I guess there's no need to ask how we violate international law anymore

[xnotedgex]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040617/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/shadow_prisoners_3

Please somebody rationalize this for me. I'd love to see what you come up with.

[yeat182]

the geneva convnetion doesn't apply to terrorists...

[xnotedgex]

the geneva convnetion doesn't apply to terrorists...

so i guess you would advocate the termination of rumsfeld for lying to the american people about the treatment of everyone captured in iraq, is that correct?

[wstcstpnk]

Rumsfield should just step down...that is rediculous

[yeat182]

so i guess you would advocate the termination of rumsfeld for lying to the american people about the treatment of everyone captured in iraq, is that correct?

why?

[davedesloover18]

"President Bush and members of his administration have said repeatedly that all detainees are treated humanely."

Are they kidding?

"The military says detainees at the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not mistreated, despite the Bush administration's argument that Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to them."

That's the impression I get, that they feel the rules don't apply to them.

[yeat182]

"President Bush and members of his administration have said repeatedly that all detainees are treated humanely."

Are they kidding?

"The military says detainees at the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not mistreated, despite the Bush administration's argument that Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to them."

That's the impression I get, that they feel the rules don't apply to them.

it isn't that they feel the rules don't apply, it is that they don't apply to terrorists. terrorists aren't protected by the geneva convention. they don't have the same rights as civillians or POW's. so it isn't a matter of how the bush administration feels about it, the fact is, they don't have to treat them the way the geneva convention states they need to treat others.

[cal1082]

it isn't that they feel the rules don't apply, it is that they don't apply to terrorists. terrorists aren't protected by the geneva convention. they don't have the same rights as civillians or POW's. so it isn't a matter of how the bush administration feels about it, the fact is, they don't have to treat them the way the geneva convention states they need to treat others.

Yes, and if you think the people at Gitmo. should be protected under the Geneva Convetion that is what you should be arguing for and about. You shouldnt be saying the administration doesnt think the rules apply to them.

[venus/bacchus]

I'm fairly certain that terrorists could be regarded as militias, and with that status they would be protected under the Geneva Convention. Do I think the terrorists deserve that status, definitely not, but if we're going to scream about our support for the Geneva Convention, we might need to follow it at all times.

[yeat182]

I'm fairly certain that terrorists could be regarded as militias, and with that status they would be protected under the Geneva Convention. Do I think the terrorists deserve that status, definitely not, but if we're going to scream about our support for the Geneva Convention, we might need to follow it at all times.

if the terrorists want to be considered militias, they can take us to court...

[open mind]

auctually they can't, since we can hold them indefinatly without legal counsel.

[UndefinedBoy]

auctually they can't, since we can hold them indefinatly without legal counsel.

Haha...I was about to write the same thing.

[xnotedgex]

why?

nevermind, i guess you're ok with him lying to the american public?

so here's what can be concluded about yeat's views:

1. geneva conventions should be applied only when convenient for the US

2.it's ok for the government to lie to the people

[yeat182]

nevermind, i guess you're ok with him lying to the american public?

so here's what can be concluded about yeat's views:

1. geneva conventions should be applied only when convenient for the US

2.it's ok for the government to lie to the people


1. the geneva convention should only apply to those that are recognized by the geneva convention.

2. thats a bit of a stretch, but whatever...

[UndefinedBoy]

1. the geneva convention should only apply to those that are recognized by the geneva convention.

2. thats a bit of a stretch, but whatever...

1. As venus pointed out, terrorists are supposed to be recognized as militias...regardless of whether any of us agree with that, it's true. So we have to follow the rules...

2. What exactly ARE your feelings on Rumsfeld's lies?

[yeat182]

1. As venus pointed out, terrorists are supposed to be recognized as militias...regardless of whether any of us agree with that, it's true. So we have to follow the rules...

2. What exactly ARE your feelings on Rumsfeld's lies?

1. no they aren't supposed to be recognized as militias...they want to be recognized as militias

2. in this case, about the secret arrest, i don't have a problem with him ordering it, as i heard on the new last night, they kept it secret because they didn't want the enemy to know that they had captured this particular person, and that identifiying him and allowing red cross access would make that persons identity public knowledge. that i don't have a problem with. as a general rule, i don't agree with lying, but at times i can understand why it is done.

[cal1082]

1. As venus pointed out, terrorists are supposed to be recognized as militias...regardless of whether any of us agree with that, it's true. So we have to follow the rules...

2. What exactly ARE your feelings on Rumsfeld's lies?

Do terrorists have a sign on there uniform distinguishable from a distance?
Do they carry there arms out in the open?
Do they conduct their battles in accordance to the laws of war?

[open mind]

no one in the bush administration is even trying to say it was right how they handled the guy's imprisonment.