OK. I admit I never actually read the Geneva conventions. I can't quote provisions of it or tell you if torturing people caught in a guerrilla warfare situation is actually a violation of the conventions.

I find it amazing that with the current administration, we have people arguing on the internet about who exactly its OK to turture. Have we all gone insane? Torture is wrong. Period. The USA is not supposed to be one of the evil countries that tortures its prisoners.

Gonzales is a bad guy for writing legal memos that support torture. Is that specific enough for you?

You left out "took Halliburton money."

Have we all gone insane? Torture is wrong. Period. The USA is not supposed to be one of the evil countries that tortures its prisoners.

The Geneva Convetions never made any sense to me. Listen: you are killing people in a war. You are resorting to the very last resort you have by throwing lives towards a cause, just or not, to kill other human beings. You are taking the lives of other people. And someone wanted to apply rules to this? I am reminded of the revolutionary war in which the British were shocked to find the opposing forces fought by using the dastardly tactic of hiding behind trees -- someone finally got it in their head that standing in a line, while considered heroic and fair, was fucking stupid. Or during the civil war when someone got the bright idea in their head to attack at night and take advantage of surprise to kill the enemy to save their own lives. Of course, at the time, none of this was considered honorable to do in battle and objection to it ran high but, honestly, why have rules to something so atrocious, anyways? You can paralyze a person with a bullet by shooting them in the spine, but mustard gas mames too much to be legal? You're welcome to use a genade to blow someone's limbs off, but use of fragmenting rifle rounds is off-limits? You can send someone home to their family in bag(s) but you can't kick the hell out of them to get them to talk? We're free to place sanctions on a country and starve their people into submission, but we have to feed prisoners we take? We certainly wouldn't want anyone to suffer during battle, would we?

Its war, people. We have enough missiles warmed and ready to obliterate the entire planet and doom all of humanity to a slow, painful, toxic death. Applying rules to it doesn't make any sense.

Care to elaborate?

You make some sense about the absurdidty of the rules of waging war, but I would say that once you captured someone and removed them from the battlefield, you are now in a more calm environment, and can take the time to make a thoughtful decision about their fate. Their treatment at that point becomes indicitive of how evil you are.

Gonzales's legal opinions haven't had anything to do with how to wage war, they are about how to treat prisoners.

When we capture someone we give 'em a chaplain, medical help, and three squares until they gain a "freshman 20". I'm sure the occasional baddie is "water-boarded" or forced to be naked etc, omg how horrible for them, if it's thought they have critical information that could prevent their side from mounting more attacks to kill innocents.

When THEY capture someone they torture them and make a snuff video slowly sawing the person's head off so they can play the final cries of the captor over and over to show their potential recruits how fun it is.

One Italian captor prevented them from having a great snuff video. He pulled off his hood and said, "I will show you how an Italian dies." It totally ruined their film. The enemy is not supposed to die bravely.

But yeah, maybe we're the fuckin' bad guys. Never mind that the Convention really has to be used by both sides in order to be effective. Maybe we, the only ones who actually gave the matter two cents of consideration, the only ones who taught their children about it in schools, are the bad guys.

Curious -- did anyone else see The History Channel's documentary on how we treated Nazi Germany prisoners? These guys weren't just fed, they were fed extremely well, permitted to purchase goods, given jobs and paid, allowed to form bands, play soccer matches, and were housed in better conditions than any of our troops at home or abroad.

They were also treated better than our own citizens when we rounded up Japanese-Americans and threw them into containment camps.

Doesn't that show that we are more "civilized" than they are? War is war, but nobody deserves to be tortured the way those assholes in the beheading videos are torturing people. As the most powerful nation in the world, don't we somehow have an obligation to show the world that that's not the way human beings should act? It comes down to right and wrong, and we need to set an example and do the right thing in this case--we've done enough "wrong" by invading Iraq in the first place.....

If by 'calm' you meant 'quieter', I might agree. However, I'd imagine being captured by the people you're trying to kill, then taken away from your home and country and people, stuffed in a cell which can't be all that big couldn't be very calming to the prisoner. Sure, it might be quieter and slightly less life threatening, but you're alone and surrounded by strangers who hate you. That's a pretty stressful situation. From that point on, it'll then depend on the individual, whether or not they fall into cooperation and introspective reflection, outward cooperation while nursing a grudge and planning revenge or remain flat out rebellious.

After the Abu Ghraib abuses news story broke, there was an increase in the number of hostages taken by the insurgents in Iraq. Some of them made direct reference to the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Being the good guys and staying on the moral high road is not just to improve our image and make us feel good about ourselves. It saves lives too.

From lewrockwell.com, not always a source of unvarnished truth, but better regarded than World Net Daily.

quoted from the article

What they do is irrelevant. By your reasoning, they could say they're not so bad because at least they didn't flay their prisoners.

Well, the Nazis were white...

The only time the GC is used is for war crimes trials after the fact. Only have to worry if you might lose.

You've obviously never met my ex. :eyebrow:

We do have that obligation, but we don't have the obligation to commit suicide to defend the principle.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, I believe that is a war crime, and wrong in so many ways including militarily. I also think that the torture aspect is not the part that the top has to answer to. (They have to answer to a larger crime, in some senses, of not putting enough troops in place to make maintaining a prison a simple matter.) I also wonder whether war crimes may be inevitable, given that it's a horrible job having to be done in inhumane conditions by imperfect humans.

Perhaps I'm biased, too, in that I would kind of enjoy having a boyish woman point and laugh at my genitals while I stand there naked. If only we could cap it off with a drink and a laugh about it. "Hey, thumbs up, ha ha ha." I'm not so enthused about having to be in a pyramid with other naked guys but it would only take me about 2-3 years to reach the point where I could look back it and laugh a little. "I didn't like it, I'm just happy they put Salaam on the bottom row, he was putting on the pounds, you know?" I don't think it would even take therapy to get over that. "Hey they were just having a few yuks for the peeps back home, get in a few shots with the new digicam, you know? Nobody got wood - well except for Omar, but he's hardly got anything anyway, you know?"