Changes in US Military Policy

[GostHacked]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

This is your beacon of light in the War on Terrorism. We know that the US does not want anyone of it's miltary personell to be tried at the Hague. The US does not even recognize the International Court. And they want to leave out Part 3 of the convention because ....

That provision — known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees — whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

ALL detainees. ALL of them. So with leaving that part out, they can run quagmirish problems like Gitmo and the like. Seems like a 'Don't do as we do, do as we say.' policy. Glad to see they are moving in the right direction this will garner them more support for the war on terrorism right?

[sharkman]

Well it's about time. Humiliating and degrading treatment is such nonspecific wording you could convict a kindergardener for torture if he sneaks a kiss from a classmate. (True story, kid got suspended, but I digress)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear GostHacked,

We know that the US does not want anyone of it's miltary personell to be tried at the Hague. The US does not even recognize the International Court.

This is old news...Israel too. They declared themselves above that law a couple of years ago, I believe.

[BHS]

1) Gitmo isn't a quagmire. It's a military holding facility. It would still be a military holding facility if the US pulled all of it's troops out of the Middle East tomorrow. Get your idiot talking points straight.

2) The US isn't above the law. It's entirely beholden to the American legal system. The ICC is a sanctimonius crock dreamed up by people who bear zero responsilibity for keeping the world safe and yet regard themselves to be in a position to sit in judgement. It is beholden to no Constitution. It enforces no system of laws. It makes up law on an ad hoc basis and expects the most likely defendant, the US, to enforce that law. It's complete and utter bs.

[Darth Buddha]

1) Gitmo isn't a quagmire. It's a military holding facility. It would still be a military holding facility if the US pulled all of it's troops out of the Middle East tomorrow. Get your idiot talking points straight.

2) The US isn't above the law. It's entirely beholden to the American legal system. The ICC is a sanctimonius crock dreamed up by people who bear zero responsilibity for keeping the world safe and yet regard themselves to be in a position to sit in judgement. It is beholden to no Constitution. It enforces no system of laws. It makes up law on an ad hoc basis and expects the most likely defendant, the US, to enforce that law. It's complete and utter bs.

Think again, BhS, gitmo is a quagmire in and of itself with or without Iraq. With all the international pressure that is on the administration, they can't just quietly release the bulk of prisoners without looking like they are giving in. There are even some who suggest that a Supreme Court ruling against the Gitmo detainee camp would be GOOD for the administration because it would give them an out that DOESN'T look like a cave in.

As for laws, I guess you've avoided the articles revealing the many laws that President Bush has decided his administration doesn't have to follow without ever telling the judiciary as he should by law and the treaties that the U.S. has ignored but then later acknowledged when the heat is on (Treaties have the force of law, it's in the Constitution).

Seems to me that YOU have problems that go WAY BEYOND 'idiot talking points' - it's not just your talking points that are idiotic.

[BHS]

1) Gitmo isn't a quagmire. It's a military holding facility. It would still be a military holding facility if the US pulled all of it's troops out of the Middle East tomorrow. Get your idiot talking points straight.

2) The US isn't above the law. It's entirely beholden to the American legal system. The ICC is a sanctimonius crock dreamed up by people who bear zero responsilibity for keeping the world safe and yet regard themselves to be in a position to sit in judgement. It is beholden to no Constitution. It enforces no system of laws. It makes up law on an ad hoc basis and expects the most likely defendant, the US, to enforce that law. It's complete and utter bs.

Think again, BhS, gitmo is a quagmire in and of itself with or without Iraq. With all the international pressure that is on the administration, they can't just quietly release the bulk of prisoners without looking like they are giving in. There are even some who suggest that a Supreme Court ruling against the Gitmo detainee camp would be GOOD for the administration because it would give them an out that DOESN'T look like a cave in.

As for laws, I guess you've avoided the articles revealing the many laws that President Bush has decided his administration doesn't have to follow without ever telling the judiciary as he should by law and the treaties that the U.S. has ignored but then later acknowledged when the heat is on (Treaties have the force of law, it's in the Constitution).

Seems to me that YOU have problems that go WAY BEYOND 'idiot talking points' - it's not just your talking points that are idiotic.

What part of what Treaty has the administration ignored?

[BHS]

For those of you crying a river for the terrorists held in Gitmo, a double standard. Where's your care and concern now?

[Charles Anthony]

For those of you crying a river for the terrorists held in Gitmo,

There is a difference between:

- crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers

and

- crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights.

Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires.

[Oddman]

For those of you crying a river for the terrorists held in Gitmo,

There is a difference between:

- crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers

and

- crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights.

Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires.

I agree with you 100%. It always amazes me when I hear people support GITMO. I wonder, if Americans were captured in a war, say in Iraq before their army fell, if they would support the same kind of prison.

[America1]

For those of you crying a river for the terrorists held in Gitmo,

There is a difference between:

- crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers

and

- crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights.

Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires.

I agree with you 100%. It always amazes me when I hear people support GITMO. I wonder, if Americans were captured in a war, say in Iraq before their army fell, if they would support the same kind of prison.

you do realize these people were picked up on the battle field, have been reviewed and processed by our military (several times) and in some cases have been offered back to their respective gvts only to have the offer rejected. Even if these enemy combattons were actual gvt soldiers (which they are not so they DO NOT GET GANEVA CONVERTIONS RIGHTS) we could/should still hold them until the war is over.

[moderateamericain]

For those of you crying a river for the terrorists held in Gitmo,

There is a difference between:

- crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers

and

- crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights.

Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires.

I agree with you 100%. It always amazes me when I hear people support GITMO. I wonder, if Americans were captured in a war, say in Iraq before their army fell, if they would support the same kind of prison.

you do realize these people were picked up on the battle field, have been reviewed and processed by our military (several times) and in some cases have been offered back to their respective gvts only to have the offer rejected. Even if these enemy combattons were actual gvt soldiers (which they are not so they DO NOT GET GANEVA CONVERTIONS RIGHTS) we could/should still hold them until the war is over.

I support GITMO because the new commander there has done an excellent job improving the "rights" of those prisoners. Also the supposed "rights" you feel these prisoners have dont extend to them because they arent US citizens. Im glad im not in power, id prolly have any of them who planned bombing attacks that resulted in the death of innocents executed.

[Oddman]

OK, then it would only make sense to execute American soldiers who torture or murder civilians, right?

And wasn't the Taliban the ruling party in Afghanistan? Why would Taliban fighters not be considered POWs?

And was there people blowing shit up in Iraq before America got there?

America - the place where they are never wrong, never held responsible and march to the beat of their own drum. Must be nice...I'd like to see any other nation on this planet get away with the amount of atrocities as America.

[BHS]

There is a difference between:

- crying a river for somebody who has been charged, tried under due process and convicted by a jury of his peers

and

- crying a river for somebody who is incarcerated without charges and without any respect for human rights.

You're right. That would be comparing apples to oranges. But I'm comparing apples to apples, so what are you on about?

Speaking of double standards, I find it distressing when members of a free and democratic society are sooooo comfortable violating the principles of democracy, freedom, blind justice and due process to suit their hot-headed desires.

There is nothing hot-headed about my opinions on this matter. These are things I've had years to consider, as has everyone who supports the American administration's decision to use Gitmo as a detention facility for illegal combatants.

You find my support for this distressing. I find it equally distressing when members of a free society are so naive as to think that the freedom and security and principled system of justice they enjoy are natural to the course of human relations and not something bought with blood and constant vigilence and determination. I'm all for democracy and freedom and justice, but I also recognize that these principles don't necessarily extend beyond our borders an into the rest of the world. You would extend all of our civil protections to everyone we fight against on foreign soil, regardless of their actions. Which is completely contrary to the rules of war, such as they are. The Geneva Conventions exist for the very reason that domestic legal protections do not extend beyond our sovereign jurisdictions. But to extend even the Geneva protections to combatants who do not themselves recognize the Conventions is defeating the purpose of having the Conventions in the first place.

[BHS]

I agree with you 100%. It always amazes me when I hear people support GITMO. I wonder, if Americans were captured in a war, say in Iraq before their army fell, if they would support the same kind of prison.

They would be a thousand times happier with an Afghani or Iraqi Gitmo than they would be with the existing, real-world alternative that they currently face, which is that their soldiers most likely will play the starring role in an internet beheading video. But you've qualified your question with "before their army fell", so I'll throw this question back to you: have you seen any of the videos of how Saddam treated his political prisoners? Tying them to chairs and throwing them off of buildings, cutting off their hands and beating them to within inches of their lives with switches? Do you honestly believe that internment at Gitmo qualifies as the equivalent of that?

[BHS]

OK, then it would only make sense to execute American soldiers who torture or murder civilians, right?

American soldiers who murder civilians during the course of their duties face execution. That's the way it actually is, and not a hypothetical.

And wasn't the Taliban the ruling party in Afghanistan?

No. The Taliban was never recognized as the government of Afghanistan. There was no government in the country while they held control over most of the territory. For comparison's sake, look at present-day Somalia.

Why would Taliban fighters not be considered POWs?

No. Geneva Convention rules extend to uniformed soldiers representing a national government, who themselves recognize and live by the Geneva conventions. Taliban fighters were none of these things.

And was there people blowing shit up in Iraq before America got there?

No. That's like asking if the Republicans are making periodic guerilla raids on Washington. Saddam loyalists, the Sunni minority upper class, and their friends in the international terrorist community didn't have any reason to blow things up, because they ran the place.

America - the place where they are never wrong, never held responsible and march to the beat of their own drum. Must be nice...I'd like to see any other nation on this planet get away with the amount of atrocities as America.

The USSR, under Stalin, saw as many as twenty million people starved and executed by government proclamation. There was no international retribution. China under Mao, ditto. The massacres of Rwanda occurred with tacit government support and encouragement, without international interference. In fact, our soldiers were there before the massacre started and pulled out rather than do anything. Presently the government of Sudan is encouraging homegrown militias to commit genocide against an inconvenient portion of the black African population. For you to say America is worse, because it prevents would-be illegal combatants from rejoing the war by housing them under extremely humane conditions away from the battlefield is absolutely ridiculous, and even indecent.

[Shady]

Ann Coulter sums Gitmo really well.

American soldiers make do with C-rations. Dinner on an America West flight from New York to Las Vegas consists of one small bag of peanuts. Meanwhile, one recent menu for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo consisted of orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit crepe, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. Sounds like the sort of thing you'd get at Windows on the World – if it still existed.

The USSR, under Stalin, saw as many as twenty million people starved and executed by government proclamation. There was no international retribution. China under Mao, ditto. The massacres of Rwanda occurred with tacit government support and encouragement, without international interference. In fact, our soldiers were there before the massacre started and pulled out rather than do anything. Presently the government of Sudan is encouraging homegrown militias to commit genocide against an inconvenient portion of the black African population

Not to mention Kim Jong Ill, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez and the kook-left's hero Fidel Castro. Is there a dictator that the left doesn't swoon ever these days? Of course, I mean other then the evil dictator George W Bush.

[BubberMiley]

If Gitmo isn't a human rights atrocity, why is it in Cuba?