NSR--more torture in Iraq

**seatosky** · 03-21-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Cono Este

The point is, people condem these cases of prisoner abuse based on the rules of war as they are spelled out in the Geneva Convention. And according to that same document, most of these prisoners were in violation of the geneva Convention when they were caught out of uniform. Which means some poor bastard made an exeption for them by not shooting them on the spot, and even further endangered his own life to do so. Why is that document used to protect them and not our own?

Well, the easy answer is that the Iraqi insurgency are not signatories to the Geneva Convention and the US is.

The more complex answer is that you're mistaking a treaty for a contract. The treaty is 'sort of' a contract, but it's not a contract between two warring parties - it's a contract between several nations that have decided that they want to take the higher ground and consider themselves 'civilized'. The US, by signing the Geneva Convention, has said (along with all the other nations who signed) 'we recognize that certain methods of waging war are unacceptable and we will not use these methods'. It says nothing about guerilla insurgencies or banana republics or anyone who hasn't signed and honestly it's a little naive to assume that an insurgent force will have many options in how it fights, or that an occupying force is suddenly 'off the hook' for a treaty they signed simply because the people living in the country they invaded won't line up nicely with targets on their chests.

It also seems like there's a bit of a double standard going on here. If Russia had invaded the US at the height of the cold war and somehow defeated the US' conventional military forces, what kind of conduct would you expect from Joe Sixpack when Russian troops rolled into town? Go get something that identified him as a 'combatant' and then walk out into the square yelling 'SIR I DEMAND SATISFACTION'? Or would you think it'd be more likely that he'd grab his shotgun and hide behind a building, waiting until the fuckers got close enough for him to shoot?

Remember 'Red Dawn'? Man that movie kicked ass when I was a kid. Even if it did glorify terrorism.

**Grange** · 03-21-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Rusty Nails

-- WTF do you expect them to wear?

One piece Bongers with Shannon Tweed prints on the back. Whew I knew we could bring the two conversations together.

**MeatPuppet** · 03-21-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Sheeeesh, Tippster, try to keep up. Everyone knows one of the perpetrators once tried to buy an antique rug from an Iraqi dealer in Mosul.

Three or four stray dogs are wondering around your neighborhood. They have a history of attacking people. One of them attacks and mauls one of your children. What are you going to do? Take care of the one dog who attacked your child and leave the other ones alone because they haven't actually attacked your child yet?

This argument that we should not have taken out Saddam because there was no connection between him and 9/11 is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Saddam is the same kind of creature(if not worse) as OBL, Saddams problem was that he was just not as smart as OBL. Which made him an easier target for us. Our leadership would have been negligent not to have taken him out, just like a parent would be negligent not to get rid of all the aggressive stray dogs in their neighborhood after their child was attacked by one of them.

**MeatPuppet** · 03-21-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Viva

Only if she put it over her head.

She's a two-bagger if there ever was one.

**Blurred** · 03-21-2006, 07:02 PM

If one thing is clear through all of this, it's that I'm tired of NattyDread and DexterRutecki cunting up the board with their political bullshit all the fucking time. Please shut the fuck up already, thanks.

**MeatPuppet** · 03-21-2006, 07:05 PM

Yeah, well, it's normally not a problem except that it's not in the PADDED ROOM.

Hey Dex, what don't you understand about the function of the PADDED ROOM?

Oh, did I mention, there's this nifty place called the PADDED ROOM?

**Tippster** · 03-21-2006, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Three or four stray dogs are wondering around your neighborhood. They have a history of attacking people. One of them attacks and mauls one of your children. What are you going to do? Take care of the one dog who attacked your child and leave the other ones alone because they haven't actually attacked your child yet?

Yep, that's right. I'd probably control them somehow, maybe cutting off their food supply or pulling their teeth, then organizing my neighbors to help keep a sharp eye out in case the status quo changes. Killing on a supposition leaves everyone in danger. There's no guarantee that your Poodle won't go apeshit and bite my kid.

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

This argument that we should not have taken out Saddam because there was no connection between him and 9/11 is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Saddam is the same kind of creature(if not worse) as OBL, Saddams problem was that he was just not as smart as OBL. Which made him an easier target for us. Our leadership would have been negligent not to have taken him out, just like a parent would be negligent not to get rid of all the aggressive stray dogs in their neighborhood after their child was attacked by one of them.

I see you've been listening to what you've been fed. Good Boy.

Same kind of creature? One's an extremely visible (despotic, true, but hardly alone there) leader of a Nation that never once attacked the United States directly or overseas. The other is a shadowy figure controlling a multinational small force of dedicated madmen who have repeatedly harmed us directly or indirectly.

Before you accuse previous Administrations of non-action, please recall that the Clinton Administration also tried to take him out - shooting quite a few cruise missiles onto foreign soil (Afghanistan and Sudan) - only to be scolded by the Party controlling Congress that he was acting outside his mandate and possibly breaking International Law. They were also petty enough to bitch about the several million $$ in missile cost that he "wasted."

In case you forgot - the result has remained the same despite the change in scale and/or focus. Stop trying to re-write history to justify this war. Alleged terrorism and Despotism are not why Saddam was taken out. The VP and SecDef had some unfinished business to take care of. I'm confident that this general knowledge will be corroborated when these egomaniacs write their memoirs.

**Cono Este** · 03-21-2006, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by seatosky

Well, the easy answer is that the Iraqi insurgency are not signatories to the Geneva Convention and the US is.

The more complex answer is that you're mistaking a treaty for a contract. The treaty is 'sort of' a contract, but it's not a contract between two warring parties - it's a contract between several nations that have decided that they want to take the higher ground and consider themselves 'civilized'. The US, by signing the Geneva Convention, has said (along with all the other nations who signed) 'we recognize that certain methods of waging war are unacceptable and we will not use these methods'. It says nothing about guerilla insurgencies or banana republics or anyone who hasn't signed and honestly it's a little naive to assume that an insurgent force will have many options in how it fights, or that an occupying force is suddenly 'off the hook' for a treaty they signed simply because the people living in the country they invaded won't line up nicely with targets on their chests.

It also seems like there's a bit of a double standard going on here. If Russia had invaded the US at the height of the cold war and somehow defeated the US' conventional military forces, what kind of conduct would you expect from Joe Sixpack when Russian troops rolled into town? Go get something that identified him as a 'combatant' and then walk out into the square yelling 'SIR I DEMAND SATISFACTION'? Or would you think it'd be more likely that he'd grab his shotgun and hide behind a building, waiting until the fuckers got close enough for him to shoot?

Remember 'Red Dawn'? Man that movie kicked ass when I was a kid. Even if it did glorify terrorism.

"Under the 1949 Geneva Convention dealing with prisoners of war, irregular forces qualify for POW status only if they belong to a party to an interstate armed conflict; operate under responsible command; wear a distinctive emblem recognizable from a distance; carry their arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32234-2003Apr4?language=printer

Wolverines!

**seatosky** · 03-21-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cono Este

"Under the 1949 Geneva Convention dealing with prisoners of war, irregular forces qualify for POW status only if they belong to a party to an interstate armed conflict; operate under responsible command; wear a distinctive emblem recognizable from a distance; carry their arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32234-2003Apr4?language=printer

Wolverines!

Does not qualifying for POW status mean they are automatically exempted from all the other provisions of the treaty?

**1000-oaks** · 03-21-2006, 07:27 PM

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
---John Stewart Mill

Having served as a Army Cavalry Scout (combat arms), I say we treat our enemies far too well. In fact, I have no doubt that they laugh at our "weakness" and will certainly not show us the same kindness.

**Rusty Nails** · 03-21-2006, 09:06 PM

They might laugh at your weakness -- if your short and kinda weak. I dunno, just an observation.

**MeatPuppet** · 03-21-2006, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tippster

Yep, that's right. I'd probably control them somehow, maybe cutting off their food supply or pulling their teeth, then organizing my neighbors to help keep a sharp eye out in case the status quo changes. Killing on a supposition leaves everyone in danger.

As thought exercise's go, that's a good answer. I could strain the analogy and talk about how we went the neighborhood watch rout and all they wanted to do is pass resolutions, blah, blah, blah.

Instead, I will tell you that I don't believe you. As a father, you would protect your children. You would protect them in a way as to leave no doubt about their safety. I expect no less from our elected leaders.

Did Saddam have WMD? Maybe...probably, it is looking like he might have. Was he trying to develop nuclear weapons? Probably not in any meaningful way, but he had in the past. Did he have any connections to Al Qaeda? Right now it doesn't look like it, but time will tell. One thing is true about all these questions; we don't have to worry about the answers any more. That is a good thing.

I see you've been listening to what you've been fed. Good Boy.

Right. Because no rational, compassionate, enlightened human being could end up disagreeing with your conclusions if they really thought about it?
Leave the condescension somewhere else. It makes you seem petty.

Same kind of creature? One's an extremely visible (despotic, true, but hardly alone there) leader of a Nation that never once attacked the United States directly or overseas. The other is a shadowy figure controlling a multinational small force of dedicated madmen who have repeatedly harmed us directly or indirectly.

From a national security point of view, the points you listed are distinctions without a difference.
They are both radical Arabs who had sworn to kill Americans and "strike a mighty blow against the great Satan". They both were(or had ties to) terrorists. They both had shown a willingness to attack American troops, and they both had shown a complete disregard for the opinion of the world community. That's enough for me.

Before you accuse previous Administrations of non-action, please recall that the Clinton Administration also tried to take him out - shooting quite a few cruise missiles onto foreign soil (Afghanistan and Sudan) - only to be scolded by the Party controlling Congress that he was acting outside his mandate and possibly breaking International Law. They were also petty enough to bitch about the several million $$ in missile cost that he "wasted."

In case you forgot - the result has remained the same despite the change in scale and/or focus. Stop trying to re-write history to justify this war. Alleged terrorism and Despotism are not why Saddam was taken out. The VP and SecDef had some unfinished business to take care of. I'm confident that this general knowledge will be corroborated when these egomaniacs write their memoirs.

Invading a country to settle an old score? It wouldn't be the first time. Whatever the stated(or unstated) reason for this war, I'm glad Saddam is out of power. At least now the people of Iraq have a chance at self government. What they make of it is up to them.

Politics is the soundtrack to history. I'm more interested in the history, than the soundtrack. You can go around wielding a political stick to beat people with if you want. I think it's a waste of time.

**Core Shot** · 03-22-2006, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Yeah, well, it's normally not a problem except that it's not in the PADDED ROOM.

Hey Dex, what don't you understand about the function of the PADDED ROOM?

Oh, did I mention, there's this nifty place called the PADDED ROOM?

NOOOOOO!!
PLEASE DO NOT FUCK UP THE PADDED ROOM WITH YOUR POLITICAL DRIVEL

The padded room is best suited to NSFW and off the wall humor.
(That's why its padded).

Blurred is right (did I just type that?): You political hacks (left, right and center) need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!

**KANUTTEN** · 03-22-2006, 07:33 AM

"after having abused the prisoners with paintballshots, spit and batons, threathening with NO SKIING finally got the truth out of those bastards"

The US troops aren't even smart enough to have figured out the ultimate torture.