The Geneva Conventions.

[laughingimp]

Part I, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions reads as follows:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following

Comments

[budobudo]

I would consider being detained at all "humiliating and degrading" and to be "cruel treatment and torture."

The international community will never be satisfied. Even if we treated prisoners as gods. Their opposition to the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror is political in nature and not true moral outrage.

“Cleaning up our act” will only serve to sooth our conscience which, while noble, gains us exactly no support from the majority of countrys that presently oppose the war. It would take an un-reasonable, and unbalanced optimism to believe otherwise.

[moonchylde]

Then just call me insane. Because I am one of those fools that actually, truly believes in the Golden Rule.

[budobudo]

The golden rule works wonders when dealing with people on a one on one basis. It does nothing for ideologies and the political-propagantistic machines that are entrenched in countries.

[mrbobafett]

We shouldn't be doing anything to get the international community behind the war in Iraq. We shouldn't be getting anyone behing the war in Iraq, because no one should support the war in Iraq. We should follow the Geneva conventions. And we should follow the Geneva conventions because we signed them and agreed to them. And we are supposed to be the good guys right? The good guys have to follow the rules even when the bad guys don't. Being the good guy isn't easy, it's right. Being bad is easy.

[budobudo]

"We should follow the Geneva conventions. And we should follow the Geneva conventions because we signed them and agreed to them. And we are supposed to be the good guys right? The good guys have to follow the rules even when the bad guys don't. Being the good guy isn't easy, it's right. Being bad is easy."

Agreed.

All I am saying is that the argument that their is a pragmatic reason for doing so is fraudulent.

Following the geneva convention when fighting an enemy who does not, is charitable in the extreme. I agree that it should be done. However, not doing so is not a violation of the convention.

The Convention attempts to encourage honorable warfare. It does so by dangling the threat of far more horrible methods of warfare over the heads of violators.

In addition, the degree to which we have failed in our duty to uphold the conventions has be wholesale exaggerate and out right lied about many times by both domestic opponent of the war and the propaganda machines of the enemy we are fighting.

[mrbobafett]

"All I am saying is that the argument that their is a pragmatic reason for doing so is fraudulent."

There is a pragmatic reason, to maintain moral authority as it were.

"In addition, the degree to which we have failed in our duty to uphold the conventions has be wholesale exaggerate and out right lied about many times by both domestic opponent of the war and the propaganda machines of the enemy we are fighting."

And other times the reporting has been completely acurate, and even other times the degeree to which we have violates the conventions has been exagurated in favor of us by domestic proponents of the war and general yes men. Or outright denied.

[laughingimp]

I disagree. Being detained sucks, and certainly being detained for as long as the guys at Gitmo have been detained counts as humiliating, but torture? No way. You can be treated pretty well in detention.

As for the rest, I'm not saying that the war in Iraq is being fought for moral purposes, and I'm not saying that our allies are helping us for moral reasons. However, I still think we need to clean up our act, for two reasons:

1) not cleaning up our act will become a political liability, and we already have enough of those; and

2) there is only a short leap in logic between "enemy combatants" and "enemy sympathizers," and I want the torture banned before the law allows its American "sympathizers" to get tortured.

[budobudo]

"1) not cleaning up our act will become a political liability, and we already have enough of those; and"

I still say that It won't make a bit of difference.

"2) there is only a short leap in logic between "enemy combatants" and "enemy sympathizers," and I want the torture banned before the law allows its American "sympathizers" to get tortured."

What, in your estimation, constitutes a sympathizer?

[laughingimp]

In my opinion, a sympathizer is someone who provides aid or sanctuary to terrorist organizations. In the United States, that might mean someone who interferes with FBI investigations, someone who raises money for terrorist groups (like a front business or charity), or someone who knowingly provides living space or supplies for a terrorist group.

But that's not what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the phrase "enemy sympathizer" becoming synonymous with "anyone who voices opposition to the current administration," and torture being applied in those people.