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.
But of course they are doing it in the name of freedom so that makes it okay :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
pkcRAISTLIN
thats a disgrace.
metalgearsolid
That is war.
pharos
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
That is war.
An illegal war.
Remember the Nuremberg trials?
History shall repeat itself.
Groundhog Boy
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.
St_Andrew
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
That is war.
And that's exactly why you should follow the laws of war...
Renegade
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?
juzfugen
quote:
Originally posted by pharos
An illegal war.
Remember the Nuremberg trials?
History shall repeat itself.
:haha: 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..
pharos
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?
metalgearsolid
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.
