So I take it you are spouting other's stuff and have not read the Geneva Conventions.
Very nice when you get pissed, Mike. "spouting" is genuinely friendly.
As for the Geneva Conventions, I see you've finally stated the point you wish to discuss without noting how many times the Bush administration tried to get away from using them.
Question: was the torture used at the Iraqi prison a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Since the Bush administration representatives, Rumsfeld, Myers, Wolfowitz, et al, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee argued that the Geneva Conventions applied to persons captured in Iraq, then any torture so used would be in violation, according to US officials. The photos document that. And it's clearly not simply seven soldiers who thought all this up on their own. It goes higher. How high we'll most likely never know. The Bush folk will try to cap it at the named folk now: Karpinski and the others. Perhaps the net will catch Sanchez given the news that he's being replaced; perhaps not.
Moreover, the ICRC reports noted that 70 to 90% of the Iraqis in that prison were not even genuine POWs; innocents, low level thieves, etc. And that number has not been disputed by the Bush administration. So, that makes the situation even worse.
I don't see a serious argument as to whether the Geneva Conventions should and do apply to these prisoners. But, if you wish to make it, please do so.
As for Guantanamo and Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Q, if you wish to debate that, I'll be happy to walk along with you. Issues include the proper interpretation of the Geneva Convention; the importance of taking the moral high ground regardless of the applicability of the Convention, that is the war for the hearts and minds; the usefulness of information acquired under torture; what is the larger goal of the conflict with Al Q (not Iraq); etc.. |
