The contents of the Senate report are disturbing to say the least, but not unexpected. These are the government-sponsored actions of the flag-carrying country for human-rights, freedom and democracy. Oh Dear!! But as I read, a thought occurred to me. Is there a case for concluding that if it is OK for the flag-carrier to do such deeds, then it must be OK for these to become standard international practice in dealing with adversaries. Or is this a sole US right? # Next time a US marine is captured, is it OK for his lunch to be shoved up his arse? # How about forcing a US medic to hobble around on his broken feet? # Or detaining US troops for years without any right to trial # Or to 7 year's of denial of access to legal representation - worse than most cases in Apartheid South Africa # Or how about this? - it being OK if a few US or Israeli or New Zealand soldiers die while in custody? I am not sure if I want my world to look like this.
Or how about an enemy diplomat being vindicated for revealing that their government had been routinely complicit in torture as a result of extraordinary rendition practices?
Good points, and ones that I used in arguments with both the Right and the Left back when it was first revealed that the Bush administration was maneuvering to legally sanction the systematic abuse of prisoners of war for the purpose of information gathering. Although our leftists have since 'forgotten', huge numbers of them were rather more flexible on certain issues in the first year or two after 9-11 than they were later on. Here's the deal though, while I certainly bashed the hell out of Bush and company on this very issue and a host of others I then went on to hold Obama JUST as ethically accountable in his handling of vital issues whereas leftwingers on the whole . . . have not. I have no use for those who support Barack Obama's warmongering habits, for instance, whereas they were foursquare against Bush's (after a certain point in time) when for all practical purposes it's almost impossible to tell the two presidents apart when it comes to warmongering. So while I have no huge problem with the notion of putting Bush and company on trial I would also demand to see Obama brought to trial for his nearly countless violations of ethics and law. Treat both the same or forget about it. All ethical and legal violations are vital matters or none of them are.
Yeah because if we stop doing it then all of the enemies of the US will stop doing it too... right? If not, then wtf is your point?
I would call the point "living up to your touted standards". If you cannot, then perhaps my point is to: "Furl your flag" and admit it.
What touted standards? Have you ever seen the history of America? We all but wiped out the Indians. We used germ warfare against them. We owned people for years. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan indiscriminately killing men, women and children. During warfare, ANYTHING goes. The winners write the rules. If Germany had won WWII it would have been the US and it's allies who were brought up on charges of war crimes. If the terrorists happen to win it will be the US and it's allies who are brought up on charges of war crimes. ALL is fair in war. Win at ALL costs.
Have I just read your proposal for a new International Standard? If it were to be adopted by the international community, then I would suggest that 911 will become known as a mere schoolboy's black eye. We had all, including those in the Carolinas, better practice circling the wagons, living in the lager, and not going out at night - nationally speaking, that is. Oh, and making sure that we have someone stationed every 200 metres along all our borders, including the marine ones. I am told that suitcase bombs are getting smaller by the year.
That IS the International Standard. Any country will do ANY and EVERYTHING possible to get information that will be beneficial to their cause if the information is important enough. To assert that they wouldn't is nothing more than an extreme delusion.
We laid down those rules in the Geneva convention because we wanted to NOT be like the barbarians, and the uncivilized, and instead wanted to set an example to the world. Today, we don't care about being barbarians, nor uncivilized, and ethics and morality is just a quaint old term, completely relative, and meaningless. We cannot have trials anymore to punish those who we now emulate. The world is a much more evil and brutal place for we have stopped being a good example to follow for the rest of the world. We are now the Nazis, or just steered ourselves onto that path. Another example that America is the evil, dark empire, and doesn't deserve to continue on. We will get exactly what we deserve.
The Geneva convention? Are you freaking joking? We broke almost every single one of the Geneva convention rules during WWII. We came in afterwards and made a declaration to APPEAR as though we were better than the other side. But we weren't, if we were held to the same standard we held the Germans to in WWII every single one of our leaders would have been executed. The Geneva convention is nothing more than propaganda to attempt to persuade gullible people into thinking we're somehow better than the other side. Germany would have done the EXACT same thing if they had won WWII. They would have come up with some kind of Geneva convention-like rules and brought the US leaders and it's allies up to trial for warcrimes. The Germans would have declared themselves morally superior to us because they followed the rules and we didn't... or so they would claim... just like we did. If the USA is on it's knees and there's a possibility that we might lose a war that had horrific consequences for America... we would do ANYTHING including breaking every rule in the Geneva convention and killing innocent men women and children if we thought it would keep us from going down. Don't be gullible. (ETA: I said we were not better than the other side. Let me rephrase myself... we did not engage in the atrocities that the germans engaged in by putting people in camps and systematically committing genocide against them... however, there is not a rule that exists that we would not break if we thought it would give us the upper-hand in a war that had dire consequences for our country.)
It's hard for me to even contemplate this. I don't expect for us to roll over or take it on the chin when attacked but I feel we're acting like ignorant hypocrites. This (*)(*)(*)(*) is savage, and the reason we're fighting war on terror.
The Geneva Conventions were only formulated in 1949 BECAUSE of what happened in 1939-1945. Yes, I know all about the two sets of mass murders against the Italians at Canicatti and Biscari (both hidden for a long time because of .... ?). I also know of Operation Teardrop. And of the torture of US soldiers in the 'Hanoi Hilton'. US troops better get used to it if your suggestion becomes global policy. Have you ever travelled overseas? Aww ... why stop short of genocide in gas chambers? "Everything is fair" - isn't it?
Is this some sort of deflection? This has nothing to do with motives of media. At best this make us look like a deceptive nation that cannot be trusted to do the right thing. At worst a nation of disinformed, hippocratic, yes men, imbeciles. I think we both know where history is placing us.
Rendition is one thing. Extradition is the most common form of rendition. In the OP we are instead dealing with torture perpetrated directly (not as a result of being handed over to a third party) by the so-called flag-carrying bastion of Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights. I do not find the difference to be subtle.
Genius! The first Geneva Convention was held in 1949 so how could you have broken its rules during WW2 when they hadn't even been committed to print yet?
No genius. I mean that during WWII we broke essentially every rule that we then created in the Geneva convention to attempt to make ourselves look morally superior. ALL is fair in war... and the winners write the rules, no matter how much those limp-wristed liberals don't like that
If it's "not torture" for us to use these things against prisoners we have, then it's "not torture" for another country to use this on captured American Soldiers. Seems you're for other countries being able to use "enhanced interrogation" techniques on our men and women that are captured. Afterall, it's "not torture" right?
