So why are we having to clarify the Geneva Conventions?

Scrum · 09-15-2006, 11:11 AM

I understand article 3 uses broad terms on dealing with prisioners, but why are we defining it? It's a treaty. You can't sign a treaty and decide to interpret what it means later. We shouldn't be the ones doing it anyways. Shouldn't we be sitting down with all the nations that signed it to clarify this?
Seems kind of silly to sign something in good faith and then attempt to rework it so you can do what you want.

slosucks · 09-15-2006, 11:13 AM

the constitution was signed yet we still have the Judicial branch to interpret the laws stated in the constitution.

not saying i support torture in any way, but all because something is signed doesnt mean it can't be interpreted

Scrum · 09-15-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by slosucks

the constitution was signed yet we still have the Judicial branch to interpret the laws stated in the constitution.

not saying i support torture in any way, but all because something is signed doesnt mean it can't be interpreted

But the Constitution is an internal document. Why would anyone else interpret it?

This is a treaty that we are only one member of.

Thorgrim · 09-15-2006, 11:25 AM

Republicans want a wedge issue that will put our soldiers at risk of legit torture and start a world wide effort to ignore war crime laws, so anyone can do whatever they want around the world and we can't say anything because we started the whole thing

smokie700 · 09-15-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Republicans want a wedge issue that will put our soldiers at risk of legit torture and start a world wide effort to ignore war crime laws, so anyone can do whatever they want around the world and we can't say anything because we started the whole thing

Your off your freakin rocker. Since when have US soldiers not been tortured. the last time i remember was WW1 and WW2 and that was only with certain countries.

ballz2wallz · 09-15-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Republicans want a wedge issue that will put our soldiers at risk of legit torture and start a world wide effort to ignore war crime laws, so anyone can do whatever they want around the world and we can't say anything because we started the whole thing

Bush and co. want terrorists to be called POWs and have Geneva rights. That doesn't seem to be going in the direction of ignoring war laws.

ballz2wallz · 09-15-2006, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by smokie700

Your off your freakin rocker. Since when have US soldiers not been tortured. the last time i remember was WW1 and WW2 and that was only with certain countries.

We are the only country to adhere to war rules. To attack the US is simply idiotic.

Thorgrim · 09-15-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by smokie700

Your off your freakin rocker. Since when have US soldiers not been tortured. the last time i remember was WW1 and WW2 and that was only with certain countries.

uh, US soldiers captured by Saddam's forces weren't tortured...

however, next time we invade a country, they'll have every right to torture them, and we have no right to complain if a US soldier dies a horrible screaming death due to torture

Scrum · 09-15-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We are the only country to adhere to war rules.

You forgot Poland

Thorgrim · 09-15-2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Bush and co. want terrorists to be called POWs and have Geneva rights. That doesn't seem to be going in the direction of ignoring war laws.

We want to modify the geneva conventions, something many CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS are fighting

It's a karl rove effort to make ads against Dems for voting against it, but it blew up in their face because not all republicans value votes over their country

Scrum · 09-15-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by smokie700

Your off your freakin rocker. Since when have US soldiers not been tortured. the last time i remember was WW1 and WW2 and that was only with certain countries.

This has nothing do do with our troops. It has to do with the government being able to place a label on someone so they never recieve a fair trial.

I agree though, our troops will be tortured regardless.

ballz2wallz · 09-15-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

uh, US soldiers captured by Saddam's forces weren't tortured...

Right, Americans captured by forces in Iraq only had their heads cut off on video.

however, next time we invade a country, they'll have every right to torture them, and we have no right to complain if a US soldier dies a horrible screaming death due to torture

If that's the case, we have every right to torture Vietnamese in the future, or cut of heads of Iraqi prisoners, right?

ballz2wallz · 09-15-2006, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We want to modify the geneva conventions, something many CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS are fighting

Yeah, I don't think terrorists should be considered POWs either.

Scrum · 09-15-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, I don't think terrorists should be considered POWs either.

Slow this down for a bit guys. We are jumping ahead and into using labels that imply guilt or innocence.

I don't think a terrorist should be considered a POW. I do think someone accused of a crime should be able to see the evidence against them and have a defense. If they really did something wrong, a trial will confirm it. To deny someone a fair trial is to say you can't prove they did it and want them punished anyway.

Thorgrim · 09-15-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Right, Americans captured by forces in Iraq only had their heads cut off on video.

If that's the case, we have every right to torture Vietnamese in the future, or cut of heads of Iraqi prisoners, right?

what the hell are you talking about? When did Saddam's Republican Guard cut off any American's head?

Thorgrim · 09-15-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah, I don't think terrorists should be considered POWs either.

So you are against moderate republicans and conservative republicans in the Senate, interesting position

Diesel66 · 09-15-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

uh, US soldiers captured by Saddam's forces weren't tortured...

Just gangraped ? Even when horribly injured from the helo crash ?

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

If they really did something wrong, a trial will confirm it. To deny someone a fair trial is to say you can't prove they did it and want them punished anyway.

Except the geneva conventions is clear on what is required. A military tribunal to remove their POW rights.

Thorgrim · 09-15-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Just gangraped ? Even when horribly injured from the helo crash ?

Except the geneva conventions is clear on what is required. A military tribunal to remove their POW rights.

diesel what the hell are you talking about?

6SpeedTA95 · 09-15-2006, 11:06 PM

What I read this evening is we are being more specific to protect our soldiers and make sure taht the world understands the geneva convention.

Diesel66 · 09-16-2006, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

diesel what the hell are you talking about?

Our POWS were tortured by Iraqis, by both govt forces and miltias/terrorists.