Modification of Geneva Conventions

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is a very complex issue. On the one hand, we are dealing with terrorists that may have information about pending terrorist plots that may kill thousand of Americans. When we capture these terrorists, we need to interogate them aggresively and try to get information. This can save the lives of thousands of Americans. Some of the rules in the Geneva Convention are very vague. It says that you can't humiliate the prisoners but it isn't specific. When CIA agents do interrogations, they are very aggressive. They are going to do whatver they can, short of torture, to try to get information out of thse terrorists. The CIA agents are very concerend that they could be sued or even put in jail over their interogation practices if they don't have specific guidelines as to what is permisable and what is not. If they insult a prisoner as part of the interrogation technique, is that "humiliation"? If it is, then the CIA agent could be sued or go to jail for violating the Geneva Conventions.

What these agents want the Bush Administration to do, is to clarify the Geneva Convention. They want to know speciically what is permissable when interrogating a prisoner. I can totally understand why they want the rules of the Geneva Convention to be clarified. The problem is that if the Unites Staes clarifies the rules of the Geneva Convention, that means they are chaging the rules. How can we change the rules of international laws?

If we change the rules of the Geneva Convention by changing the wording to make the rules more specific, this sends a very negative message to the rest of the world. It makes it sound like we won't abide by the Geneva Convention and we will treat prisoners however we want. You could argue that if any of our soldiers are ever captured, that they maybe tortured if our enemies think that we are torturing their people.

On the other hand, who are we dealing with these days? If we were just in a normal war with another country, this wouldn't even be an issue. We wouldn't need to change the rules of Geneva. But we are not dealing with another country. We are dealing with terorists and they don't obey the rules anyway. If they catch one of our soldiers, they will often cut his head off. The whole purpose of Geneva was so that captured soldiers are treated well in "civilizied wars", if there is any such thing. At least if we were at war with a normal country, there would be a chance that they would obey Geneva and treat our soldiers alright if they captured them. we would do the same thing if we captured any of their soldiers. But we are not at war with another country. We are at war with terrorists and these terrorists do not abide by any laws.

Anyway, it's a complicated issue. I'm not sure what the answer is. There are pros and cons on both sides.

Thanks for your input. I agree that it is a complicated issue.
I'd also like to remind you that those we have labeled as "terrorists" don't consider themselves as that, any more than our "benificence as liberators" is considered by those wherein we impose our will is seen as "occupiers".
Word games and propaganda cloud constructive thought.
I also don't know the answer.
This issue should be brought to the Hague, not Congress.
Shucks, the US has lost far too much credibility in the views of the many countries.
We should ally, not dictate.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Thanks for your input. I agree that it is a complicated issue.
I'd also like to remind you that those we have labeled as "terrorists" don't consider themselves as that, any more than our "benificence as liberators" is considered by those wherein we impose our will is seen as "occupiers".
Word games and propaganda cloud constructive thought.
I also don't know the answer.
This issue should be brought to the Hague, not Congress.
Shucks, the US has lost far too much credibility in the views of the many countries.
We should ally, not dictate.

When I refer to terrorists, I am talking about people who are not acting on behalf of a country but are just acting on their own. I don't think it's a complex issue as to who is a terrorist and who is not. The guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center were obviously terrorists. I don't think you can make a logical argument that their actions were justified and that this wasn't a terrorist act.

If we were at war with a country and that country bombed us, I would not call that terrorism.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of Iraqis did in fact see us as liberators. There were plenty of independent polls done over there that showed that. I'm talking about when we first went over there. For the first year or so, over 70% of the population said that they were happy that we came. Things have obviously changed now. At this point, they're starting to get sick of us over there and many of them want us to leave. In addition, many of the people over therea re disappointed that their lives are not better now. They thought that everyting would be great after Saddam was gone and things are not great over there at all.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When I refer to terrorists, I am talking about people who are not acting on behalf of a country but are just acting on their own. I don't think it's a complex issue as to who is a terrorist and who is not. The guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center were obviously terrorists. I don't think you can make a logical argument that their actions were justified and that this wasn't a terrorist act.

If we were at war with a country and that country bombed us, I would not call that terrorism.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of Iraqis did in fact see us as liberators. There were plenty of independent polls done over there that showed that. I'm talking about when we first went over there. For the first year or so, over 70% of the population said that they were happy that we came. Things have obviously changed now. At this point, they're starting to get sick of us over there and many of them want us to leave. In addition, many of the people over therea re disappointed that their lives are not better now. They thought that everyting would be great after Saddam was gone and things are not great over there at all.

Again, words...you call the people that flew planes into the WTC terrorists,
I call them religious fanatics. Equally as inflammatory as the Pope's recent remarks. More words. More deaths.
Are we liberating Iraq or occupying it? Hmmm...
"We're winning the war on terror." GWB
Believe what you want.
Last I heard, Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban. The freely elected president of Iraq recently signed an alliance with Iran.
Our brave men and women in our military continue to die...for what?
Words.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Again, words...you call the people that flew planes into the WTC terrorists,
I call them religious fanatics. Equally as inflammatory as the Pope's recent remarks. More words. More deaths.
Are we liberating Iraq or occupying it? Hmmm...
"We're winning the war on terror." GWB
Believe what you want.
Last I heard, Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban. The freely elected president of Iraq recently signed an alliance with Iran.
Our brave men and women in our military continue to die...for what?
Words.

If we didn't use words, we wouldn't understand each other. We're speaking English on this board. All of our communication is through words.

You can come up with a bunch of nonsense that you don't know what a "terrorist" is and it is just a word. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary? It's not just a word. It actually means something and it has a definition.

If you and I put together a group of guys that don't like Mexico or the Mexican government, what would we be if we decided to sneak into Mexico with explosives and blow up a bunch of buildings in Mexico? We would be terrorists. That would be a terrorist act. It's not debatable whether that would be terrorism or not. That would clearly be terrorism.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I we didn't use words, we wouldn't understand each other. We're speaking English on this board. All of our communication is through words.

You can come up with a bunch of nonsense that you don't know what a "terrorist" is and it is just a word. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary? It's not just a word. It actually means something and it has a definition.

If you and I put together a group of guys that don't like Mexico or the Mexican government, what would we be if we decided to sneak into Mexico with explosives and blow up a bunch of buildings in Mexico? We would be terrorists. That would be a terrorist act. It's not debatable whether that would be terrorism or not. That would clearly be terrorism.

Far too much nonsense.
So, if you and I go to Mexico to blow up some buildings because we believed "Allah" or "Yahway" or "God" told us to, and that we'd go immediately to paradise to feast forever on 72 virgins, is that "terrorism" or "religious fanaticism"? It sounds very "nuts" to me, no matter how you shake or bake it.
Words are what people die and kill for. Agree or not.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Far too much nonsense.
So, if you and I go to Mexico to blow up some buildings because we believed "Allah" or "Yahway" or "God" told us to, and that we'd go immediately to paradise to feast forever on 72 virgins, is that "terrorism" or "religious fanaticism"? It sounds very "nuts" to me, no matter how you shake or bake it.
Words are what people die and kill for. Agree or not.

Of course we would be religious fanatics if we did blew up buildings because of our religion. But we would also be terrorists. When individuals use force or the threat of force to intimidate, usually for political gain, that is terrorism.

I guess if a person just heard a voice that told him to kill and there was no political motive, then I might not call him a terrorist. But when there is a political reason reason for the act, then I think terrorism is the correct definition.

I'm a big animal right's supporter. I'm not upset at all if an animal right's group breaks into a place and rescues animals that are being abused. But if an animal right's group blows up a building at a university because the university does animal experimentation, then that would be domestic terrorism. It doesn't matter whether I think it's right or wrong, it is still terrorism. By the way, I think that would be totally wrong to blow up a building and I would be totally against it even though I am sympathetic to animals.