Treatment of detainees/POW's

[Comprehend]

A lot of people have been complaining about how we (the United States) treat our detainees but I never hear them complain about how ours are treated.

Is that because there are no U.S. POW's in this war? Why aren't there any? Because they are all murdered when they are captured. What does this say about where the prisoner problem exists?

Why don't the people who complain about how we treat our prisoners complain more about how ours are treated?

Isn't captivity with 3 meals a day, a koran and exercise a tad better than summary execution in often gruesome ways? Why the double standard?

What does this say about those who choose to complain about the detainees while being silent about the treatment US troops?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is a function of our moral positions.
bad or criminal treatment of prisoners is always wrong.
However we only have an realistic influence over our own nations actions.
I recognise that the USA do not underwrite large chunks of international protocol regarding justice and treatment of prisoners. How ever it does claim something of the moral high ground, ad claims to be Civilised in a western sense.
Most westerners will there for feel justified in criticising the USA's actions in regards to Prisoners.

We are equally distressed at the treatment of our own national prisoners by both the USA and middle eastern terrorists. It is not realistic to expect terrorists to follow any international agreements, and nor are they signatory to any such agreements.
Terrorists are of course subject to the full rigours of international law if found guilty of atrocities.
These are the same international laws and courts that the USA will not let its own forces face.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why don't the people who complain about how we treat our prisoners complain more about how ours are treated?

Isn't captivity with 3 meals a day, a koran and exercise a tad better than summary execution in often gruesome ways? Why the double standard?

Because any justification for American involvement in the war hinges on the premise that American involvement is better than the alternative. If trading Al Qaeda for the US Army only means that the people doing the murdering are wearing different uniforms, then there was never any justification.

Because moral and ethical people hold themselves to a moral and ethical standard regardless of what their opponents do.

Because when you put on the white hat and sherrif's badge, you're supposed to abide by the law, or at least by what's right.

Anyhow, it's not a double standard. In a just society, military action implies that the enemy's conduct has been, and continues to be, so heinous that all reasonable means should be employed to stop them, up to and including killing them. If any group, including the US military, engages in similar conduct, then the same rules apply.

It's the implicit position of the US government that members of Al Qaeda have been so evil and are such a threat that they have forfeited their right to life and liberty. Do you really want people such as these to be your moral benchmark?

What does this say about those who choose to complain about the detainees while being silent about the treatment US troops?

It says that while they expect terrorists to act like terrorists (while definitely not condoning their actions), they don't expect the US military to act like terrorists.

 

[Storm]

Why the double standard?

Because we're supposed to be the good guys.

 

[Fluffy]

It is obvious the that US government does not want their troops being murdered. It is not obvious that they wish to treat POWs properly.

 

[Ever learning]

It is obvious the that US government does not want their troops being murdered. It is not obvious that they wish to treat POWs properly.

I agree.

 

[silvermoon383]

Why reference captured terrorists as POWs? They are not uniformed soldiers, they're criminals. The POW laws do not apply to them.

 

[Comprehend]

It is obvious the that US government does not want their troops being murdered. It is not obvious that they wish to treat POWs properly.

They are not POW's. The Geneva convention is specific on what one must do to be a lawful combatant and have Geneva convention protection.

They could have simply been killed if encountered on the battle field.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why reference captured terrorists as POWs? They are not uniformed soldiers, they're criminals. The POW laws do not apply to them.

Only some of the Geneva Conventions specifically address POWs who are uniformed enemy soldiers. Many provisions of the conventions address combatants who are not soldiers. Protection against arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, and the right of an accused to know the charges against him or her apply to all prisoners, and not just because of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

They are not POW's. The Geneva convention is specific on what one must do to be a lawful combatant and have Geneva convention protection.

They could have simply been killed if encountered on the battle field.

In the same way you can kill civilians I suppose?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are not POW's. The Geneva convention is specific on what one must do to be a lawful combatant and have Geneva convention protection.

The Geneva Conventions have some protections for soldiers, some for civilians, some for non-soldier combatants, and some for people generally. The fact that the enemy doesn't wear a uniform doesn't automatically mean that you have carte blanche to do whatever you want to enemy prisoners.

They could have simply been killed if encountered on the battle field.

And a criminal in the US who pulls a gun on a cop could be killed as well. This doesn't mean that the criminals in custody who pulled guns on cops at some point in the past can be summarily executed by the police without trial.

I have an idea. Veteran's Day/Remembrance Day is coming up this weekend. If you really don't know the difference between killing on the battlefield and murder, I suggest you go down to your local war memorial and announce your views on the subject. Be sure to have someone shoot video and post it to YouTube, because the sight of someone having his butt kicked by a bunch of WWII vets would be kind of funny.

 

[Comprehend]

The Geneva Conventions have some protections for soldiers, some for civilians, some for non-soldier combatants, and some for people generally. The fact that the enemy doesn't wear a uniform doesn't automatically mean that you have carte blanche to do whatever you want to enemy prisoners.

Thanks, they don't qualify for a number of reasons, for example:

They fail under Article 2
They also fail under Article 4.A(2)

And a criminal in the US who pulls a gun on a cop could be killed as well. This doesn't mean that the criminals in custody who pulled guns on cops at some point in the past can be summarily executed by the police without trial.

I have an idea. Veteran's Day/Remembrance Day is coming up this weekend. If you really don't know the difference between killing on the battlefield and murder, I suggest you go down to your local war memorial and announce your views on the subject. Be sure to have someone shoot video and post it to YouTube, because the sight of someone having his butt kicked by a bunch of WWII vets would be kind of funny.

hmmm.

I think you are confused. Nowhere did say they could be killed LATER. "could have" is past tense, meaning they could have been killed WHEN encountered.

 

[Comprehend]

In the same way you can kill civilians I suppose?

nope. You can't kill civilians. Where did you get that idea?

 

[Comprehend]

Anyway, you two are not on topic, mind if we stick to it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anyway, you two are not on topic, mind if we stick to it?

What?

Why on Earth did you write this, then?

They are not POW's. The Geneva convention is specific on what one must do to be a lawful combatant and have Geneva convention protection.

They could have simply been killed if encountered on the battle field.

Thanks, they don't qualify for a number of reasons, for example:

They fail under Article 2
They also fail under Article 4.A(2)

Iraq and Afghanistan both ratified the Geneva Conventions. If you're not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan, what ARE you talking about?

I think you are confused. Nowhere did say they could be killed LATER. "could have" is past tense, meaning they could have been killed WHEN encountered.

No, you just strongly implied that for some unknown reason, once a person has been in a position where he or she could have been justifiably killed, that person's life is forever forfeit or without value.

If that wasn't what you intended, what was your point?

 

[Fluffy]

They are not POW's. The Geneva convention is specific on what one must do to be a lawful combatant and have Geneva convention protection.

They could have simply been killed if encountered on the battle field.

You mentioned "Al Qaeda combatant" not "terrorist" and so I thought you were describing a mirrored scenario.

Regardless it is irrelevant what there legal status is so if calling them POWs is incorrect then I retract that description as my argument has nothing to do with it. Replace "POWs" with "Al Qaeda combatants".

 

[Comprehend]

Ok. For the two people who voted that they would rather be US soldiers captured by Al Qaeda, could you explain your votes?

Why would you rather be executed?

 

[Comprehend]

What?

Why on Earth did you write this, then?

I was hoping to quickly clear it up so we could get back to the OP.

Iraq and Afghanistan both ratified the Geneva Conventions. If you're not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan, what ARE you talking about?

I wasn't addressing whether or not the countries had ratified the conventions.

No, you just strongly implied that for some unknown reason, once a person has been in a position where he or she could have been justifiably killed, that person's life is forever forfeit or without value.

:areyoucra No. I didn't imply anything, I said exactly what meant, they could have been killed if encountered on the battle field.

If that wasn't what you intended, what was your point?

That they were already getting better treatment than needed.... they could have been killed on the battlefield.

 

[Comprehend]

You mentioned "Al Qaeda combatant" not "terrorist" and so I thought you were describing a mirrored scenario.

Sorry, I thought the word combatant would be less upsetting to all sides than terrorist.

Regardless it is irrelevant what there legal status is so if calling them POWs is incorrect then I retract that description as my argument has nothing to do with it. Replace "POWs" with "Al Qaeda combatants".

Fair enough.

So your post amended would look like this: (I'll respond to the amended form below)

It is obvious the that US government does not want their troops being murdered. It is not obvious that they wish to treat Al Qaeda combatants properly.

Ok. For the sake of argument, lets say I concede the point, that it is not obvious that the US wishes to treat AQ combatants properly.

I would respond that while you may be able to find issues with their care you might object to, their life and limbs are not in danger. There are two distinct levels of treatment here, AQ affords the US no physical or legal protection and in fact simply kills the soldier, the US on the other hand does not put the combatant's life or limb in jeopardy but there are problems with the legal protection.

I don't know about you, but as a POW or detainee or whatever, if my life was secure, I wouldn't be afraid of anything else. Ask John McCain or some other POW's who have been tortured. (before you bring up waterboarding, please note that it has only been done on 3, yes 3 detainees), or you could imagine what it was like for all those soldiers who have been tortured beaten and killed.

My point is that what miniscule grievances those in club gitmo have are a joke next to the grievances the surviving relatives of US POW's have...

I am curious to know how one can excuse the gruesome murder and complain about legal issues for the others?

ps. I apologize for the italics, for some reason it is stuck on after your quote and I can't turn it off.

 

[Storm]

I don't know about you, but as a POW or detainee or whatever, if my life was secure, I wouldn't be afraid of anything else. Ask John McCain or some other POW's who have been tortured. (before you bring up waterboarding, please note that it has only been done on 3, yes 3 detainees), or you could imagine what it was like for all those soldiers who have been tortured beaten and killed.

I don't think you should be saying torture wouldn't bother you until you've actually been tortured.

My point is that what miniscule grievances those in club gitmo have are a joke next to the grievances the surviving relatives of US POW's have...

But once again, we're supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be better than terrorists. We're supposed to be better than this.

I am curious to know how one can excuse the gruesome murder and complain about legal issues for the others?

That would be curious if anyone was actually excusing the murders. Nobody is, though.