane. Because I am one of those fools that actually, truly believes in the Golden Rule.

[budobudo]

The golden rule works wonders when dealing with people on a one on one basis. It does nothing for ideologies and the political-propagantistic machines that are entrenched in countries.

[mrbobafett]

We shouldn't be doing anything to get the international community behind the war in Iraq. We shouldn't be getting anyone behing the war in Iraq, because no one should support the war in Iraq. We should follow the Geneva conventions. And we should follow the Geneva conventions because we signed them and agreed to them. And we are supposed to be the good guys right? The good guys have to follow the rules even when the bad guys don't. Being the good guy isn't easy, it's right. Being bad is easy.

[moonchylde]

Generally speaking, I dismiss the idea that torture by Americans will result in torture of Americans. Americans will be tortured regardless, because US troops are battling extremists, and extremists are monsters.

Careful in that judgement; in some cases, though they have to deal with verbal threats and torment, they aren't always tortured and killed. Some of the kidnappers/fighters ARE doing it for their freedom, and believe in what they are doing as part of an ongoing war, and are actually honorable people. Some, of course, not most, and not all. But some.

And THOSE, those 'good' fighters, are the ones we are working for in the long run, those that we know will follow the Geneva conventions. But if we don't, that does lead to the question of why they should.

Other than that, I completely agree. We should never sink to the level of the monsters in the world.

[budobudo]

"Some of the kidnappers/fighters ... we know will follow the Geneva conventions."

Well as kidnappers (hostage taking is banned by the convention) and fighters who do not take up arms openly & in uniform (so as to identify themselfs as combatants and in-so-doing protect non combatants) they are all ready in violation of the Geneva Convention. It is therefor hard for me to believe that they are honorable or willing to comply with any sort of rules of war.

[mrbobafett]

Generaly speaking the idea of rules of war is a rather silly idea. War is more or less the absence of rule. And everyone at some point breaks the rules of war. You think US troops haven't dressed as civilians as part of infiltration operations? Because they have.

Also part of this comes back to the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. A soldier is a person who is allowed by the "rules of war" to be a combatant, a terrorist is one who is not allowed to wage war.

[budobudo]

"You think US troops haven't dressed as civilians as part of infiltration operations? Because they have."

Please sight examples from this war in Iraq otherwise even if this is true it is irrelivent to the current argument.

"Also part of this comes back to the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. A soldier is a person who is allowed by the "rules of war" to be a combatant, a terrorist is one who is not allowed to wage war."

Correct. I am not seeing a problem here.

Well-said

[tiaralynn]

One of my favorite anecdotes about the torture issue is from John McCain, as he was explaining that in many, if not most cases, those being captured and tortured in wartime have little useful information and, when tortured, they'll make up anything to make it stop. This results in tons of bad information.

When McCain was captured in Vietnam they tortured him for information that on individuals whose names he did not know. Finally, when they refused to believe he knew nothing, he gave them the starting lineup of the Green Bay Packers. The torture stopped, and he continued to make things up for the rest of his time in captivity.

The idea of torture makes me sick, honestly, but then again so does war itself. I don't understand the whole point of reinterpreting, or "officially" interpreting the Geneva Convention. Like Andy suggested, this will only serve to soothe the conscience of a select few people and affect little change.

[laughingimp]

Here is why clarification is important

[o0omarko0o]

Will lap dances, food coloring, peeing on books, and harsh tones of voice still be considered torture?

Oh let's face it, I'm just wondering about the lap dances.

[apagleisgunna]

Everyone knows: a lap dance is always better when the stripper is crying.