• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"US violated Geneva Conventions" - Gen Petraeus

Lerxst said:
Repeating yourself three or four times does not make your point valid. You are assuming much more than you should based on a negative.
Click to expand...

No he was the one who made the statement I was just pointing it out, it is on the Good General to name the Violation and in the story he can't hence no story.
 
Scorpion89 said:
No he was the one who made the statement I was just pointing it out, it is on the Good General to name the Violation and in the story he can't hence no story.
Click to expand...

I see you don't do logic on the weekends.

Anyway, do you know a guy named Truth Detector?
 
Lerxst said:
I see you don't do logic on the weekends.

Anyway, do you know a guy named Truth Detector?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about have you read the article he state's that he doesn't know what Accord we violated hence their is no story, please explain how you can have a story saying that the US Violated the Geneva Accords when the person who is making these statements can't even name one violation.
 
Lerxst said:
I see you don't do logic on the weekends.

Anyway, do you know a guy named Truth Detector?
Click to expand...

Don't you want to know what he claims was violated, or are you okay with a broad, non-specific declaration?
 
Moon said:
Don't you want to know what he claims was violated, or are you okay with a broad, non-specific declaration?
Click to expand...
I think he'd rather know where Dunkin' Donuts is.
 
Aside from Bush claiming that the Geneva Convention did not cover these terrorists, what specifically is pointed to (the GCs themselves, domestic and international law, etc.) to support this claim.

Reading the Geneva Convention it seems very clear that these guys are covered and torture is not allowed to be used on them.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Reading the Geneva Convention it seems very clear that these guys are covered and torture is not allowed to be used on them.
Click to expand...

Hmm what accords are you reading??? I guess you missed the part that not one terrorist Group list on the UN List or Interpol have evr signed the Geneva Accords and that under the Accords they(The Accords) apply to standing Arm Force's.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Aside from Bush claiming that the Geneva Convention did not cover these terrorists, what specifically is pointed to (the GCs themselves, domestic and international law, etc.) to support this claim.
Click to expand...

It has already been pointed out several times in this thread your statement is absolutely not true...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...onventions-gen-petraeus-9.html#post1058052315

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nventions-gen-petraeus-10.html#post1058052504

The Geneva conventions are not in play here, they do not apply.

ADK_Forever said:
Reading the Geneva Convention it seems very clear that these guys are covered and torture is not allowed to be used on them.
Click to expand...

Then obviously you have not read them or misinterpreted them.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Hmm what accords are you reading??? I guess you missed the part that not one terrorist Group list on the UN List or Interpol have evr signed the Geneva Accords and that under the Accords they(The Accords) apply to standing Arm Force's.
Click to expand...

True. However, it seems the spirit of those accords are that the signers agree to behave a certain way regardless of who the enemy is.

Given your POV, are you saying that because Al Qaeda did not sign the GCs that they are not deserving of any humanitarian treatment by the US, that they are fair game to be tortured?
 
ADK_Forever said:
True. However, it seems the spirit of those accords are that the signers agree to behave a certain way regardless of who the enemy is.
Click to expand...


Quoted for accuracy and truth.
 
ADK_Forever said:
True. However, it seems the spirit of those accords are that the signers agree to behave a certain way regardless of who the enemy is.

Given your POV, are you saying that because Al Qaeda did not sign the GCs that they are not deserving of any humanitarian treatment by the US, that they are fair game to be tortured?
Click to expand...


To answer you last part, we should never have take any of them as POW you can interpet this anyway you like.
 
Scorpion89 said:
To answer you last part, we should never have take any of them as POW you can interpet this anyway you like.
Click to expand...

How interesting that you ignore the first part of ADK's post.
 
Glinda said:
How interesting that you ignore the first part of ADK's post.
Click to expand...

Alright I'll answer that part also, under the Accords all Signee Country will not use the accords to any Combative(s) who are not part of any International Country and these folks will be consider rouges and do not fall under the same treatment that all Military Folks have under the Accords.

You all do understand that the Geneva Accords are only used for military Personal Right.
 
Glinda said:
Quoted for accuracy and truth.
Click to expand...

Quoted because it is absolutly wrong.

"True. However, it seems the spirit of those accords are that the signers agree to behave a certain way regardless of who the enemy is." - ADK

Please point out where in the accords it says this? I can show you it does not say this...

"Furthermore, although the Convention, as a concession to legal form, provides that in certain circumstances a Contracting Power may legally be released from its obligations, its spirit encourages the Power [p.27] in question to persevere in applying humanitarian principles, whatever the attitude of the adverse Party may be." - PARAGRAPH 3. -- CONFLICTS IN WHICH THE BELLIGERENTS ARE NOT ALL PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION

Does not seem to be anything in the accords that obligates the power but it recommends. Huge leap from recommend to obligated, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Scorpion89 said:
What are you talking about have you read the article he state's that he doesn't know what Accord we violated hence their is no story, please explain how you can have a story saying that the US Violated the Geneva Accords when the person who is making these statements can't even name one violation.
Click to expand...

I absolutely read the article as well as watched his actual interview. You are patently wrong in your statement. This is what the article actually said.

Petraeus didn’t say which parts of the Geneva Conventions he thought he and other administration officials had violated.
Click to expand...

That in no way indicates that he doesn't know. In the interview clip that I saw, and in the transcript I read, he never says he "doesn't know" and he is never asked to elaborate by the interviewer.

Did you read the article? If so, can you show me the sentence in the article that indicates Petraeus doesn't actually know what articles we violated?
The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, said Friday that the US had violated the Geneva Conventions in a stunning admission from President Bush’s onetime top general in Iraq that the US may have violated international law.

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

Petraeus made the comment in the context of being asked about the Bush administration’s so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The now-Central Command chief said he believed that banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States.

Petraeus didn’t say which parts of the Geneva Conventions he thought he and other administration officials had violated.

Asked about a “ticking time bomb” scenario — which is often employed by torture’s defenders — Petraeus said that interrogation methods approved for use in the Army Field Manual were generally sufficient.

“There might be an exception and that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with but for the vast majority of the cases our experience… is that the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them, those techniques work, that’s our experience in this business,” he said.

He also acknowledged that the US prison at Guantanamo Bay has inflamed anti-US hostility.

“I do support is what has been termed the responsible closure of Gitmo,” Petraeus said. “Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activity since 9/11 and again Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.”

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,” he added. “What we stand for and so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to ope rationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battle field and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.”
Click to expand...

There you go...just anywhere in there. Go ahead and point to a single statement in this article that substantiates your claim of "he state's that he doesn't know what Accord we violated."
 
Lerxst said:
I absolutely read the article as well as watched his actual interview. You are patently wrong in your statement. This is what the article actually said.



That in no way indicates that he doesn't know. In the interview clip that I saw, and in the transcript I read, he never says he "doesn't know" and he is never asked to elaborate by the interviewer.

Did you read the article? If so, can you show me the sentence in the article that indicates Petraeus doesn't actually know what articles we violated?


There you go...just anywhere in there. Go ahead and point to a single statement in this article that substantiates your claim of "he state's that he doesn't know what Accord we violated."
Click to expand...

Here you go right in the middle of the text,


Petraeus didn’t say which parts of the Geneva Conventions he thought he and other administration officials had violated.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Here you go right in the middle of the text,


Petraeus didn’t say which parts of the Geneva Conventions he thought he and other administration officials had violated.
Click to expand...

No kidding? Really? Is that what it says? Geez...I think I read that already somewhere.

You specifically said that General Petraeus stated he didn't know what accords we violated. Let's go for round two where the stakes really go up. Where in the article does it say anything that substantiates your claim? I already know he didn't elaborate, but where did he state he didn't know?

Thanks.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Alright I'll answer that part also, under the Accords all Signee Country will not use the accords to any Combative(s) who are not part of any International Country and these folks will be consider rouges and do not fall under the same treatment that all Military Folks have under the Accords.
Click to expand...

Is this a quote from some official document or your ad lib? Do you have a link for this?

You all do understand that the Geneva Accords are only used for military Personal Right.
Click to expand...

You mean anyone with a gun?
 
ADK_Forever said:
Is this a quote from some official document or your ad lib? Do you have a link for this?



You mean anyone with a gun?
Click to expand...

Here is the key difference in what you are arguing and what some of your detractors are arguing. You are arguing about the spirit of honoring human rights and being morally responsible as a nation in living up to our values as a democracy (we treat all people fairly and humanely, we don't torture, we honor the spirit of the Geneva Convention).

They are arguing legal definitions as a defense for not following the accords. They don't believe they apply and therefor the U.S. is not bound by them in these cases. Which is probably true. Some people don't support torture but are simply making more of a legal argument. Some people do support torture and don't give a damn about our nations values. They will beat their chests when it comes to social conservatism and talk values and morals, and they use that rhetoric to slam liberals. But when it comes to torturing detainees they will claim "what specific values are you talking about? what morals? where are these spelled out?" And they'll engage in talking out both sides of their mouth.

However I am with you on why we should honor them regarding these individuals simply because torture is wrong. That's the real issue.
 
Scorpion89 said:
To answer you last part, we should never have take any of them as POW you can interpet this anyway you like.
Click to expand...

So as to not assume your meaning here. You're advocating "not" taking of prisoners, right? :doh

These uncivilized actions would have at least prevented many innocent Iraqis from being kidnapped and tortured.
 
Lerxst said:
Here is the key difference in what you are arguing and what some of your detractors are arguing. You are arguing about the spirit of honoring human rights and being morally responsible as a nation in living up to our values as a democracy (we treat all people fairly and humanely, we don't torture, we honor the spirit of the Geneva Convention).

They are arguing legal definitions as a defense for not following the accords. They don't believe they apply and therefor the U.S. is not bound by them in these cases. Which is probably true. Some people don't support torture but are simply making more of a legal argument. Some people do support torture and don't give a damn about our nations values. They will beat their chests when it comes to social conservatism and talk values and morals, and they use that rhetoric to slam liberals. But when it comes to torturing detainees they will claim "what specific values are you talking about? what morals? where are these spelled out?" And they'll engage in talking out both sides of their mouth.

However I am with you on why we should honor them regarding these individuals simply because torture is wrong. That's the real issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Not to mention that as a signature to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988...

These principles apply for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment.
Click to expand...

All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Click to expand...

There are many more principles than that. But, that one alone tells you that we have an obligation to treat "ALL" prisoners, of any kind, humanely!
 
ADK_Forever said:
So as to not assume your meaning here. You're advocating "not" taking of prisoners, right? :doh

These uncivilized actions would have at least prevented many innocent Iraqis from being kidnapped and tortured.
Click to expand...

When Did I say anything abut Iraqie's ??? You ask about Al Quadia
 
Lerxst said:
No kidding? Really? Is that what it says? Geez...I think I read that already somewhere.

You specifically said that General Petraeus stated he didn't know what accords we violated. Let's go for round two where the stakes really go up. Where in the article does it say anything that substantiates your claim? I already know he didn't elaborate, but where did he state he didn't know?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well then if you think he is stating we violated the Accords wouldn't he be able to cite which sections we were in violation, he is the one who made that statement that he didn't know which accord we might have violated hence no story if he can provide proof of which part of the Geneva Accord the United States Violated then how can this be a story.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Well then if you think he is stating we violated the Accords wouldn't he be able to cite which sections we were in violation,
Click to expand...
Sure, however he wasn't asked by the interviewer to elaborate.

he is the one who made that statement that he didn't know which accord we might have violated
Click to expand...
You're being deliberately obtuse now. He NEVER made that statement. I've asked you to show me where he ever said that and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

hence no story if he can provide proof of which part of the Geneva Accord the United States Violated then how can this be a story.
Click to expand...
Maybe if someone actually asks him to specifically identify the articles we violated he will answer with a specific list. But that wasn't the case in this article. The story is the fact he said it in an interview.

Our argument here is over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom