• 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

This is a false and farcical argument. The US hasn't abandoned its commitment to human rights and this is more bumper sticker rhetoric than anything remotely considered substantive or factual.
Farcical. Wow who didn't see that literary hand grenade being lobbed? :rofl

No, we have abandoned our commitment to human rights because we have willfully endeavored to torture unarmed, defenseless captives for no justifiable reason.
Calling our treatment of these detainees barbaric is laughable and makes light of what barbaric treatment truly is.
No it doesn't, not at all. Your :spin: doesn't work here, you should figure that out at some point.

Farcical.

:monkey
 
Your arguments claiming the ignorance of those who disagree with you are farcical and taken out of context.

The Geneva Convention certainly does not apply to these individuals. The argument that by taking this "perceived" high road we will protect our soldiers who may be captured is FALSE and the argument that we tortured these individuals to force confessions is FALSE.
Farcical. There's one.

We torture them fishing for information. It's not justifiable and you can't point to any evidence that torture is consistently effective, or even remotely effective.

Before you make such farcical claims about others on DP, perhaps posting the comments IN CONTEXT would better make your case.

But again, HONESTY is not the realm of politically challenged Liberals who wallow in lies, distortions and fabrications to support their nonsensical views about economics and foreign policy.
Bait. Number two.

Petreaus is certainly entitled to his OPINION;
You don't know that it's his opinion. You don't know that he doesn't have facts that we have not seen brought to light.
but what I find amusing and hypocritical is watching Liberals who insulted this man for being the planner behind the SUCCESSFUL surge strategy in Iraq
Temporary and unsustainable success. The only thing it was successful in doing was temporarily lowering the level of violence, it didn't actually make any major gains against the insurgency. All it did was allow the militias to keep their arms, collect a paycheck. and cement their presence in the areas they occupied.
now see fit to using him as their poster child for the farcical desire to impugn the previous administration for purely partisan political purposes.
There's number three. Your point is irrelevant partisan rhetoric anyway.
Perhaps you Liberals should pay close attention to what Petreaus said in the part of this interview which was NOT quoted in the article and starts at 1:55 and goes like this:

“Well my thoughts are that its time to quit arguing about the past and take the rear view mirrors off this bus and look to the future.”
Okay, I saw that. Let's see what your point is.
But alas, those quotes would not fit into the OBVIOUS partisan agenda of those who continue to make such farcical arguments for purely partisan purposes.
Ah, alas there was no real point at all. But wait...bonus...

IT'S A FARCICAL FOUR PLAY!!!!

:rofl

So aside from all your partisan deflection, how do you reconcile Petraeus' comments?
 
I guess you missed this part of the Principles:

Scope of the Body of Principles
These principles apply for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment.

Use of Terms

For the purposes of the Body of Principles:

(a) "Arrest" means the act of apprehending a person for the alleged commission of an offence or by the action of an authority;


Doesn't apply here; these were people apprehended either on the battlefield and suspected of terrorist acts, at terrorist training camps or in the heat of a fire fight.

(b) "Detained person" means any person deprived of personal liberty except as a result of conviction for an offence;

Doesn't apply; no one was "detained:" as a result of a conviction.

(c) "Imprisoned person" means any person deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence;

Doesn't apply; no one was "imprisoned:" as a result of a conviction or an offence.

(d) "Detention" means the condition of detained persons as defined above;

(e) "Imprisonment" means the condition of imprisoned persons as defined above;

(f) The words "a judicial or other authority" means a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence.

But then again, water boarding as was conducted by the US on a few of these detainees for the purpose of saving lives, does not fit the definition of torture under UN guidelines either.

So if we decide to use standard criminal law and habeas corpus as it relates to these dangerous individuals of which there is no "traditional" criminal proof and end up releasing them back to where they came and they commit more heinous murders against us, are you okay with that?

The reason Obama has followed the Bush doctrine is because he knows these REALITIES and now, rather than just being a candidate, if these thugs go free because of some false notions about what is meant by "detainees" they do murder again, as President he will be responsible.

What Obama is finding out is that it is much easier hurling spurious campaign rhetoric when you are merely a campaigner than it is actually being the President and having the lives of your citizens as your personal responsibility.

You on the other hand are completely free to continue hurling your false spurious venom at those you happen to disagree with politically. It’s your right; just remember that when you do so in a vacuum of the FACTS and REALITY, your BS will be called.

Please use the QUOTE tool. I don't have the time to go caving looking for where you hid you replies. :roll:
 
Didn't the General's time in Iraq emcompass almost the entire time that this rampant rightous torture was taking place? Wouldn't the General have first hand knowledge of exactly how much "actionable intelligence" was gained from these unlawful techniques? DURING HIS TIME IN IRAQ???

First you are wrong regarding this absurd notion of "rampant" torture taking place or that it was IN Iraq and secondly; he would have ZERO knowledge regarding the interrogation of "detainees" outside of his control by the CIA.

These Generals are mostly embarrassed by the illegal actions of the troops under their command and what occurred at Abu Ghraib.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
This is a false and farcical argument. The US hasn't abandoned its commitment to human rights and this is more bumper sticker rhetoric than anything remotely considered substantive or factual.

Farcical. Wow who didn't see that literary hand grenade being lobbed? :rofl

No, we have abandoned our commitment to human rights because we have willfully endeavored to torture unarmed, defenseless captives for no justifiable reason.

Your trite condescension’s aside; this is of course your OPINION which cannot be substantiated by the FACTS.

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Calling our treatment of these detainees barbaric is laughable and makes light of what barbaric treatment truly is.

No it doesn't, not at all. Your :spin: doesn't work here, you should figure that out at some point.

Farcical.

:monkey

The only one spinning here is you with your desperate assertions about barbaric treatment of detainees; but since when did you ever let the FACTS deter you in your hyperbolic rhetoric right?
 
Please use the QUOTE tool. I don't have the time to go caving looking for where you hid you replies. :roll:

I will BOLD and increase the font size to make it easier for you then:

I guess you missed this part of the Principles:

Scope of the Body of Principles
These principles apply for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment.

Use of Terms

For the purposes of the Body of Principles:

(a) "Arrest" means the act of apprehending a person for the alleged commission of an offence or by the action of an authority;


Doesn't apply here; these were people apprehended either on the battlefield and suspected of terrorist acts, at terrorist training camps or in the heat of a fire fight.

(b) "Detained person" means any person deprived of personal liberty except as a result of conviction for an offence;

Doesn't apply; no one was "detained:" as a result of a conviction.

(c) "Imprisoned person" means any person deprived of personal liberty as a result of conviction for an offence;

Doesn't apply; no one was "imprisoned:" as a result of a conviction or an offence.

(d) "Detention" means the condition of detained persons as defined above;

(e) "Imprisonment" means the condition of imprisoned persons as defined above;

(f) The words "a judicial or other authority" means a judicial or other authority under the law whose status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence.

But then again, water boarding as was conducted by the US on a few of these detainees for the purpose of saving lives, does not fit the definition of torture under UN guidelines either.

So if we decide to use standard criminal law and habeas corpus as it relates to these dangerous individuals of which there is no "traditional" criminal proof and end up releasing them back to where they came and they commit more heinous murders against us, are you okay with that?

The reason Obama has followed the Bush doctrine is because he knows these REALITIES and now, rather than just being a candidate, if these thugs go free because of some false notions about what is meant by "detainees" they do murder again, as President he will be responsible.

What Obama is finding out is that it is much easier hurling spurious campaign rhetoric when you are merely a campaigner than it is actually being the President and having the lives of your citizens as your personal responsibility.

You on the other hand are completely free to continue hurling your false spurious venom at those you happen to disagree with politically. It’s your right; just remember that when you do so in a vacuum of the FACTS and REALITY, your BS will be called
 
First you are wrong regarding this absurd notion of "rampant" torture taking place or that it was IN Iraq and secondly; he would have ZERO knowledge regarding the interrogation of "detainees" outside of his control by the CIA.

These Generals are mostly embarrassed by the illegal actions of the troops under their command and what occurred at Abu Ghraib.

Dreaming that Abu Ghraib is the only problem that these Generals are worried about is a problem TD...do you get it?

Inspectors Find More Torture at Iraqi Jails abuse prison


Monday 24 April 2006

US pledge to protect prisoners 'not being followed.'
Baghdad - Last Nov. 13, U.S. soldiers found 173 incarcerated men, some of them emaciated and showing signs of torture, in a secret bunker in an Interior Ministry compound in central Baghdad. The soldiers immediately transferred the men to a separate detention facility to protect them from further abuse, the U.S. military reported.

Since then, there have been at least six joint U.S.-Iraqi inspections of detention centers, most of them run by Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated Interior Ministry. Two sources involved with the inspections, one Iraqi official and one U.S. official, said abuse of prisoners was found at all the sites visited through February. U.S. military authorities confirmed that signs of severe abuse were observed at two of the detention centers.
 
Dreaming that Abu Ghraib is the only problem that these Generals are worried about is a problem TD...do you get it?

Inspectors Find More Torture at Iraqi Jails abuse prison


Monday 24 April 2006

US pledge to protect prisoners 'not being followed.'
Baghdad - Last Nov. 13, U.S. soldiers found 173 incarcerated men, some of them emaciated and showing signs of torture, in a secret bunker in an Interior Ministry compound in central Baghdad. The soldiers immediately transferred the men to a separate detention facility to protect them from further abuse, the U.S. military reported.

Since then, there have been at least six joint U.S.-Iraqi inspections of detention centers, most of them run by Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated Interior Ministry. Two sources involved with the inspections, one Iraqi official and one U.S. official, said abuse of prisoners was found at all the sites visited through February. U.S. military authorities confirmed that signs of severe abuse were observed at two of the detention centers.

did you miss the bolded part
are you really going to blame America for abuse commited by Iraqi's :roll:
 
Dreaming that Abu Ghraib is the only problem that these Generals are worried about is a problem TD...do you get it?

Inspectors Find More Torture at Iraqi Jails abuse prison


Monday 24 April 2006

US pledge to protect prisoners 'not being followed.'
Baghdad - Last Nov. 13, U.S. soldiers found 173 incarcerated men, some of them emaciated and showing signs of torture, in a secret bunker in an Interior Ministry compound in central Baghdad. The soldiers immediately transferred the men to a separate detention facility to protect them from further abuse, the U.S. military reported.

Since then, there have been at least six joint U.S.-Iraqi inspections of detention centers, most of them run by Iraq's Shiite Muslim-dominated Interior Ministry. Two sources involved with the inspections, one Iraqi official and one U.S. official, said abuse of prisoners was found at all the sites visited through February. U.S. military authorities confirmed that signs of severe abuse were observed at two of the detention centers.

Now you are attributing Iraqi abuses to us? Not only are you way off topic, but you are wallowing in the circle of futility desperately flailing about searching for a purpose.

Carry on. :roll:
 
did you miss the bolded part
are you really going to blame America for abuse commited by Iraqi's :roll:

Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration allowed these detainees to be held in prisons that they had no control over? That they were sent there to be treated however the Iraqi's wanted to treat them with no input what so ever from Bush and Cheney's interrogators?

"MOST" means not all..what about the one's that were acting directy under Bush and Cheney's oversight?
 
"We are unable to locate the page you requested.
The page may have moved or may no longer be available"​
and you know that was the silver bullet they needed to prove their case, but the evil neocons sabotaged the website:lol:
 
Central Intelligence Agency | Secret Prisons | Barack Obama | Iraq | Cuba | Washington - Oneindia News


CIA will 'no longer' operate black sitesFriday, April 10, 2009,15:05 [IST]

washingtonpost.com

Washington, Apr 10: The Central Intelligence Agency will 'no longer' operate the secret prisons used by the intelligence agencies to interogate the terror suspects, as per the directions given by the US President Barack Obama, said the agency's director, Leon Panetta on Thursday, Apr 9.

The secret prisons or the black sites have received criticism from all over the world and from the country itself on the account of gross violation of Human Rights. The revelations that there are secret prison sites overseas in places like Iraq, caused an outrage during Bush administration due to the risk of torture.
 
The secret prisons or the black sites have received criticism from all over the world and from the country itself on the account of gross violation of Human Rights. The revelations that there are secret prison sites overseas in places like Iraq, caused an outrage during Bush administration due to the risk of torture.

These sites received criticisms, mostly based on hyperbole and speculation; but how does this make your case? Or do you even remember what case you are on currently?
 
I do agree with you that we do a much better job of policing our own troops, but that is because the U.N. is set up to make sure that responsibility falls on member nations. The U.N. doesn't actually prosecute soldiers serving on U.N. missions. From what I understand, they can pull the troops out of the mission, and even send member nation groups packing altogether. But it is up to the member nation to actually do something about the crimes those troops commit. The U.N. really has no authority in that regard.

And yet they are responsible for those troops and again in the last case the troops were never brought up on charges by anyone.

But do you agree that it's absurd that we are the leading nation on the U.N. and we don't hold ourselves to honor the very resolutions that the body drafts?

I did at one time, but not anymore. The UN has become a cesspool of corruption that tries to undermine the US and especially Israel at every turn. They put out resolutions that they will not enforce, so why bother?

I mean, what kind of excuse can we possibly make that doesn't make us look like a bunch of hypocrites when we condemn Saddam Hussein for violating human rights yet we will be the first to point out that we are not bound by human rights instruments that we helped draft? And then we blatantly violate those articles in those instruments and say "meh, we aren't obligated here...piss off."

I agree we come off as hypocrites, no doubt. I think the torturing in any form is absolutely wrong etc.

What I am tired of is the lets bring the Bush administration up on war crimes charges. Some individual solders violated the accords and a general chooses the wrong words and says "we." Immediately the cries for Bush and company to be up on charges is wringing.

Fact is the US did not break any international laws for charges to be brought against the administration. I consider what the government did wrong, but this is not a bases for war crimes trials or any such silliness against anyone. Only the solders who perpetrated the acts themselves should be up and charges, and they are.
 
And yet they are responsible for those troops and again in the last case the troops were never brought up on charges by anyone.
That's not the U.N.'s fault though. That's either the host nation or the contributing nation.

I did at one time, but not anymore. The UN has become a cesspool of corruption that tries to undermine the US and especially Israel at every turn. They put out resolutions that they will not enforce, so why bother?
But how does that negate international instruments on human rights? It doesn't. The U.N.'s piss poor performance for us to abandon those principles. This isn't about them as much as it is about us living up to our stated principles and values.

I agree we come off as hypocrites, no doubt. I think the torturing in any form is absolutely wrong etc.
Agreed.
What I am tired of is the lets bring the Bush administration up on war crimes charges. Some individual solders violated the accords and a general chooses the wrong words and says "we." Immediately the cries for Bush and company to be up on charges is wringing.
And some individual soldiers and some individual contractors were acting on orders that were authorized from the top.

Fact is the US did not break any international laws for charges to be brought against the administration. I consider what the government did wrong, but this is not a bases for war crimes trials or any such silliness against anyone. Only the solders who perpetrated the acts themselves should be up and charges, and they are.
And I obviously disagree. Starting with the invasion of Iraq.
 
That's not the U.N.'s fault though. That's either the host nation or the contributing nation.

Yes it is. If they do not inforce the accords then they are only worth the paper they were written on.

But how does that negate international instruments on human rights? It doesn't. The U.N.'s piss poor performance for us to abandon those principles. This isn't about them as much as it is about us living up to our stated principles and values.

No one has said we should abandon our values. But why send our money to a corrupt bureaucratic machine that no longer works?

And some individual soldiers and some individual contractors were acting on orders that were authorized from the top.

According to my values it was wrong. According to the accords it was not illegal.

And I obviously disagree. Starting with the invasion of Iraq.

I got no problem with that. :cool:
 
Yes it is. If they do not inforce the accords then they are only worth the paper they were written on.
They have no jurisdiction to try or convict these troops. What are they supposed to do but send them home and forward information of the crimes to the governing nation?

No one has said we should abandon our values. But why send our money to a corrupt bureaucratic machine that no longer works?
But we are abandoning our values when we torture and treat our captive inhumanely, regardless of belonging to the U.N. or not. And I agree, we shouldn't send them anymore money.


According to my values it was wrong. According to the accords it was not illegal.
Based upon the available information, I understand this. I think that Patraeus may have more information than either of us. Maybe he doesn't. I don't know.


I got no problem with that. :cool:
:cool:
 
They have no jurisdiction to try or convict these troops. What are they supposed to do but send them home and forward information of the crimes to the governing nation?

They are under UN command. If the UN cannot control it's own troops as far as discipline goes, why do we even have them? If we cannot trust the country's sending troops to police themselves, again why do we have them?

But we are abandoning our values when we torture and treat our captive inhumanely, regardless of belonging to the U.N. or not. And I agree, we shouldn't send them anymore money.

You misunderstood or I mis-spoke. I meant no one has said this between us. In other words I am not, and think torture and illegal detainment is wrong.

Based upon the available information, I understand this. I think that Patraeus may have more information than either of us. Maybe he doesn't. I don't know.

I don't know either, it just smells of political shenanigans to me.
 
Here's one thing to keep mind. As a career soldier and high commander, Gen Petraeus spoke from his own heart. I'm certain that he truly wanted to say what he did in which he honestly believes in what he said. I have a strong feeling that Gen Petraeus has a fog of war book looming on the not so far away horizon. Public confessions from one's soul helps soothes deeply buried guilt.
 
Back
Top Bottom