TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pentagon to US Troops: "Fuck the Geneva Convention!"
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Pentagon to US Troops: "Fuck the Geneva Convention!"

You'd think that they might have learnt something from the Abu Grayib affair, but it seems not:

quote:

THE Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that bans "humiliating and degrading treatment", a step that would mark a potentially permanent shift away from adherence to international human rights standards. [...] For more than a year, the Pentagon has been redrawing policies on detainees and interrogation, and intends to issue a new Army Field Manual which, along with other directives, sets out core instructions to US soldiers worldwide. The decision to omit Geneva Convention protections from a principal directive comes amid growing criticism of US detention practices and the conduct of American forces in Iraq. [...] For decades, it was the official policy of the US military to follow minimum standards for treating detainees as laid out in the Geneva Convention. But in 2002, Mr Bush suspended parts of the Geneva Convention for captured al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Mr Bush's order sparked a debate over US obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that intensified after reports of abuses at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...9359675851.html

Good going, guys!

sickening

Oh wow

But of course they are doing it in the name of freedom so that makes it okay

thats a disgrace.

That is war.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid That is war.

An illegal war.

Remember the Nuremberg trials?

History shall repeat itself.

quote:

Originally posted by pharos An illegal war. Remember the Nuremberg trials? History shall repeat itself.

I agree, it's illegal. The Geneva conventions sets out rules for war, so saying "It's war" doesn't really apply

However, history repeats itself takes into account that someone's got to come get the people in charge from the US, which I don't really see happening.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid That is war.

And that's exactly why you should follow the laws of war...

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid That is war.

Then why did we prosecute the Nazis for war-crimes in Nuremburg? Why are we prosecuting Serbian Nationalists and former Baathists for war-crimes as we speak?

Either the rules of engagement are universal or there are no rules at all. How could the Pentagon possibly argue that international human rights conventions should be followed by enemy combatants when they're not willing to follow those same conventions themselves?

quote:

Originally posted by pharos An illegal war. Remember the Nuremberg trials? History shall repeat itself.

no such thing as an illegal war

I wonder how "the world" would re act if we started cutting off the heads of prisoners like our enemy does..

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen I wonder how "the world" would re act if we started cutting off the heads of prisoners like our enemy does..

ya mean how would the world react if they knew of all the attrocities commited by our CIA in it's clandestine wars over the last 50 years?

who was it that trained Bin Laden, again?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Then why did we prosecute the Nazis for war-crimes in Nuremburg? Why are we prosecuting Serbian Nationalists and former Baathists for war-crimes as we speak?

Same reason we are prosecuting Saddam Hussein. We want to show the world that there are laws to be followed and if they are broken then 'justice' will prevail.

quote:

Either the rules of engagement are universal or there are no rules at all. How could the Pentagon possibly argue that international human rights conventions should be followed by enemy combatants when they're not willing to follow those same conventions themselves?

Well, you are refering to the strongest nation in the world. It can do what it wants because it has the resources possible for that. And there are no other nations who come close to being the power that the US is.

If you can tell me a war where there wasn't crimes against humanity than please name that war.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew And that's exactly why you should follow the laws of war...

There are no rules in war St_Andrew. The point of the geneva conventions is to prosecute the loser of the war for 'crimes' committed.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Same reason we are prosecuting Saddam Hussein. We want to show the world that there are laws to be followed and if they are broken then 'justice' will prevail.

Ah, so there are laws to be followed then? I'll return to my original question then - why does the Pentagon feel that its own troops above these laws when the troops of no other nation on the planet are?

quote:

Well, you are refering to the strongest nation in the world. It can do what it wants because it has the resources possible for that. And there are no other nations who come close to being the power that the US is.

So might makes right then? Any nation is morally justified in acting in any manner it wishes so long as it has the military clout to exercise this will? Surely you can see what a reprehensible argument this is?

quote:

If you can tell me a war where there wasn't crimes against humanity than please name that war.

Yep, hence the advent of the Geneva Convention, to give all nations the legal power to actually prosecute these crimes...

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Same reason we are prosecuting Saddam Hussein. We want to show the world that there are laws to be followed and if they are broken then 'justice' will prevail. Well, you are refering to the strongest nation in the world. It can do what it wants because it has the resources possible for that. And there are no other nations who come close to being the power that the US is. If you can tell me a war where there wasn't crimes against humanity than please name that war.

Wow, comments like this really make me wonder why other countries outright HATE the US.

The level of arrogance in actually saying "we can just do what we want because no one can stop us" is really going to get this country in trouble one day. We are only 1/20th of the world's population. We may have a lot of technology, but if people wanted to stop us, a coaltion could do it. It would be WW3, but it could happen, especially since a lot of American citizens don't support this sort of imperialist, "we'll do as we please" attitude.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Wow, comments like this really make me wonder why other countries outright HATE the US. The level of arrogance in actually saying "we can just do what we want because no one can stop us" is really going to get this country in trouble one day. We are only 1/20th of the world's population. We may have a lot of technology, but if people wanted to stop us, a coaltion could do it. It would be WW3, but it could happen, especially since a lot of American citizens don't support this sort of imperialist, "we'll do as we please" attitude.

Hey! I don't agree with what is going on. It is just the truth.
If I had a choice the Iraq war would have never been started and none of the politicians who voted for the war would be in office today. But, I don't run this country and if I did it would be a better place than it is right now.

quote:

Originally posted by pharos ya mean how would the world react if they knew of all the attrocities commited by our CIA in it's clandestine wars over the last 50 years? who was it that trained Bin Laden, again?

lol, yes the US government has commited so many attrocities over the past 50 years...... /sigh to be young an naive again

Who did train Bin Laden? What does that have to do with any of this?

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen no such thing as an illegal war

I'd have to agree with you on this part. I remember back in the 1700's during the Revolutionary War, the British had set of rules for war. Unfortunately we would always break them and ambush them from behind. The British were not use to this random style of fighting and lost the war but freedom resulted for the Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen Who did train Bin Laden? What does that have to do with any of this?

problem/reaction/solution -or- thesis/antithesis/synthesis (the Hegelian Dialectic)

i.e. - we arm them, tell them to do whatever it is that they want and then once they do, we go in and clean everything up.



(the CIA armed and trained Bin Laden and his Mujahideen)




a few other examples:

Iran = Ayatollah Khomeini (after the Shah started pushing to nationalize Iran's oil fields) - Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1979

Panama = Manuel Noriega (proud graduate of the School of the America's)***

Iraq = Saddam Hussein (40 year CIA asset)


*** Manuel Antonio Noriega goes on the CIA payroll. First recruited by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency in 1959, Noriega becomes an invaluable asset for the CIA when he takes charge of Panama's intelligence service after the 1968 military coup, providing services for U.S. covert operations and facilitating the use of Panama as the center of U.S. intelligence gathering in Latin America. In 1976, CIA Director George Bush pays Noriega $110,000 for his services, even though as early as 1971 U.S. officials agents had evidence that he was deeply involved in drug trafficking. Although the Carter administration suspends payments to Noriega, he returns to the U.S. payroll when President Reagan takes office in 1981. The general is rewarded handsomely for his services in support of Contras forces in Nicaragua during the 1980s, collecting $200,000 from the CIA in 1986 alone.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 The British were not use to this random style of fighting and lost the war but freedom resulted for the Americans.

and now they're about to take America back

quote:

Originally posted by pharos and now they're about to take America back

Are you being sarcastic? If not, explain.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 I'd have to agree with you on this part. I remember back in the 1700's during the Revolutionary War, the British had set of rules for war. Unfortunately we would always break them and ambush them from behind. The British were not use to this random style of fighting and lost the war but freedom resulted for the Americans.

I get this whole aspect, but it's still, when fighting, there's a code, and if anyone is allowed to break it, it's the underdog, not the one that clearly has more power. The whole issue is about abuse of power. It's one of the root justifications given for terrorism (that they're just fighting back because rich countries like the US, through foreign policy, disenfranchise people of the Middle East). By clearly abusing power with regards to captives, we're exemplifying that trait. I mean, I don't believe terrorism is justified by this supposed abuse of power when talking about foreign policy and indirect actions, but I don't understand how people can support torture and the other Geneva convention terms that we're breaking.

Also, we're not talking about ambushing troops, we're talking about prisoner treatment. People who have already been captured, been disarmed and have no ability to fight back. If we start allowing this sort of thing to be permitted, there will be no captives, because, as a terrorist, you'll know your fate if you become one, therefore just quickly end your life/go out shooting, rather than have someone slowly beat it out of you. Obeying the Geneva convention standards isn't just the humane thing to do, it also makes becoming a captive/POW more appealing than death. Getting info from these captives is supposedly the reason that we have them and beat/demean them, so it'd be kind of stupid to make surrendering less desirable than death for a potential captive.

The Geneva convention also applies to countries at war, not war with nebulous terrorist entities like al-Qaeda nes pas?

break out your tinfoil, but...

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Are you being sarcastic? If not, explain.

No sarcasm necessary. They've (the Rothschild / Rockefeller syndicate) been planning it for a few generations now.



"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super-Capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.

Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning and incredibly evil in intent."

- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976


"...as President, I would work toward international creation of a new world order."

- Nelson Rockefeller, July 26, 1968


"So we say to all peoples and governments, let us fashion a new world order"

- Henry Kissinger, October 1975


"The [New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation as we are the most significant single component.

Yes there will be a [New World Order] and it will force the United States to change it's perceptions."

- Henry Kissinger, 1994




"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."

- John F. Kennedy (10 days before his murder)



I almost forgot Magog's (Bush Sr's) quote from 1991:

"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come."


and another from Kissinger:

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

- Henry Kissinger
(speaking at the May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting in Evian, France.)


"...This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of "one world government'....National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept..."

- Zbigniew Brzezinski


"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."

- Bill Clinton, USA Today (March 11, 1993) Pg. 2A

quote:

Originally posted by pharos problem/reaction/solution -or- thesis/antithesis/synthesis (the Hegelian Dialectic) i.e. - we arm them, tell them to do whatever it is that they want and then once they do, we go in and clean everything up. (the CIA armed and trained Bin Laden and his Mujahideen) a few other examples: Iran = Ayatollah Khomeini (after the Shah started pushing to nationalize Iran's oil fields) - Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year' in 1979 Panama = Manuel Noriega (proud graduate of the School of the America's)*** Iraq = Saddam Hussein (40 year CIA asset) *** Manuel Antonio Noriega goes on the CIA payroll. First recruited by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency in 1959, Noriega becomes an invaluable asset for the CIA when he takes charge of Panama's intelligence service after the 1968 military coup, providing services for U.S. covert operations and facilitating the use of Panama as the center of U.S. intelligence gathering in Latin America. In 1976, CIA Director George Bush pays Noriega $110,000 for his services, even though as early as 1971 U.S. officials agents had evidence that he was deeply involved in drug trafficking. Although the Carter administration suspends payments to Noriega, he returns to the U.S. payroll when President Reagan takes office in 1981. The general is rewarded handsomely for his services in support of Contras forces in Nicaragua during the 1980s, collecting $200,000 from the CIA in 1986 alone.

first Wikipedia is not a relaible source of information....
Second I wasnt questioning OBL being a mujahadeen

The US trained a group of freedom fighters trying to take their country back from USSR. While Bin Laden was no doubt active in recruiting soldiers from muslim countries, his direct involvement with the CIA was minimal at best. So saying he was training by the CIA is false.

As an American I dont see anything wrong with my government procuring assest that help ensure my way of life. In fact I hope thast what they are doing, I'm going to start getting real mad when US politicians start changing policy to appease foreign countries, protect ME,not Katmandu, ensure My way of life is how I want it, not Durka the towelheads.


BTW your tinfoil hat fell off your head, its on the floor next to your foot

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.