- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
lol, nice try. I asked you for "a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured." I'm still waiting.
I never said they were turn over "so that they could be tortured" at any point. I said we turned them over knowing they would likely be tortured. Here is what you first asked:
Link to these people in question being caught by us and turned over with the knowledge that they would be tortured?
I just assumed you still wanted the answer to that question.
How? Be explicit. Simply saying "well we should pressure them to fix it!" isn't an answer, unless you think we can simply tell them what to do or we should sacrifice other priorities in favor of this.
Threatening withdrawal of certain services we provide them or other threats pertaining to exposure and/or punishment of their illegal acts. Reducing diplomatic visits is another common tactic of applying pressure.
So in a discussion over whether or not someone counts as a whistleblower here in the US, you'd prefer to use your own made-up definition rather than the actual definition codified in US law. Yea, sounds reasonable.
No, I am talking about the definition that is used by pretty much everyone who uses it and not a definition provided by government simply to cover its own ass.
You said that unless we change our rules, we might as well resign ourselves to a totalitarian system.
Did not say we were in one. I was making a point that treating all whistleblowers like traitors will lead to such a situation.
Link me to a country that offers whistleblower protection for someone who steals classified military documents and leaks them.
When said documents expose war crimes? Many, I think that goes without saying. Exposing criminal activity on the part of people in government is frequently protected.
THERE ARE PICTURES. TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO. OF THE GUYS WITH RPGS. STANDING NEXT TO THE REPORTERS.
One of them shows two people standing on a street corner that the journalists walk past and shows another picture claiming someone is armed, though it is only in the sense that he has arms. Also, the report makes another false claim saying someone with an RPG ducks behind a building. If you pay close attention to the video you see that the individual in question has a camera, not an RPG, though it is an understandable mistake since they have some long-ass lenses.
Try reading a little closer.
"They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be,"
This provision applies to the wounded and sick that are captured or otherwise removed from the battlefield. It does not apply to people who are on a live battlefield.
You also failed to read the next article.
If the individuals in question didn't satisfy all these criteria, then they wouldn't be covered by the convention even had the US actually captured and removed them from the battlefield.
Also wrong.
I suppose we should have both kept reading:
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
Later Protocols that the U.S. has signed but not ratified are more specific in providing protections to good Samaritans.
By the way, in your last post you made a half dozen claims that I asked you for evidence for. You didn't offer any. Are you acknowledging that you were wrong, or are you just saving those for a future post?
I have provided links that address all of your questions. The fact I didn't individually address every question is quite meaningless.