paulledden 0 #1 February 5, 2006 AN Iraqi General was placed in a sleeping bag head down and smothered to death and the American Sergeant responsible was fined $6000 and given a reprimand - is that justice? I would be interested to know the views of fellow skydivers on this. Before you answer, imagine it is your son or father or brother or cousin etc involved in a war in which they are merely soldiers fighting for their country - remember soldiers just fight , they don't do the politics and who is to say at which rank the politics kick in?The probability of being observed is directly proportionate to the stupidity of your actions at the time! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #2 February 5, 2006 Hey look at that? What is it? I don't know, its kinda blurry. No wait, its getting closer. Oh wow, it is get closer really fast. HOLY SHIT! I see it!! Its... its.... SPEAKER'S CORNER!!!Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 February 5, 2006 The Geneva Convention is actually in Speaker's Corner. Not only can you find the GC in SC, but other similar political topics. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
McDirt 0 #4 February 5, 2006 As a soldier in the US Army and a veteran of two deployments to Iraq, I can say two things. on one side there is no reason to treat any human being like that no matter what the circumstance. Also it is human nature to get caught up in the heat of battle and do inhumane things. This dosen't mean it's right. But it happens. I think that the personnel who gave this punishment were concerned with human rights and geneva convention. I'm sure we arn't told all the details... the military does however constantly try to improve it's view with the public, as well making sure they take care of their own. I don't think this ruling is just... but I'm not on any sort of jury. Anyway.. shit happens and usually it sucks. That's why i started jumping... above everything (all the turmoil on the ground) in the air it is calm and very refreshing. End Rant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #5 February 5, 2006 Life sucks. Go to speaker's corner. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #6 February 5, 2006 Ask Daniel Pearl. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #7 February 5, 2006 I would be interested to know the views of fellow skydivers on this. *** My view is that you're throwing another bash at the US. Fine, but go ahead and do it, don't be vailed about it. As for the Convention? Let me know how many other countries or terrorist organizations abide by it.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #8 February 5, 2006 Pie. Me like Pie. Mmmm....Pie. Pie good. When post again, bring Pie. PIE!Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #9 February 5, 2006 My view is that this is Bonfire, not SC. So I have to go with ExAFO and vote for pie.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 February 5, 2006 MMmmmmm Speaker's Corner. First off, those Genevans shouldn't even be allowed to have conventions. They always fill up all the good hotels and then trash the rooms. It's also impossible to get into a good restaurant. Stupid Genevans - driving around in their little carts and wearing their stupid little hats. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #11 February 5, 2006 The Geneva Convention ended up, like they all do. Everybody got drunk, the whores showed up....the initial agenda, went to crap! Didn't much matter, though.....the U.S. appears to have been the only ones there, anyway. First....I have to question the logic of taking prisoners, in the first place. Under the current circumstances, it doesn't make sense. I'm not at all, the hawkish, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" type....I'm just thinking logically. They claim the primary reason, is to gather intelligence. Considering that there has not yet seemed to be any credible info, coming from these prisoners....it just doesn't fly. How Bush has managed to absolve himself and “Rumsnamara”, of any responsibility, regarding the prisoner abuse issue…..is a bit over my head. It’s always the same….some enlisted guy takes the fall, for following orders. Still, I have to say…..until the U.S. soldiers murder them, drag them through the streets of our cities, hang their bodies from a bridge and burn them….NOBODY has got ANY reason, to say shit! Mohammed forgot to tell ‘em….what goes around, comes around….but it figures. After all, the freakin’ idiot got lost….in his own back yard, for like….40 years, or sumthin’! (Mohammed Bush?)"T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #12 February 5, 2006 I don't usually engage in these conversations because, 1) it's usually with people who don't have situational knowledge, and 2) it usually winds up in a just agree to disagree thread death. There is a huge gap of misunderstanding regarding police interrogation (criminal - use of questioning techniques only), military interrogation and torture. The Sergeant was within the guidelines of using several different and allowed forms of interrogation of environmental manipulation, use of fear, futility, rapid-fire change of interrogation techniques, etc. Where this went wrong was in the "assessment of emotional or physical strengths and weaknesses." One in the Sergeant's shoes might make the assumption that a General was in good enough physical condition to endure these forms of acceptable and allowed by law military interrogations. These forms of interrogation have a duration of time. They are longer and much more effective than torture. The Sergeant's motives and tactics were within the bounds, but unfortuately, in this case, the General had a heart condition of which the Sergeant was not aware which resulted in his death. The difference between interrogation and torture is intent. The intent of interrogation is to elicit information and when the right information is received, the person being interrogated is treated accordingly as a POW. In this case, that was the Sergeant's motivation. He was trying to elicit information that could save American soldiers' lives. Torture; on the other hand is probably something of which you have no knowledge. And, I don't mean that in a berating way. I mean it in a way that some people can't even conceive of what one person can do to another. Torture is not about getting the truth as a result. The intent of torture is to harm, maim and eventually kill - it is the utmost form of sadistic intent. You know, like when someone is on their knees begging for mercy while their head is being sawed off. The Sergeant's intent was within the confines of military law, the result (death) was criminal and for that he faced charges and was found guilty. Just as the case in civil law in most countires; the difference between Murder One - which is the premeditated intent of murder (going and getting a gun and intentionally shooting to kill) and Manslaughter (punching someone in the mouth and the result is they died). Both resulted in one's death, but both are weighed on intent. That's all I'm going to say about this.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #13 February 5, 2006 QuoteThe Sergeant was within the guidelines of using several different and allowed forms of interrogation of environmental manipulation, use of fear, futility, rapid-fire change of interrogation techniques... Wrong! 3rd. Geneva convention Part III, sect. I, article 17: Quote No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. The Geneva conventions are US law, like it or not. QuoteThe difference between interrogation and torture is intent. The intent of interrogation is to elicit information... The intent of torture is to harm, maim and eventually kill... That set of definitions is your own. From Wikipedia: Quote Torture is any act by which severe suffering, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions So, it's a question of semantics, but I think I have to call BS here. QuoteThe Sergeant's intent was within the confines of military law, the result (death) was criminal and for that he faced charges and was found guilty. If his intent was by coercion to extract information from a POW, no he was not. QuoteThat's all I'm going to say about this. Too bad most of it was wrong then. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #14 February 5, 2006 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of law. While you were sitting waiting to pounce, you should have done some more reading: States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture Belgium Bolivia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Gabon Gambia Iceland Indonesia Morocco Nicaragua Nigeria Sierra Leone Sudan United States of AmericaNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #15 February 5, 2006 QuoteWikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of law. Agreed. I was just making the point that your definition of torture was not the same as the definition, and in general I trust Wikipedia's definitions over yours (no offence). QuoteStates which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture ... United States of America What does that have to do with the Geneva conventions?HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #16 February 5, 2006 QuoteWikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of law. While you were sitting waiting to pounce, you should have done some more reading: States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture Belgium Bolivia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Gabon Gambia Iceland Indonesia Morocco Nicaragua Nigeria Sierra Leone Sudan United States of America States of shame!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #17 February 5, 2006 No offense taken. SC is a forum intended for Political disccussion and debate and I'm appreciative that we haven't gotten into a circular argument. QuoteWhat does that have to do with the Geneva conventions? It means we signed to agree to the spirit, but not the letter. Once the war was declared "won,' the theater of operations now changed from one protected under the [spirit or letter] of the Geneva Convention to an area of Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC or TLIC). Therefore, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued "extended interrogation techniques" that went farther than those authorized in the Army Field Manual (which if read; does maintain the spirit of the Geneva Convention). Rumsfeld intended the extended techniques to be used only on the captives the United States classified as "illegal combatants." Which brings us back to the General. Was he an "illegal (unlawful) combatant" or had transferrance been made to the status of EPW (POW)? No - an "illegal (unlawful) combatant cannot receive EPW status. Using your source of Wikipedia, "The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII); nor does the word "combatant." However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is thought that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. By declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello (Laws of War) due to the unlawful nature of their combat." Get's kinda muddy for the Sergeant, doesn't it? Again, he was tried and convicted for the result of his actions. If you have issues with legal or political policy, that is a different thread.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #18 February 5, 2006 QuoteStates of shame! Ratification requires a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate (and the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all). Which means America would have to get off its collective asses and write their Senators (which would take less time than two Super Bowl commercials). Personally, I hope they don't. The worst phrase a soldier can hear is "The Rules of Engagement." You want us to win this thing or are we going to battle under Robert's Rules of Order?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #19 February 5, 2006 QuoteStates of shame! Only when you place your moral conditions on them.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #20 February 5, 2006 Quote QuoteWhat does that have to do with the Geneva conventions? It means we signed to agree to the spirit, but not the letter. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is not the same as the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Just so we agree on that. As I understand your following argument, you mean to say that a captured enemy general could not be afforded POW status. QuoteGet's kinda muddy for the Sergeant, doesn't it? I cannot see how anyone could argue that this man was not a POW, and the "I-was-just-following-orders" argument was declared invalid at Nürnberg after WWII. But hey, you probably know more than I do about what a sergeant knows. QuoteIf you have issues with legal or political policy, that is a different thread. Oh no. Your argument highlights beautifully that the US apparently feels that they can redefine their way out of the Geneva conventions. It seems to very much fit this thread.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,049 #21 February 5, 2006 QuoteAs I understand your following argument, you mean to say that a captured enemy general could not be afforded POW status. What I'm saying is an "illegal combatant" does not have to be afforded EPW status. QuoteI cannot see how anyone could argue that this man was not a POW, and the "I-was-just-following-orders" argument was declared invalid at Nürnberg after WWII. Not what I said either. He was within the parameters of military law regarding interrogation and the result was death for which he was tried and convicted. QuoteYour argument highlights beautifully that the US apparently feels that they can redefine their way out of the Geneva conventions. That is the issue. And, on that note I bid you, "Blue Skies."Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #22 February 5, 2006 Quote... on that note I bid you, "Blue Skies." And you too. Good night from Denmark.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #23 February 5, 2006 I thought a general would qualify as a uniformed officer of the opposing party, and fall under the convention... I haven't read it in a while, though, so I don't recall the exact definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #24 February 6, 2006 I believe THAT is dependant on the way he conducts himself.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #25 February 6, 2006 in response to: "I thought a general would qualify as a uniformed officer of the opposing party, and fall under the convention... I haven't read it in a while, though, so I don't recall the exact definition." It depends on whether he was acting as a uniformed military (officer) in this case. You see there is a problem that arises when combatants do no wear a uniform...this strips them of any status or protection under the geneva conventions. A good illustration is terrorists and or spies. No uniform or wrong uniform = spy or subversive = death on the spot when caught. Ask any Specwar or SpecOps soldier, sailor or airman if he wants to be caught wearing no uniform, or the wrong country's uniform. That's a very bad situation ( if being caught wasn't bad enough) which usually results in summary execution or torture then execution. this example is in regards to counties that are signatories unto the conventions. As for non-signatories they usaully torture and kill no matter what anyways. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
