lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 19, 2006 12:37:00 GMT -4
Iraq was...sheltering terrorist groups within its borders The GOP controlled 9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence Committee [ intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf ] concluded otherwise do you have evidence that they were wrong? The Bush administration passed up the opportunity to get rid of Zarqawi before the war on several occasions because it would undermine the case for war [ www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ ]. Bush not Saddam had the power to get Al Queda out of Iraq but chose not to. Yeah and some people argue that WWII was effectively the continuation of WWI which was the continuation of the Franco-Prussian War which was the continuation of.... Not subject to the UN but subject to international law. By your logic Iraq "a sovereign nation, and not subject to the UN as to when and where it can use it's military forces" had the right to invade Kuwat and Germany "a sovereign nation, and not subject to the League of Nation as to when and where it can use it's military forces" had the right to invade Austria, Chechcoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Russia, Greece, Yugoslavia etc. Italy and Japan were also with their rights when they invaded other sovereign nations and the Allieds had no legitimate reason to try to stop them. But that's irrelevant because no sovereign nation needs justification on how it uses its military forces.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 19, 2006 12:50:10 GMT -4
The Geneva Conventions govern wars between the armed forces of nations. Al Qaeda and the terrorists in Iraq are not the armed forces of a nation, and therefore do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. They are not signatories to the conventions either, and therefore should expect no protection under them. The whole purpose of the Geneva Covnentions are to say "we will treat your prisoners well if you treat our prisoners well." Realistically there is no hope that any US prisoners of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups will escape torture or even beheading simply because we aren't torturing or beheading terrorists we have captured. Following the Geneva Conventions in this case therefore provides no benefit to the US. But we're still treating captutred terrorists humanely: hundreds of them have been released despite the very real possibility of their taking up arms again, and we're doing our best to come up with an acceptable format for trying the rest. Calling what occured at Abu Graib "torture" is a misnomer. What occured was abusive and humiliating to the prisoners, and wrong, but it was not torture. What Saddam Hussein did to his political prisoners was torture.
The US Congress authorized the President to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power and they continue to authorize expenditures to support the occupation. That makes the invasion and occupation legal under US law. Under international law Iraq broke the cease fire that ended Gulf War I and was therefore subject to further military action under the original UN resolutions authorizing that war. The US did everything it could to get further authorizations of the current action from the UN, even though we really already had all the legal authority we needed. The dissentors on the Security Council for those further measures were themselves guilty of breaking UN sanctions against Iraq, making the value of their approval if it had been given rather suspect.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 19, 2006 13:03:00 GMT -4
Iraq was...sheltering terrorist groups within its borders The GOP controlled 9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence Committee [ intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf ] concluded otherwise do you have evidence that they were wrong? The report concerns Al Qaeda's relationships with Iraq, and concludes Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I believe it is correct there. Iraq was sheltering other terrorists within its borders, however, and no one disputes that Iraq was supporting palestinian terrorism outside its borders. All true - they had the perfect right to do so in a legal sense. In fact each nation here had what they termed perfectly justifiable legal reasons for invading. That's my whole point really there's no such thing as a legal war because one side or the other will call the other side's reasoning illegal. The only valid objections to wars of aggression are moral ones, not legal. The Allies had a moral obligation to defeat Nazi Germany, not a legal one.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 19, 2006 13:44:15 GMT -4
The Geneva Conventions govern wars between the armed forces of nations. Al Qaeda and the terrorists in Iraq are not the armed forces of a nation, and therefore do not fall under the Geneva Conventions. They are not signatories to the conventions either, and therefore should expect no protection under them. Legally that may be true... but the intention of the Geneva Conventions was to protect ALL prisoners, whether they wear a uniform or not, from unethical or inhumane treatment. Differentiating between uniformed and non-uniformed combatants is a legal loophole, but morally and ethically they should all be treated the same way. The way the US government looks for loopholes to absolve them of their moral obligation to treat prisoners fairly is ridiculous.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 19, 2006 14:02:44 GMT -4
The intentions of the Geneva Conventions were to civilize the conduct of war in general - the humane treatment of prisoners is just a part of that.
Saying "the Geneva Conventions should apply to all prisoners of any kind" is an argument that the Conventions need some updating, frankly, as they were created in a time period without Weapons of Mass Destruction and before terrorism was seen as the threat it is today.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 19, 2006 14:11:57 GMT -4
We can't complain when our soldiers are mistreated by the enemy if we aren't willing to treat our prisoners ethically.
If it becomes necessary to torture to prevent a major and imminent threat (ie. finding a nuclear bomb in a city) then do it and deal with the legal consequences later. But don't torture just because the enemy doesn't wear a uniform. It's morally wrong, regardless of what the law allows.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 19, 2006 14:24:31 GMT -4
Oh, and torture isn't an effective means of gathering information anyway. Under torture, you'd say anything your torturer wanted you to say. Ask John McCain.
Oh, and you're wrong--there is a definite benefit to the US in not torturing or otherwise mistreating prisoners. It's a moral victory. You know how, in the conspiracy theories threads, we're always pretty much trying to convince the fence sitters, not the true believers? Same principle. We treat our prisoners well; they do not. Which side has the moral authority there?
Not to mention, of course, the benefit to ourselves in not descending into barbarism.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 19, 2006 14:37:20 GMT -4
If it becomes necessary to torture to prevent a major and imminent threat (ie. finding a nuclear bomb in a city) then do it and deal with the legal consequences later. But don't torture just because the enemy doesn't wear a uniform. It's morally wrong, regardless of what the law allows. I agree with you there. I don't believe the US is engaging in any torture and isn't arguing to be able to do so. The problem is that opponents to the US's agenda in Iraq are willing to define just about anything as torture.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 19, 2006 14:44:49 GMT -4
I happen to believe that psychological mistreatment along the lines I've heard of is torture, yes. Not all torture is physical. And, yes, I'm an opponent to the US's agenda in Iraq--for one thing, I don't want my boyfriend to be there. (He called last night from Kuwait.) However, that doesn't affect my stance. I wouldn't have wanted us to torture Nazis, either.
Also, I think "punching a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went into cardiac arrest" counts as physical torture. Likewise rape.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 19, 2006 14:46:29 GMT -4
If the government does have to torture to prevent an imminent threat they should be open about it. If they prevent an attack they should immediately afterwards go to the media and say "in order to prevent this attack we had to do some things we ordinarily wouldn't do" and then deal with whatever legal consequences follow. If that means the President has to stand trial then so be it... he should be willing to do that if it means protecting the lives of millions of citizens.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 19, 2006 15:00:34 GMT -4
I happen to believe that psychological mistreatment along the lines I've heard of is torture, yes. Not all torture is physical. And, yes, I'm an opponent to the US's agenda in Iraq--for one thing, I don't want my boyfriend to be there. (He called last night from Kuwait.) How does your boyfriend feel about it? I'm genuinely curious. I'm sure the vast majority of Allied soldiers didn't want to kill Nazis either, but they accepted the necessity of doing so at the time. I would agree that both of those are torture, and point out that the Bush Administration's guidelines for interrogation don't permit either.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 19, 2006 15:35:49 GMT -4
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 19, 2006 15:46:08 GMT -4
There does seem to be a strange perception abroad that combatting terrorism necessarily involves adopting the terrorists' moral standards
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 19, 2006 17:39:29 GMT -4
When it comes right down to it, whether or not the wars were illegal or not, how does it effect OBL (whom this thread was about) and 9/11?
Surely is Bush and Co wanted to start a war in Iraq using 9/11 and so hoaxed the whole thing they wouldn't have set up a group of Saudis based in Afghanistan, they would have linked the attacks directly to Iraq in the first place. Appartently Bush was extremely willing to have Iraq blamed for the actions and was rather disappointed when it was laid at Al Quaeda's door, so then attempted to link Al Quaeda and Iraq. If he was behind it all, why not set up the senario so that Iraq is the fall guy in the first place and avoid all the mess of who was aiding and abetting whom and who had what WMD?
Which two?
As Jason pointed out, they were supposed to be destroying their weapons under UN observation, they didn't. They also were developing, and in fact during the openning stage of the war, fired, several missiles capable of exceeding the 150 mile limits impossed by the ceasefire. On top of that they had a terrorist training camp in the north of Iraq and were finacially supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
I'm not saying that the US and UK should have gone in, personally I think they should have waited and applied more pressure while they focused their resources on finding and bringing OBL to trial, but I also believe that Bush has a hatred for Saddam after the attempted assassination of GHB in Kuwait. I believe that he was just wanting an excuse to go after him and finish what his dad wasn't allowed too. 9/11 just gave him the excuse to do it there and then. If it hadn't happened, he have found another excuse just as easily, it was only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 19, 2006 17:45:39 GMT -4
There does seem to be a strange perception abroad that combatting terrorism necessarily involves adopting the terrorists' moral standards
I agree. Personally all I think the "War on Terror" has achieved is the creation of more Terrorists.
|
|