A few people on this board have brought to ligh the point that the Geneva conventions doesn't apply if the other country is not a signatory.

Does this mean American could legally tourture the Viet Cong, I doubt it, but don't rule it out.

TIA<ul><li><a href="http://webpages.charter.net/gipg/genevaconventions/intro.html">http://webpages.charter.net/gipg/genevaconventions/intro.html</a</li></ul>

Their treatment of our POW's showed they had no place under that convention anyway.

We're better than that, though, unlike the Viet Cong. Nor are we torturing the terrorists in Cuba, though we legally could.

Read down the link you posted - the information about civilians. Ask yourself whether 6000 people in NYC were treated properly under these rules. This should pretty clearly answer the question of the terrorists status as combatants who adhere to the Geneva Convention, regardless of all the other rules they did not follow.

Did I miss something

On September 11, both towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed, killing most who were inside. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.

Yes, I'm still referring to the conversation below and not only to the Viet Cong. However, the Viet Cong also tortured numerous American soldiers, also removing them from consideration under the Geneva Convention. Again, though, we're above torture by our own morality, not because we're legally strictured.

I wasn't trying to insulting, I thought you were adding other people also affected by the attack.

One can be attacked and survive, the number is likely much higher than 6k - every person in the WTC and the Pentagon was attacked, whether they died or not.

Just wondering were you got the number from.

This may be true of direct torture but we certainly support others who do. ie. Pinochet, Suharto.

Also, the Geneva conventions are also about fair trials not just torture.

But I agree, legally, we can do whatever we want. Even if there was such a thing as international law, it only applies to people upon whom it can be enforced.

What your point? Am I an evildoer for asking a question about the Geneva Conventions?

For instance, if both sides of a conflict support torture, then by your logic we do too, regardless of which side we choose....

If they have knowledge of an impending attack and aren't sharing, the torture of one could save the lives of many.

No single life is worth that or any squeemishness about making someone feel pain.

Wow, I'm more warmongering than C Doyon! Woo-Hoo!

:-)

Anything to justify detaining/killing prisoners . . . it's all about primitive revenge

Since the UN has no teeth, there is effectively no international law that applies to the US.

We're back in the wild west.

Why is it that every politician, journalist and so on that's visited the camp claim's we're treating these *men* justly???

The Marine's serving in Afghanistan are in worse conditions than these prisoners. Let's see, they get 3 meals a day, exercise, a copy of the Koran and we're MISTREATING them???

We haven't started mass executions nor will we, you have to keep in mind that any of these prisoners would kill you, me or anyone on here if given the chance. Those bastards should be elated to be where their at, some of those friends are nothing more than scorched earth and buzzard MRE's.

Ludicrous. Good luck supporting that one.

No win situation.

You "win" by either:

1. brokering peace
2. enforcing peace
3. staying out of it despite economic/political interests to the contrary

1. The US can do whatever it wants because there is no international body powerful enough to enforce any laws even if there were any.

2. There is no evidence that anyone in Afghanistan - Al Quaida or Taliban was even involved in what happened on September 11.

3. Osama bin ladin, the entire Al Quaida executive, and the entire Taliban cabinet are nowhere to be found. What the hell are we doing worrying about a bunch of people involved in a civil war in Afghanistan?

Torture generally doesn't work. When someone is in enough pain, they will sell whatever they think you want to hear whether its true or not.

That there are moral arguments for torture (mostly hypotheticals) I don't dispute.

There's a videotape of Bin Ladin talking about the attack after it happened and having a big old laugh about it. That's about it. It's sick but it doesn't prove he even had prior knowledge let alone that he was involved.

most everybody else posting here are just playing with words . . . it's all about primitive revenge . . . they just want blood and all they have is those hapless prisoners that are only *suspects* according to the pentagon

Now, of course, if you don't accept the tape as real, then this is all irrelevant.

When bin Laden says:
"UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...."

"We were at (...inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-((Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center..."

If that doesn't state prior knowledge and planning, then we're not talking about the same tape. The entire portion of the transcript is provided below.
_____________________
Exerpt in part from the transcript of the Bin Laden tape, pages 3-4:

"the different types of followers.
UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. ...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the
plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
Shaykh: Allah be praised.
UBL: We were at (...inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-((Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news
continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center.
Shaykh: Allah be praised.
UBL: After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade
Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.
Shaykh: I listened to the news and I was sitting. We didn't...we were not thinking about"

1) has been unsuccessful in most cases. Some people just aren't peaceful, however much you'd like them to be.
2) would be seen as "empire-building" and condemned by people like yourself as murder, since "enforce" involves "force"
3) would be seen as murder by allowing a murdering regime to exist.

No-win.

Although it's a moot point. UBL has been proven to be involved in the Cole bombing so he should hang anyways.

I'm not so sure about the Taliban though.

I know it's hard to believe but just because some kid got recruited into the Taliban forces to fight the Northern Alliance doesn't make him responsible for September 11.

But like I said, the fact that anyone who matters in the attack and other attacks against America are still at large should be our biggest concern.

"would be seen as murder by allowing a murdering regime to exist."

Happens all the time. There are numerous examples of the US doing nothing and of the US intervening. The essential difference seems to be self interest not morality.

No oil in Rwanda? Too bad for them.

so why not act out of self interest?

IF they commit crimes, we do not protect them from punishment. If we know they are going to commit crimes, we stop them. This is not what the Taliban did.

But the false air of morality and concern for international peace and freedom gets tiresome; and hypocrisy doesn't win us many friends either.

We don't need to befriend the world but it would help to have fewer enemies.

That's not really fair but then, neither is life.

Too bad for them.

But why the false air of morality?

What more do you want?


1) At least three of the 19 hijackers have been identified as associates of Al Qaida. One of these also played a key role in the attack on the East African embassies in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000.

2) The tape shows that he knew way too much about the attack to not be directly involved. He had calculated casualties, he knew there were more planes after the first one hit the World Trade Center, and he even mocked the hijackers who didn't know they were going to die. Then he admitted that when he was informed of the first plane hitting the Trade Center, he told them to wait a bit, implying that another attack was coming.

Wait theres more! Let's hear it in his own words: "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the towers that we hit would be 3 or 4 floors. I was the most optimistic of them all... due to my experience in this field." He continues: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day."


And that is just the tape. The US had to show its Allies and Pakistan something that seemed to convince them. So there is more classified evidence. Unless the U.S. just guessed correctly.

If 'proof' to you means more than overwhelming evidence, then our jails would be empty. If you don't believe it was Bin Laden and Al-Queda who was responsible for planning and executing the attacks, you are a complete IDIOT. If you just haven't bothered to look at the evidence then you're excused for being ignorant and not qualified to speak on the subject. If you believe the tape was a fake, or Bin Laden lied, or someone else was behind it, please share your opinions as to why.

If someone robs a bank and you knowingly hide that person from the police, you're committing a crime. It doesn't matter if you knew the crime was going to happen beforehand.

<ul><li><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1395000/1395080.stm">The Ariel Sharon massacre</a></li></ul>

Case closed. Let's wait for the next one to hit.

So maybe point 2. is a moot one.

But Osama Bin Ladin is still at large, not detained in Cuba. That is troublesome.

I just think that all these arguments about justification and morality are pointless given that NONE of the people we should be really worried about are being detained in Cuba.

we let most of the harmless talibans go.

Self interest of course plays into all decisions, and should, but no country in the history of the world has put more effort into behaving morally towards all, nor has any been more successful. Does that make us perfect? No, but who is?

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me brainwashed. If you disagree, please list the country that has put in more effort and has been more successful.