• 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

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

Fair enough.

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.

Yes we try our own that doesn't mean that individual soldiers can't violate the Geneva Conventions.

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.

Well I would tend to agree but in so far as the SCOTUS's interpretation of "not of an international character" in the Hamdan case is laughable as it was clearly meant to apply only to civil wars. However, due to their interpretation of "not of an international character" and the following paragraph:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

All detainees are entitled to limited GC protections.
 
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.

Interesting.

You clearly believe that what someone should or should not do - vs. what they actually did or did not do, legally or otherwise - is of greater importance.

You realize you've just destroyed your own argument, right? :doh
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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 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."
 
Why do you think we honor the Geneva Convention? Only because we don't want our troops tortured or because torturing anyone is wrong? Do we champion human rights all the time or only part of the time?

So many ignorant individuals on this forum have described those opposed to torture or calling for the U.S. to take the moral high road as being "weak kneed" and we "didn't have the stomach to do what it takes." They challenged us as being out of touch with reality when we talked about fighting the good fight and doing what's right.

So I just have to ask this, given General Patraeus' comments in this article: Is the good General "weak kneed?" Because he calls for us to embrace our values and abide by our promises regarding our commitments to honor Geneva convention (which he clearly states we violated), does he not have the stomach to do what needs to be done?

Why do you think we honor the Geneva Convention? Only because we don't want our troops tortured or because torturing anyone is wrong? Do we champion human rights all the time or only part of the time?

So many ignorant individuals on this forum have described those opposed to torture or calling for the U.S. to take the moral high road as being "weak kneed" and we "didn't have the stomach to do what it takes." They challenged us as being out of touch with reality when we talked about fighting the good fight and doing what's right.

So I just have to ask this, given General Patraeus' comments in this article: Is the good General "weak kneed?" Because he calls for us to embrace our values and abide by our promises regarding our commitments to honor Geneva convention (which he clearly states we violated), does he not have the stomach to do what needs to be done?

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.

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.

Petreaus is certainly entitled to his OPINION; 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 now see fit to using him as their poster child for the farcical desire to impugn the previous administration for purely partisan political purposes.

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.”

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.
 
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.

I think it is even more funny how the anti-war crowd fabricate their arguments to support their farcical claims about the reasons to go to war and what constitutes torture for purely partisan political purposes.

Have you read the Geneva Conventions? No, because if you had you wouldn't make such farcical remarks.

Do you understand the difference between a war against another nation who is party to the Geneva Conventions using UNIFORMED miltary to fight us and a terrorist group who uses non-uniformed combatants and tactics that use civilians as a shield? No, because if you had you wouldn't make such farcical remarks.

The only one's “playing with words” here, coining your terminology, are Liberals like you who think that bumper stickers are a good way to argue foreign policy and that by falsely impugning political opponents in the court of public opinion for purely partisan political purposes is a good political strategy; but alas, they are both merely representative of a massive level of gross ignorance and denial.
 
Maybe if the Nazi troops and generals had the balls to speak up instead of following half assed leaders a few less Jews would have been killed. Hmmmm did you think of that.

So you wish to compare our actions to Nazi's; that is absurd. :roll:
 
How can a world leader like the U.S. abandon it's commitment to human rights and use series of legal arguments to try and mask the barbarity it perpetrated on it's prisoners?

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.

Calling our treatment of these detainees barbaric is laughable and makes light of what barbaric treatment truly is.
 
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.

Of course these would be American civilians conducting terrorist activities right?

Do you see the absurdity of your nonsensical arguments? :roll:
 
Petraeus seem to think we did violate the convention. I would go with his expertise before I would think you were correct. I tend to side that he is correct. so would you be pissed if they were torturing US civilians in the name of the war on terror?

Have you read the conventions?

Here's a link....read them and become more informed rather than going on highly emotional uninformed rants:

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
 
I think that he has lied about his Iraq policy. I have no problem with them calling him out on bull**** that is being done worng.

You THINK Bush lied, but there is NOTHING, I repeat NADA, to support what you THINK.

But then again, why let FACTS get in the way of your obvious closed minded hyper partisan point of view right?

And with this false emotion, you think that is also okay to argue falsely that Bush defied the Geneva Convention, which you haven't and wont read, and has committed war crimes and should be tried on the simple fact that you don't like him.

This sounds not only closed minded, but fascist. Shall we start criminalizing the political process from now on every time the OTHER party wins elections?
 
You mean many innocent people who were scooped up and wisked away and tortured and raped in order to gain false intelligence supports Cheney's dream of a Saddam/9-11 connection? Which has never been proven.

Bush and Cheney screw up by letting their guard down and being totally, most likely willingly, asleep when we were attacked on 9-11 and others, many innocent, get tortured for it.

Crap that is sick and crazy.

We're going to need waders for the cast amount of BS you continue to spew in here; innocent people whisked away and tortured and raped to obtain false intelligence? This is beyond absurd but rather borders on the insane.

You are indeed the poster child for Liberal group think.
 
And who decides these people don't apply to the geneva convention?

Because there are people of intelligence that say they should apply and there are people of intelligence that say the shouldn't apply.

Let the lawyers fight it out, which is exactly what might happen.

You are kidding us right? Read the conventions; they are rather self explanatory, unless of course you are a hyper partisan trying to impugn those you disagree with for purely partisan political purposes. :roll:
 
I think the issue here however is twofold:
  • The manner in which these prisoners were classified. There are terrible discrepancies there.
  • Why did our government ever make the argument for denying them protections under the Geneva Convention in the first place?

The only real reason the Bush administration made the arguments was to facilitate military tribunals and torture.

Your comments, other than being patently and typically offensive are pure hyperbole and speculation.

But then, as most of your arguments go, who needs facts when you can use a bumper sticker or fabricate your own version of reality, right?
 
We're going to need waders for the cast amount of BS you continue to spew in here; innocent people whisked away and tortured and raped to obtain false intelligence? This is beyond absurd but rather borders on the insane.

You are indeed the poster child for Liberal group think.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSw-B5Iq8tE]YouTube - WH Torture Program's Purpose: To Find A Justification For War In Iraq Before War Began Pt 2 of 2[/ame]


TD I tried to find a link that supports your position...but they don't exist.
 
General Petraeus also said that the recent attacks on targets in Pakistan that killed civilians was a big problem trying to win hearts. But I guess that would implicate President Obama so let's not bring it up.
 
Bush did a good job confusing this issue. Note the bolded area below. There is much confusion on if these terrorists fall into the GC's categories so, Article 5 should have been followed as a default. Bush wanted to deprive these prisoners of all rights and due process and went about trying to build that case. He has not confused the experienced military, as Gen. Petraeus has just proved. I assume Petreaus had Obama's permission to speak publicly on this issue.

Here are the areas of the Geneva Convention BushCo violated:

Your farcical arguments are only compelling to those who are perhaps ignorant of your attempts to leave out some pertinent FACTS.

First Article ONE requires:

Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.


Terrorists do not represent a Nation and certainly are not a High Contracting Party.

Article 2 declares:

Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.


Terrorists do not accept nor do they apply Geneva Conventions.

But within article 4 is the REAL kicker:

Article 4

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.


So looking beyond the desperate assertions and bumper sticker talking points, terrorist non-uniformed enemy combatants of no national origin are NOT protected by any Geneva Conventions.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

But again, let’s look at the definition of torture by the United Nations;

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.


Nothing regarding our handling of these specific detainees meets the definition as defined above without desperate and illogical contortions.

Basically, what we have here is a political ideology that argues that political opponents can be impugned in the court of public opinion for purely partisan political purposes; is this the level we want to reduce the politics in this nation to?

Logical and thoughtful people would argue that it is not. But alas, there is nothing that can be considered thoughtful or logical about the current desperate desire to impugn the Bush administration.
 
Chris's Commons: General Ricardo Sanchez Calls for a Truth Commission to investigate torture and prisoner abuse

Monday, June 1, 2009
General Ricardo Sanchez Calls for a Truth Commission to investigate torture and prisoner abuse
Over the weekend during an event in New York City, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, called for a commission to investigate torture and other abuses.



The General described the failures at all levels of civilian and military command that led to the abuses in Iraq, "and that is why I support the formation of a truth commission."

The General went on to say that, "during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."

I interviewed General Sanchez after the event and asked him to elaborate on why he felt the US needed such a commission. "For the American people to really know what happened, " he replied, "...this was an institutional failure, a personal failure on the part of many...."

"If we do not find out what happened," continued the General, "then we are doomed to repeat it."


So? TD this is the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, who is calling for a commission to investigate torture and other abuses.

Do you support this commanders postition reguarding torture and it's benifits?

Which were none.
 
How can one violate the Geneva Concentions when the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the people in question?

You can't, but any combatant who's status is in doubt is covered under the conventions until a competent military tribunal can make a final ruling on the protection status.

Even if the final ruling is that they are not protected by the accords, during that interim period before the tribunal's ruling, they are to be treated according to the conventions.

Thus, even if they are ultimately determined to be illegal combatants, they still enjoy a temporary coverage under the conventions until that final determination can be made.

The military tribunals were originally withheld from many of the detainees on the assumption that there was no question/doubt that they were not protected by the accords. Any actions that would be considered violations of the conventions during that time are true violations because the status had not been fully determined, even if that final determination was that they are not protected by the conventions.
 
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!

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.
 
Chris's Commons: General Ricardo Sanchez Calls for a Truth Commission to investigate torture and prisoner abuse

Monday, June 1, 2009
General Ricardo Sanchez Calls for a Truth Commission to investigate torture and prisoner abuse
Over the weekend during an event in New York City, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, called for a commission to investigate torture and other abuses.



The General described the failures at all levels of civilian and military command that led to the abuses in Iraq, "and that is why I support the formation of a truth commission."

The General went on to say that, "during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."

I interviewed General Sanchez after the event and asked him to elaborate on why he felt the US needed such a commission. "For the American people to really know what happened, " he replied, "...this was an institutional failure, a personal failure on the part of many...."

"If we do not find out what happened," continued the General, "then we are doomed to repeat it."


So? TD this is the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, who is calling for a commission to investigate torture and other abuses.

Do you support this commanders postition reguarding torture and it's benifits?

Which were none.

I see you are having difficulty distinguishing the illegal acts at Abu Ghraib where the facilitators of that ILLEGAL activity were prosecuted and the debate on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and water boarding.

While I am hardly surprised by this, you do need to get out of this myopic and desperate partisan view and become more informed.
 
I see you are having difficulty distinguishing the illegal acts at Abu Ghraib where the facilitators of that ILLEGAL activity were prosecuted and the debate on the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and water boarding.

While I am hardly surprised by this, you do need to get out of this myopic and desperate partisan view and become more informed.

The post you are commenting on has nothing to do with me. So stop the "hyperpartisian whining" please.
Do you care to comment on Sanchezes views in reguards to the amount of actionable intelligence that was gained from torturing people?

I did start a thread on the subject.
 
I see you don't do logic on the weekends.

Anyway, do you know a guy named Truth Detector?

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the trolling and baiting, Lerxst.
 
The post you are commenting on has nothing to do with me. So stop the "hyperpartisian whining" please.
Do you care to comment on Sanchezes views in reguards to the amount of actionable intelligence that was gained from torturing people?

I did start a thread on the subject.

What part of this statement do you NOT get?

The General went on to say that, "during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."

Are you suggesting that under General Sanchez's watch his troops conducted water boarding on their prisoners?

The notion that my comments are “hyper partisan” is more of the typical emotional hysterics you display when debating; but staying within the premise of the THREAD topic, your desperate attempts certainly are OFF the topic.
 
What part of this statement do you NOT get?

The General went on to say that, "during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."

Are you suggesting that under General Sanchez's watch his troops conducted water boarding on their prisoners?

The notion that my comments are “hyper partisan” is more of the typical emotional hysterics you display when debating; but staying within the premise of the THREAD topic, your desperate attempts certainly are OFF the topic.

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???
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom