POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?' - Page 2




View Poll Results :How do you feel that we treat prisoners?
Too Kindly? 10 62.50%
Too Cruelly? 0 0%
Just Right? 6 37.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?'
 
September 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?'
no...what seperates us is our ideals.
September 10th, 2005  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
no...what seperates us is our ideals.
So my ideals would be wrong if they are not acceptable social practices? Which means in the opinion of the majority right?.

The things I put in bold are what was taken from the GC charter, unedited. So if you look at it from one extreme point of view, then just by taking them prisoner during war is violating the GC charter.

Think about it folks. Like I said before, I feel we treat them too nicely.
September 10th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
no...what seperates us is our ideals.
Well, your parents and family might get killed in a terrorist attack but at least you'll know that they died according to the geneva convention and no al-quaida was interrogated to try and stop the bombing. I'm sure you'll have a smile on your face when you think about that.

Bullets and bombs have a nasty habbit of not caring what the victims ideals are.
--
POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?'
September 10th, 2005  
Spartacus
 
 
Let me start by saying this; I do feel as though we are too quick to cater to our POW's. I do not mean that we should revert back to the practices of the rack, etc. but merely, take a stronger appoach in dealing with prisoners.

For example; some of the recent things that were brought to light, like the alleged flushing of the Koran, and the incidents at Abu Ghraib. While from to those who believe in it feel that flushing it is severely disrespectful, it is not the worst punishment possible. I mean, being a Christian, I would be insulted and offended if someone flushed the Bible down the toliet, but on the other hand; nothing they can do will force me to lose respect for it. To be honest, I would probably just laugh at them; they are trying to get information from me by flushing a book down a toliet. If you look at it from this light, you can see how quick we are to say that interrogations are too harsh.

Abu Ghraib. No, I do not feel that what was done was A) Productive or B) Correct. I think actions were taken that should not have been, and people went unchecked. I feel that the humiliation just for humilation is not justifiable and should not be tolerated. However, the only way to get someone to change the status quo (They have information and you dont) is to give them an incentive. In other words, you make them feel that the cost of keeping that information is too high, and they reveal it. NO, I am not justifying the actions at Abu Ghraib. I do feel that some methods, such as humiliation, could be used; just not too extremes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chwie_nz
no...what seperates us is our ideals.
This is true, but we need to make sure that our ideals do not make us become the extremists. I believe that we need to be humane and above the actions that have been carried out by enemy forces, but dont take it too far. I am not saying that we disregard our ideals; merely use them in context with the situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Political restrictions on our warfighting ability is what lost us Vietnam and if we are not vigilant they may also lose us Iraq.
Exactly my point. We focus too much on making sure that we look good and acceptable that we begin to disregard the lives of our soldiers.

Its like cleaning, washing, and waxing a car so it looks good, but ignore the interior and the engine that actually drive the car.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
sweet, disregard the geneva convention then and lets all slide down the slope till we're torturing everyone.

i thought the US wanted to be the "good guys". or is it just when it's the easy way.

the geneva convention is one of the things that seperates us from the "baddies"
Adherance to a document is not what separates us from 'baddies', as already discussed. Particularly a half a century old one that did not work when it was written. Im not saying lose all disregard for human life and rights and start beheading people (Hmmm. I wonder who does that?). I am saying reevaluate our interrogation techniques and the political modifiers that affect them. I dont feel that politics should be able to stick its rather large, intrusive, domineering nose in military affairs whenever it feels it can(generally in order to make itself look better).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtom22
There is only one way to treat POWs and that is in accordance with the Geneva conventions, no more, no less.
I am not saying that the ideas in the GC are wrong and should be ignored, but there comes a point when old laws die, and new ones are written and enforced. The thing is; who else follows the GC? There is probably a reason that so many have fallen away from it, and probably not because they lost regard for human life.
September 10th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtom22
There is only one way to treat POWs and that is in accordance with the Geneva conventions, no more, no less.
Western Democracies should respect Geneva convention so long as their enemy maintain the same respect and regard for the treaty!

Otherwise, there is no reason to be committed to Geneva convention while the enemy (mostly terrorists) have no regard for safety of civilians and their own lives.

That is not applicable to terrorists and those who are locked up in Gitmo!
September 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
no...what seperates us is our ideals.
So my ideals would be wrong if they are not acceptable social practices? Which means in the opinion of the majority right?.

The things I put in bold are what was taken from the GC charter, unedited. So if you look at it from one extreme point of view, then just by taking them prisoner during war is violating the GC charter.

Think about it folks. Like I said before, I feel we treat them too nicely.
I think you can play with semantics all you like but in the end you are missing the main point.

Many countries have some sort of "bill of rights" and within those articles are contained ideals that we believe are the way forward for civilised nations and yet as soon as we run into a group that doesnt subscribe to our views we imediately decide to throw them out the window and adopt those of whom we are fighting, says a lot about the strength of our "civilisation" dont you think.
September 11th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Many countries have some sort of "bill of rights" and within those articles are contained ideals that we believe are the way forward for civilised nations and yet as soon as we run into a group that doesnt subscribe to our views we imediately decide to throw them out the window and adopt those of whom we are fighting, says a lot about the strength of our "civilisation" dont you think.
Uh, and what are those ideals built upon? Security. With no security, those 'rights' cease to exist. That's why we have the concept of "martial law" which repeals civil rights, and we also have to concept of "suspending the constitution" in our nation to ensure the security of our people and the security of our rights.

Even more, those rights are granted to tax paying law abiding citizens of the country. Persons who participate in the society and subscribe to its values. People who DO NOT belong to the society, who infact HATE the society and it's citizens SO MUCH they they wish the ENTIRE civilization, it's citizens and civil rights, killed and destroyed. Those people do not deserve the same "ideals" that apply to citizens.

Those that would do so are the same that would leave a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
September 11th, 2005  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
no...what seperates us is our ideals.
So my ideals would be wrong if they are not acceptable social practices? Which means in the opinion of the majority right?.

The things I put in bold are what was taken from the GC charter, unedited. So if you look at it from one extreme point of view, then just by taking them prisoner during war is violating the GC charter.

Think about it folks. Like I said before, I feel we treat them too nicely.
I think you can play with semantics all you like but in the end you are missing the main point.

Many countries have some sort of "bill of rights" and within those articles are contained ideals that we believe are the way forward for civilised nations and yet as soon as we run into a group that doesnt subscribe to our views we imediately decide to throw them out the window and adopt those of whom we are fighting, says a lot about the strength of our "civilisation" dont you think.
That is where I believe you just shot yourself in the foot. Who has thrown out anything? Please tell me what "bill of rights" apply to any group, as opposed to a country, that performs terrorist acts against it's own people and/or the world at large? Those "groups" surely do not subscribe to any set standards other than the death of those they oppose, regardless of who is hurt. How many noncombatants (civilians) have been hurt worldwide due to those "groups" not abiding by "civilized rules". By stating that, it seems to me that you are basically implying it is ok for terrorists to do their thing so long as those they oppose abides by all the rules.

Yes, there are laws and civil rights that are to be observed in regards to each and every person in just about any country you come to in the world. There are also laws of war and rules of engagement that apply. We never threw out any of the above laws or rules as a country. The individuals that did are now being held accountable.


Acceptable social practices: This can include the way you walk, talk, dress, drive, eat, sleep, interact with others, practice religion, etc etc. Racism, religious persecution, sexual discrimination, suppression of liberty, and civil rights violations are not socially accepted. Otherwise there would be no laws against it.

So I ask again, if one "group" of people are allowed to do what they want, when they want, how they want, regardless of what the socially accepted practice is, then why in the world should anyone want to "give them a fair break", or let any kind of "bill of rights" apply to them? I answer you this, because it is a socially accepted practice approved of by the majority of the world.

I am not sure of you disagreed with my implied statement that acceptable social practices are decided by the opinion of the majority, or if you were offended by it.

P.S. When
Quote:
quoting someone
please use the entire quote and not just parts of it.
September 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Many countries have some sort of "bill of rights" and within those articles are contained ideals that we believe are the way forward for civilised nations and yet as soon as we run into a group that doesnt subscribe to our views we imediately decide to throw them out the window and adopt those of whom we are fighting, says a lot about the strength of our "civilisation" dont you think.
Uh, and what are those ideals built upon? Security. With no security, those 'rights' cease to exist. That's why we have the concept of "martial law" which repeals civil rights, and we also have to concept of "suspending the constitution" in our nation to ensure the security of our people and the security of our rights.

Even more, those rights are granted to tax paying law abiding citizens of the country. Persons who participate in the society and subscribe to its values. People who DO NOT belong to the society, who infact HATE the society and it's citizens SO MUCH they they wish the ENTIRE civilization, it's citizens and civil rights, killed and destroyed. Those people do not deserve the same "ideals" that apply to citizens.

Those that would do so are the same that would leave a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
I dont see how you come to this conclusion as basically all it says is that you can choose to be a civilised nation what respects human rights for all or not, no one is saying they should be released or a nations security should be diminished just that they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are.

In essence its called civilised behaviour if neither party chooses to adhere to it then what is the difference between the two parties?
September 11th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I dont see how you come to this conclusion as basically all it says is that you can choose to be a civilised nation what respects human rights for all or not, no one is saying they should be released or a nations security should be diminished just that they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are.

In essence its called civilised behaviour if neither party chooses to adhere to it then what is the difference between the two parties?
First off, I'm getting tired of this stupid argument about what seperates one party from another. My life and the life of my family comprises one party. That is good enough for me. My 14 year old sister doesn't need to die for some high ideal. My 52 year old mother doesn't need to die for some high ideal. Get it?

Here is the flaws in your logic though.
1) You say "no one is saying... a nations security should be diminished". But by not interrogating prisoners, because that is against the geneva convention, you are compromising your security to a VERY significant extent.
2) ...and most importantly. "they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are." I wouldn't take a civilian and saw his head off on worldwide TV. I wouldn't plant bombs in busses and nightclubs. I wouldn't fly planes into buildings. Or is that just a 'difference in view' between me and these terrorists? Their murdering of American POWs and American civilians constitutes a 'difference of view' while coercive interrogation of terrorists by Americans is an atrocity and a violation of the Geneva convention.