Ugh...

[Sal]

.... Why does this not surprise me?

-Sal

P.S. Just an FYI

[pam]

This morning on The Chris Matthew Show, Andrew Sullivan said that the new legislation being proposed by the Bush Administration would effectively take us out of the Geneva Conventions. I'm guessing it's because of this. And because of new things coming out, like the soldier who recently said that his colonel told him to basically kill all the men in the area of operation who might be of military age.


I agree. Ugh.

Pam

[GyroGo]

Was the honor and chivalry that we know in the American History books a myth, "history written by the victors", or has our culture lost these values?

[pam]

I don't know, Gary. I'm guessing lost. There have always been exceptions in war, but by and large, I think we've been honorable - I think it comes with an overall "the ends justify the means" kind of morality I've seen creeping up...
Pam

[citivolus]

Originally Posted by GyroGo

Was the honor and chivalry that we know in the American History books a myth, "history written by the victors", or has our culture lost these values?

I'm certain that about half of my ancestors would say it was definitely the former.

The way I see it, it depends on personal opinion... was Columbus a discoverer of conqueror, was Woodrow Wilson a trust-busting civil champion or a racist and segregationist, George Washington - revolutionary or traitor, etc. It comes down the fact that History books try to relate "truth." Since truth is subjective, the books never stood a chance and now play the political game of getting approved by the state/local school board. In short, education has lost to indoctrination.

[RC Mike]

Far be it from me to point out some relevant facts, but...

Who is a soldier and who is a civilian. When does a meeting of soldiers become a wedding party? maybe when the soldiers who survive move the weapons and then invite the press in to witness the "innocent civilians?" But this ignores an important point. People who have never been in uniform might not know this, but those of us who have sat through those hours long Geneva Conventions lectures by the JAG know that the conventions only apply to people who are, get this, "UNIFORMED SOLDIERS IN A SIGNATORY COUNTRY'S ARMED FORCES."

Now, these people do not wear uniforms(strike one), do not fight for a signatory country(strike 2), and do not abide by the conventions themselves(strike 3).

So frankly, these people are not entitled to protection under the Geneva or Hague or any other conventions because they have not signed them, they do not fight for a country who has signed them, they do not abide by them, and they are not in uniform.

We still give them most of the benefits, but some of AI and HRW complaints would put every US prison in violation. Like keeping lights on at night. First we don't give them privacy, so we give them privacy, then we are bad cause we did not see them hang themself.

I would like to keep the "moral high ground." But if the cost for that is to be told day after day that we have a video which is so grusome we can't show it to you, but trust us, the knife was big and the head came off, I am willing to go a little farther than I used to be comfortable with to deal with these people.

Mike

[Sal]

I find any justification for the way the "enemy combatants" were treated to be morally repugnant.

With the line of thinking and logic that defends the conduct of the soldiers at Gitmo as being just... I guess the administration has nothing to worry about, but it's very proactive of Mr. Gonzalez and Co. to make sure that they're immune.

Way to go.

-Sal

[RC Mike]

So I am morally repugnant? Because I do see justification?

Thanks Sal...

Mike

[Sal]

Not quite, Mike. I wouldn't have taken the logical leap you took.

I was commenting on the justification of torture, violating of basic human rights, etc. as being morally repugnant. I was not commenting on the people who think it's okay.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, there are plenty of absolutely upstanding folks who have told me I'm a pinko liberal, and have quite a few opinions which I find distasteful, that does not make them bad people, and I would like to state for the record: I was not making any comment as to your visceral personality.

I would encourage you to edit your prior post as it was not my intent.

-Sal

[citivolus]

The main problem is what is the legal standing of these "detainees." The unfortunate choice of words "war on terror" is meaningless because terror is a non-entity. It isn't even a war on terrorists because we aren't about to jump into Sri Lanka against the Tamil Tigers, or Chechnya, or pick any one of a dozen other places, (well, not overtly anyway and not necessarily against the "terrorists.") Clearly it may best be described as a war on anti-American terrorists but even then war is a poor choice of words because it may best be conducted through police investigation and prosecution in a manner similar to fighting organized crime.

The problem arises due to the lack of precedent, definition and jurisdiction. I'll start by saying IANAL but we have individuals from and in other countries who have been taken into U.S. custody. We are not currently at war with these countries nor has any war ever been declared other than in an unfortunate misnomer. Do we even have the authority to take people into custody in a place where we have no legal jurisdiction without a war declaration? In that situation, wouldn't the "detainees" be subject to the law of the country that person was taken into custody? Would that law be better or worse than their current situation?

In the end, someone will always disagree with the course of action taken and on the merits of the person or people who pursue that action.
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/