View Single Post
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
[email protected] fredfighter@spamcop.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 574
Default Rob offers his apologies.


Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Get a grip. Do you have *any* idea at all what went on in Iraq under Saddam
Hussein?


Torture is torture.


Oh, really? So you're equating sleep deprivation with rape and murder?

Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating. If you
cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.


Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth specific
conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured on the
field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia don't meet
those conditions.


That's a damn lie. Someone who has been captured by persons
other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
does not change the fact that the person is protected.

It doesn't make any difference if the captive is a spy, sabotuer,
'terrorist', your grandmother or the worst war criminal since
Joseph Mengele. Once captured, he is a protected person.
The Geneva Conventions are not a license to commit attrocities.

From the Fourth Protocol, 1949:


Art. 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.


Note, "The Convention" refers to the 1949 convention, collectively,
not to any one specific protocol of the convention. The only exception
is for one's own nationals.

Further, under the 1949 GCs and under the US Constitution the
President and Commander in Chief has no authority to decide
which of the protocols is applicable to any particular person.

Now, as to the question that was posed, there is no doubt that
we are much better off in America with Geroge W Bush as our
President than Iraqis were in Iraq with Saddam Hussein as their
president.

But that's the wrong question to ask, isn't it?

--

FF