Last edited by RightinNYC; 11-14-10 at 11:31 AM.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Thank you, Quazi!
My problem with this is we have considered it war crimes when other countries have tortured combatants who were not in the military, and did not belong to sovereign countries..
History is full of so many examples.. look at the history of Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina.. apartheid South Africa tortured Nelson Mendela and many others under those facts, the USSR also tortured and killed people under those facts, Saddam Hussein and the Kurdish people..
I had this conversation with somebody else, and I think this justification is disgusting.. because it can potentially justify torturing any people in the world fighting an oppressive government.
I also hate the stateless component to this argument.. You know what oppressive governments like USSR, Nazi Germany, and first settlers in America who committed genocide against natives did? They refused to recognize the people they tortured's statehood. The USSR said that the people under them weren't nationals of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. anymore.. those countries were gone. If you wanted your sovereign independence back and you did so much as to protest publicly, you were send off to a gulag or mowed down with bullets and tanks.
The USSR was abusive and did violate human rights.. South Africa, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. We have always felt that way as a nation and as a international community.
If it is "unlawful," which is more unlawful and more worthy of prosecution? A case where a president ordered the torture of three terrorists, or a case where the president ordered an assassination knowing that a large number of women and children either were or likely were present?“A military strike of this kind against alleged militants without an attempt to detain them is at the very least unlawful. The fact that so many of the victims were actually women and children indicates that the attack was in fact grossly irresponsible, particularly given the likely use of cluster munitions,” said Philip Luther, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme.
Images of missile and cluster munitions point to US role in fatal attack in Yemen | Amnesty International
Protocol I has never been ratified by the Congress of the United States.The United States has traditionally been in the forefront of efforts to codify and improve the international rules of humanitarian law in armed conflict, with the objective of giving the greatest possible protection to victims of such conflicts, consistent with legitimate military requirements.
I have at the same time concluded that the United States cannot ratify a second agreement on the law of armed conflict negotiated during the same period. I am referring to Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which would revise the rules applicable to international armed conflicts.
Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. ... Finally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have also concluded that a number of the provisions of the Protocol are militarily unacceptable.
It is unfortunate that Protocol I must be rejected. We would have preferred to ratify such a convention, which as I said contains certain sound elements.
The repudiation of Protocol I is one additional step, at the ideological level so important to terrorist organizations, to deny these groups legitimacy as international actors.
The White House,
January 29, 1987
Reagan Rejected Terrorist Geneva Conventions | Sweetness & Light
Last edited by Zyphlin; 11-15-10 at 11:04 AM. Reason: Fair Use
Thank you, Quazi!
Thank you, Quazi!