I don't understand how you can be christian and support Rumsfeld/Bush/Torture

[LsforLove]

Maybe that's because it doesn't matter. Torture is "contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity." The Catechism does not distinguish between whether a person is a legitimate prisoner of war or not.

For all I care, the Geneva Accords could disappear and it would still be immoral to torture.

A pharasaical and juridical attachment to whether something is legal or not is not a valid calculus for evaluating the morality of actions.

Which would explain why the Pope as come out and called for the release or fair and humane treatment of all those being held by the US.
*thinking*
Maybe the leader of the largest Christian religion will at least create a moment of thought and re-thinking for those that want to continue the status quo.

 

[ballfan]

So I guess because the US military is now using the copy of how to torture young children and defy human rights for dummies vo.2 instead of vo.1 then torture is now okay?
Again you construct a straw man thankfully for the rest of the world you also soak it in diesel fuel, so it burns down quicker than you could put it up.

Thats an iggnorant post.

 

[LsforLove]

Thats an iggnorant post.

Wow is that all you have to say? That is border line harassment and more or less an insult. I simply pointed out that it does not matter what or how the soldiers are being taught to torture, the morality does not change.

 

[Eryk]

This is why you're often so wrong. You haven't done your homework before posting. By looking at The GC you're looking in the wrong place for your arguement.

Are you talking about the third Geneva convention or the fourth?

 

[ballfan]

Wow is that all you have to say? That is border line harassment and more or less an insult. I simply pointed out that it does not matter what or how the soldiers are being taught to torture, the morality does not change.

Did you read what you wrote in the post I called iggnorant?

 

[ballfan]

Are you talking about the third Geneva convention or the fourth?

Neither.

You could make your arguement better with something else. Of course in doing so you might have to say the Iraq war was justified too.

 

[LsforLove]

Did you read what you wrote in the post I called iggnorant?

Yes surprisingly I can read quite well thank you however for your concern. You are the one that created the straw man just because I point it out does not mean there is any reason for you to get mad or accuses my post of being anything, especially with out any reasoning to back it up. We should digress and keep to the topic at hand.

 

[LsforLove]

Neither.

You could make your arguement better with something else. Of course in doing so you might have to say the Iraq war was justified too.

Well the anti-torture folks have would you care to respond to the papal line of logic?

 

[Eryk]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Statement by the Press Secretary on the Geneva Convention Link [/FONT]
The James S. Brady Briefing Room [/FONT]



[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] 1:40 P.M. EST [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: I have an announcement to make. Today President Bush affirms our enduring commitment to the important principles of the Geneva Convention. Consistent with American values and the principles of the Geneva Convention, the United States has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] They will continue to receive three appropriate meals a day, excellent medical care, clothing, shelter, showers, and the opportunity worship. The International Community of the Red Cross can visit each detainee privately. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The war on terrorism is a war not envisaged when the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. In this war, global terrorists transcend national boundaries and internationally target the innocent. The President has maintained the United States' commitment to the principles of the Geneva Convention, while recognizing that the Convention simply does not cover every situation in which people may be captured or detained by military forces, as we see in Afghanistan today. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] He arrived at a just, principled and practical solution to a difficult issue. The President did so because, as Americans, the way we treat people is a reflection of America's values. The military operates under a code of conduct that upholds these values, based on the dignity of every individual. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The American people can take great pride in the way our military is treating these dangerous detainees. The Convention remains as important today as it was the day it was signed, and the United States is proud of its 50-year history in compliance with the Convention. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Ron. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q Given that the President had long ago determined that none of these folks were prisoners of war, how, if at all, does it change the way the Taliban and, separately, al Qaeda fighters will be treated at Guantanamo Bay? And tell me how this might help protect U.S. forces if they happen to be captured in Afghanistan. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: What this announcement signifies is the President's dedication to the importance of the Geneva Convention and to the principles that the Geneva Convention holds. In terms of the treatment of the prisoners, even though the President has determined that they will not be treated legally as prisoners of war, they will be afforded every courtesy and every value that this nation applies to treating people well while they're in our custody. So it will not change their material life on a day-to-day basis; they will continue to be treated well because that's what the United States does. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q And then why do this? Is it because of the second part of the question? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: It's because of the first answer I gave, which is because the President believes in the principles and in the law of the Geneva Convention. He believes in its applicability; he believes in its importance; he believes that that plays a role even in today's modern world where the applicability gets somewhat more complicated as a result of an international terrorist organization that doesn't wear uniforms or insignias. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q So, Ari, what you're telling us is that the Taliban prisoners, detainees at Guantanamo will not get any more protections than they already are given under the Geneva Convention. What you seem to be telling us is the al Qaeda detainees will get fewer. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: No. There is no change in the protections they will be provided. They have always been treated consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention, which means they will be treated well. If you're looking for anything that will not happen as a result of this announcement, it is that they will not receive stipends from the American taxpayers. They will not receive musical instruments courtesy of the United States military. They would have received those had they been declared POWs. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q That's true of the Taliban, too, right? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q So what is the difference? How will the al Qaeda and the Taliban detainees be treated differently? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: What the President is saying here is there's an important legal principle recognizing that Afghanistan is a member state that agreed to the terms of the Geneva Convention. So the President is making distinction between the al Qaeda and the Taliban. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] But when it comes to the classification as POWs, neither group will be given POW legal designation, although they will continue to be treated humanely, in accordance with America's values, which are reflected in the Convention. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q How is there any difference, Ari, in how they are treated? Is there any difference in how they are treated? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: That's what we've been saying all along. They will continue to be treated well because they're in the custody of America. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q They will be treated the same, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees will be treated equally. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: No distinction will be made in the good treatment given to the al Qaeda or the Taliban. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q So this is a distinction without a difference, really? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a distinction based on the legal principle that the President believes in the Geneva Convention and it's important principles. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q But you have to say, Ari, that day to day nothing is going to change that will be noticeable for these detainees. That's correct, right? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: They will continue to be treated well. No change in that treatment. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q So applying the Convention here is being done solely to protect U.S. citizens, and namely, U.S. soldiers, who may be in a situation overseas held by a foreign government. Is that correct? Is that's the principle that's being upheld? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: No, the principle is that this country and this President, of course, believe in and adhere to the Geneva Convention. In any case, the United States would always be covered by the Geneva Convention, our military, because as I mentioned, under Article 4, you have to wear a uniform, you have to wear an insignia, carry your weapons outside, be distinguishable from the civilian population, all of which covers our military. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q But the concern, the debate here was about if you don't do it here, then U.S. soldiers could be mistreated abroad. Isn't that correct? And so isn't that a big motivation here, to make sure that U.S. soldiers get this same kind of treatment? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: It's important for all nations, throughout the world, to treat any prisoners well. And that is something the United States always expects, and the United States always does. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] We have time for one more question, and then there's a pool. David will get one more, and then we'll -- [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q Can you just be responsive to the specific point? Wasn't this an important concern? I understand what the expectations are, but it was important for this administration to be able to say, look, we want to be able to protect our soldiers in similar situations down the line. And if we don't afford privileges under the Geneva Convention, then our soldiers could be in peril? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: David, I was not in the NSC deliberations where various issues were raised. And so I really -- there's no way I can accurately answer that question. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Q What about the U.S. special forces? They don't -- they often do not wear uniforms. They often do not carry their weapons outwardly. If they are captured, they wouldn't be prisoners of war? [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] MR. FLEISCHER: The terms of the Geneva Convention apply to all, and those terms speak for themselves. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Okay, thank you everybody. [/FONT]

 

[Eryk]

Section 1, Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment.

Even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.

The International Criminal Tribunal, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, say that every person in enemy hands is protected by either the third Convention (as a POW) or by the fourth.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No." IT-96-21-TUniversity of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" See: Para. 271: In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.

It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied.

The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention [International Committee of the Red Cross] asserts that; [e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawf...y_for_POW_status_under_the_Geneva_Conventions

 

[ballfan]

"[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The war on terrorism is a war not envisaged when the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. In this war, global terrorists transcend national boundaries and internationally target the innocent. The President has maintained the United States' commitment to the principles of the Geneva Convention, while recognizing that the Convention simply does not cover every situation in which people may be captured or detained by military forces, as we see in Afghanistan today. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] He arrived at a just, principled and practical solution to a difficult issue. The President did so because, as Americans, the way we treat people is a reflection of America's values. The military operates under a code of conduct that upholds these values, based on the dignity of every individual. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The American people can take great pride in the way our military is treating these dangerous detainees. The Convention remains as important today as it was the day it was signed, and the United States is proud of its 50-year history in compliance with the Convention."


Just as I've said all thread.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[ballfan]

Fourth Geneva Convention

You do realize that what you quoted from the fourth convention has no application to terrorists don't you? They are not "protected persons" by any stretch of the imagination. I can't believe you're even trying to go there.

 

[LsforLove]

You do realize that what you quoted from the fourth convention has no application to terrorists don't you? They are not "protected persons" by any stretch of the imagination. I can't believe you're even trying to go there.

Your correct there is nothing that is currently going on that would violate the letter of the GC. However there is a obvious and blatant violation of the sprit of the GC and for that matter a basic violation of the high standards of human rights protections which the US claims that it wants to support and spread across the world.

 

[Eryk]

You do realize that what you quoted from the fourth convention has no application to terrorists don't you? They are not "protected persons" by any stretch of the imagination. I can't believe you're even trying to go there.

The Red Cross and The International Criminal Tribunal disagree with you and Mr. Bush. So did the State Department, and the US uniformed military--the Judges Advocates Generals--when they all insisted that every prisoner should be protected by Geneva. Source

 

[Eryk]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] The American people can take great pride in the way our military is treating these dangerous detainees.


Just as I've said all thread.[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
[/FONT]

Well, that clears it up.

 

[Bradford]

I see flaming and other violations in this thread from the very beginning.

It's closed.