|
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat)
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. I agree. They're not "lawful combatants" anyhow. |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. I agree. They're not "lawful combatants" anyhow. Putting on a uniform would make them lawful? |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not going to change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and it's here to stay. |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. I agree. They're not "lawful combatants" anyhow. Putting on a uniform would make them lawful? That'd be one step in the right direction. |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not going to change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and it's here to stay. Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks for pointing that out, Doug! "Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus endanger the civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention." http://www.genevaconventions.org/ |
( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires Acrobat) http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so typifies the mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap about what happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies. I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them realize that our abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the other side treats our POW's. Tell me this... What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva Convention when our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or elsewhere were captured? Not one damned bit of good. We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to the articles of the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated according to the rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not show retraint with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor in kind. But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e those in uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian clothes and hiding in civilian buildings. Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not going to change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and it's here to stay. Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks for pointing that out, Doug! "Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus endanger the civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention." http://www.genevaconventions.org/ So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are they not also 'unlawful' combatants?.. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com