• 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

Dog from the story,

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

Does that mean there were no violations? You seem to be avoiding answering this question directly. When exactly was Petraeus asked that specific question.

Scorp your argument here seems to be that because he wasn't asked to go into the specifics of the actual violations that he is somehow not credible.

Is that your position?
 
Does that mean there were no violations? You seem to be avoiding answering this question directly. When exactly was Petraeus asked that specific question.

Scorp your argument here seems to be that because he wasn't asked to go into the specifics of the actual violations that he is somehow not credible.

Is that your position?

He made a statement he should have at least given example's of what part of the accord we have violated to make the type of sttaement he did was just wrong.
 
This is very compelling. This came from Gen Petraeus today.


Raw Story US violated Geneva Conventions, Bush Iraq commander says

US violated Geneva Conventions, Bush Iraq commander says


By John Byrne

Published: May 29, 2009


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.


I sure this has not made dick cheney very happy:)
 
He made a statement he should have at least given example's of what part of the accord we have violated to make the type of sttaement he did was just wrong.

How does one do that on a Fox News show whom are not exactly known for going in depth in their reportage.
 
How does one do that on a Fox News show whom are not exactly known for going in depth in their reportage.

Good question why wasn't there a follow up by the reporter I know I would have ask a follow up.

But lets not just throw rocks at Fox all the major News Outlets have been doing this.
 
Good question why wasn't there a follow up by the reporter I know I would have ask a follow up.

But lets not just throw rocks at Fox all the major News Outlets have been doing this
.

You are right. In depth reporting has fallen to the wayside since the invention of infotainment.
 
When Did I say anything abut Iraqie's ??? You ask about Al Quadia

You didn't. I did. Innocent Iraqis were rounded up because rewards were offered, with no proof, taken prisoner, tortured, transferred to Gitmo, tortured some more. Some were released... some were not.

The only question I asked about Al Qaeda was, "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?". You never did address that directly aside from you insinuation that we should "take no prisoners". :roll: If we had followed your way of thinking, how many innocent people would we have murdered? And this would have been fine with you, ehh? And you work for our gov't? :roll:

From your earlier posts it seemed you knew something about these laws and wanted to discuss them. I see now all you want to do is play the semantics game.
 
You didn't. I did. Innocent Iraqis were rounded up because rewards were offered, with no proof, taken prisoner, tortured, transferred to Gitmo, tortured some more. Some were released... some were not.

The only question I asked about Al Qaeda was, "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?". You never did address that directly aside from you insinuation that we should "take no prisoners". :roll: If we had followed your way of thinking, how many innocent people would we have murdered? And this would have been fine with you, ehh? And you work for our gov't? :roll:

From your earlier posts it seemed you knew something about these laws and wanted to discuss them. I see now all you want to do is play the semantics game.

Yes I do know the Geneva Accord very well, it's part of our United nation Training we must be able to cite 90% of the accords, besides the usual name,rank and serial # oh and for the record I don't fall under the Geneva Accords why because I'm not an US Soldier I work for DoD.

As for Al Qaeda they don't belong to any stand International Army or part of any Country hence they don't get to be protected by the Accords, don't forget these animals have no problem with attacking civilian targets which is direct violation of the accords.
 
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...





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!

Don't forget Principle 6.


Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.* No
circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

* The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against
abuses, whether physical or mental, including the holding of a detained or
imprisoned person in conditions which deprive him, temporarily or permanently,
of the use of any of his natural senses, such as sight or hearing, or of his
awareness of place and the passing of time.
 

Except one little item I would like to point out not one General Resolution that the UN has passed has been approved by the United States Congress so hence the United States along with China,Russia,France and few other Countrys don't follow 43/173.
 
Except one little item I would like to point out not one General Resolution that the UN has passed has been approved by the United States Congress so hence the United States along with China,Russia,France and few other Countrys don't follow 43/173.

Oh, so we don't honor U.N. resolutions? That's what you're saying?
 
This is very compelling. This came from Gen Petraeus today.


Raw Story US violated Geneva Conventions, Bush Iraq commander says

US violated Geneva Conventions, Bush Iraq commander says


By John Byrne

Published: May 29, 2009


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.

Yes some of our soldiers have violated the Geneva Conventions IE Abu Ghraib scandal etc. How is this news? Wait what ever happened to General Betrayus? Oh now the treasonous left thinks they can have some use for him. Sickening.
 
Well the Republicans have always claimed that Petreaus is a smart and wise general...now he is proving them right.

And the left has referred to him as General Betrayus and called him a failure before he had even begun and now that they think they can use him they switch there stories. Disgusting.

FYI this isn't news we all know that there are soldiers who have violated the Geneva Conventions eg the murder and rape of that Iraqi girl and the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Nobody ever denied that these were GC violations.
 
The only problem I have with this is that the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed solders representing a government. Or at least that is what I have been lead to believe all these years.

Terrorists do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention. So why is the general trying to say we did?

All civilians are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Petrayus didn't say how we violated the Geneva Conventions he just said that we have, and we have IE when those soldiers raped and killed that little Iraqi girl. Moreover, all detainees are entitled to the protections of Common Article 3 which was clearly violated at Abu Ghraib.
 
Funny how the supporters of the Iraq war claim that it is a legal war and then say the enemies we capture are not prisoners of war and subject to the protections of the GC. That's like saying you're a murderer but then the people you kill are not victims and shouldn't be counted in your trial. I love it when people play with words.

Funny how the anti-war people don't have the slightest clue as to who is and who is not considered a lawful combatant protected by the Geneva Conventions and entitled to POW status.
 
How can one violate the Geneva Concentions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?

Common Article 3 applies as per the Hamdan decision of the SCOTUS even though it's an asinine interpretation of "not of an international character".
 
Last edited:
I think if the Iran Military started waterboarding American civilians, the right would be screaming for blood. You bet your ass it would be wrong then.

If the Iranians captured an undercover CIA operative who had infiltrated into Iranian territory and started conducting Clandestine activities not only would they have the right to engage in coercive interrogation techniques but they would have the right to execute them as well.
 
Does that mean there were no violations? You seem to be avoiding answering this question directly. When exactly was Petraeus asked that specific question.

Common Article 3 was clearly violated at Abu Ghraib hence the fact that those responsible were tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison where they belong.
 
The only problem I have with this is that the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed solders representing a government. Or at least that is what I have been lead to believe all these years.

Terrorists do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention. So why is the general trying to say we did?


Because he's kissing the ass of a liberal president.
 
So the next time we all get on the "anti-U.N." bandwagon we should keep in mind that we are part of the problem, a big part of the problem, when we won't honor the very resolutions the body drafts. Well except ones that forward our own interests I guess.
 
All civilians are protected by the Geneva Conventions.

I was not talking about civilians at all. I was talking about armed attackers not attached to any foriegn power.

Petrayus didn't say how we violated the Geneva Conventions he just said that we have, and we have IE when those soldiers raped and killed that little Iraqi girl.

Solders are going to break laws just like their civilian counter parts. Individual acts of military personal not under orders do not represent the US or it's government in these actions. So this is covered by civilian law or the UCMJ, not the United Nations or any such tribunal under the Geneva Accords.

Moreover, all detainees are entitled to the protections of Common Article 3 which was clearly violated at Abu Ghraib.

I do not think that article 3 covers the detainees only because they are not considered "members of armed forces" or civilians.

It is also stated...

"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."

So according to the Accords themselves, I don't see any clear violation by the government. Just some detestable acts by some misled and detestable solders acting on their own.

PS The torture allegations by our government are true, but again I don't think the accord covers them in this.
 
Last edited:
So the next time we all get on the "anti-U.N." bandwagon we should keep in mind that we are part of the problem, a big part of the problem, when we won't honor the very resolutions the body drafts. Well except ones that forward our own interests I guess.

I actually agree here to a point. I think the UN is a joke, and we should have dropped out 10 years ago.

"UN troops have had a shameful record in recent years, having been implicated in everything from rape and robbery to weapons trafficking and enslavement. So perhaps this should come as no surprise: - Cronaca: UN peacekeepers: cultural crime, too

"A 13-year-old girl, "Elizabeth" described to the BBC how 10 UN peacekeepers gang-raped her in a field near her Ivory Coast home.

'Elizabeth' tells the BBC about her abuse
"They grabbed me and threw me to the ground and they forced themselves on me... I tried to escape but there were 10 of them and I could do nothing," she said.

"I was terrified. Then they just left me there bleeding."

No action has been taken against the soldiers.
" - Rochester IMC: UN Atrocities: UN peacekeepers rape children

I can say at least in the US, we try to police our own.
 
So the next time we all get on the "anti-U.N." bandwagon we should keep in mind that we are part of the problem, a big part of the problem, when we won't honor the very resolutions the body drafts. Well except ones that forward our own interests I guess.

General Assembly resolutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the only resolutions that are binding and have the force of international law are UNSC resolutions.
 
Back
Top Bottom