I don't think the Geneva Convention forbids us from interrogating captured terrorists. Although you said so in a previous post. IMO you have not established your opinion as fact.
But if your interrogation of the Geneva convention were valid, the convention should be immediately scrapped. PERIOD.
The same goes for releasing captured terrorists.
You are making very clear your animus against my country. Which gives me less respect for your opinions.
Let me remind you that the people captured in Afghanistan were NOT blowing up malls in the US nor pirating in the Pacific Ocean. They were fighting against US military. That means they were soldiering, rather than engaging in terrorism or piracy at the time of their capture.
They were fighting with and for a terrorist movement which did commit a string of attacks against America, culminating in the 911 attacks. It is apparent you regard as a terrorist only those individuals we catch in the act of committing a terrorist act. That isn't acceptable for me or my country. Anyone belonging to terror groups or assisting them qualifies.
You really think your country and its people are so very important that a REMOTE possibility of a hypothetical danger that giving Guantanamo people access to a military tribunal so that the innocent among them might be separated from the guilty, after TWO YEARS of incommunicado imprisonment, warrrants for scrapping of the Geneva Convention for POWs?
Re. the Geneva convention, you are the one said we shouldn't have the right to interrogate captured terrorists. So if your claim is correct, of course, that justifies scrapping the convention.
My, that is a fairly large illusion of self-importance there.
Personally, I think the life of one American, including your highness, is no more important than one 13-year old boy rotting in Guantanamo, possibly for the rest of your life, if your administration has its way.
I doubt there are many 13 year olds in Guantanamo. I am sure you hold all the Guantanamo detainees, including the most bloodthirsty, in more regard than you do me or any other American. But the first duty of the US government, regardless of who is President, is to protect the US and its citizens. I can guarantee you that no President will accept your proposition that we have no right to interrogate captured terrorists. And no President will set free people who are likely to commit future terrorist attacks.
Did you even READ the links I posted in the message you are replying to?
I read the first one, the second link didn't open. I didn't believe a word of that guys story.
The minute US formally bows out of the Geneva Convention, US soldiers captured anywhere will be used as experimental toys for torture. Or be the bitch of the regiment. You might not be wise enough to realize that a remote possibility that according prisoners POW rights might somehow endanger the mighty American nation. But it looks like your Administration recognizes that there is a more scary danger to US soldiers stationed across the globe. Americans need the protection of the Geneva Convention, especially as their soldiers are scattered pretty much everywhere, in bases or even hot zones.
The Geneva convention is a nice piece of paper. Though it has no power over evil people. Its the fear of retaliation which restrains behavior of evil actors. And that's the only thing which ever will. Are people like Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad, Muammar Gaddafi, and many others I could name restrained by pieces of paper? No. The credible threat of force is the only ultimate source of security. That applies to every nation.
"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid. " Muammar Gaddafi toItalian prime minister Berlusconi
I can guarantee you that Gaddafi doesn't give a damn for the Geneva convention or any other piece of paper. |
