View Single Post
Old 10-19-2006, 09:26 AM   #9
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Citing that a few people locked up in Gitmo may end up being innocent is apparently reason to disband such facilities is about as valid as saying no one should be executed or even recieve a life sentence in prison b/c someone might be innocent, never mind banning jail altogether. Sometimes people get caught in those situations and I would agree it's tragic if they're truly innocent. That would apply whether that luckless sob were you or me.

So, since POW camps are detention facilities, should I infer that you're saying that POWs should be given a lawyer, as it would only apparently be just that no one that could somehow be proven a noncombatant should have to stay there? Terrorists in a war zone are not covered by normal peacetime civilian rules. Normally, the practice, barbaric as it seems, is to summarily execute all combatants in civilian garb. I know of no provision in the Geneva Convention that specifically grants such combatants the same rights as uniformed soldiers. Perhaps you can provide the provision you're referring to in this case.

The example from WW2 was pointedly relevant. The coalition forces could justifiably execute all nonuniformed combatants it captured as it did the nazi terrorists of postwar Germany. The fact that they don't belies the claim made by people that the Americans et al are little more than criminals and inhumane. It is extremely unlikely that you could provide any proof of official policies by the US government that soldiers are to indiscriminately, or with malice aforethought, target innocent civilians.

I've got to say your definition of torture is quite expansive. Rather reminds me of how loose the laws on sexual harassment and hate crimes are or are becoming when the alleged victim gets to define the scope of the "crime". So, how do you get information from people whose only wish is to kill you? I could understand if you were talking about gouging out eyes, flaying people alive or pulling out their fingernails, but sleep deprivation is rarely fatal. What's the point of trying to assert you're somehow morally superior b/c you didn't sweat your enemy, only to be destroyed by him?

Unfortunately, when you go to war, the gloves come off. That doesn't mean, as Kurgan put it, that the military gets carte blanche to do as it will. However, neither can one afford to fight with one hand tied behind their back. It isn't a question of being nice or mean. Frankly, when you're at war, the last thing you worry about is how you fair in your opponent's public opinion polls. You fight to win and sometimes the cost can be high.

Technically, using your example, the US and China were not at war. You can check the history books, but I'm willing to bet that Nazi spies and sabatouers were most likely executed. On top of which, assuming the PRC honored the Geneva Convention, that aircrew would have ended up as POWS in a wartime setting, not spies. So, I guess those neocon rocks merely bounced off that glass house.

American libs (probably even eurolibs as well) are poorly equipped to handle national security issues. Thier main approach to solving a crisis is to indulge in appeasement and self-blame. Perfect recent example is NK. The Clinton administration abetted KJI by providing him all manner of concessions while doing nothing to make sure that the NKs were abiding by their agreement. Thanks to "peaceniks" like Carter and the half- baked fool Albright, NK was able to set up it's secret nuke program. During the 8 year terror called the Clinton administration, the PRC racked up all kinds of US military secrets courtesy of Bubba. Paging Mr. Chamberlain, paging Mr. Chamberlain... Even now, libs in congress make it as difficult as possible for Bush to conduct the war in Iraq. Not to mention that had Clinton NOT gutted the US military to finance his years of "prosperity", America would have been in an even stronger position to deal with the threats it now faces.

I suspect, in closing, that if you found a civilian that exploded a nuke in Beijing, he/she would probably get an EXTREMELY speedy trial (maybe) and be executed. Unless of course that civilian were the head of a state and the victor in wartime.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,