#28805: — 06/17  at  07:09 AM
Uh, you terribly bright people are taking Al-Hasami seriously? Why? It's quite obvious he's ten pounds of Academy-award-grade put-on in a five-pound sack.

#28806: — 06/17  at  07:14 AM
Nate - i praised your words. Your clever twisting made me feel great honor and praise as your blade slid in through my ribs and into my heart. Your point is valid and that is why we act as we do! Because we can! If we catch any American we will use that American fully! Fully i say! For we are smarter and more shrewd than you Americans. Toe that moral line as you do and we laugh as your legal teams go and defend our warriors. Allah is truly with us. He grants us favor even in the eyes of our enemy! It must have been men like you Nate who led the American troops in that lesser war - the one you call World War II. For the torture used then was certainly less than what is being used against our warriors! Did you americans pee pee on the symbol of the Third Reich in front of Hitler! No! You save that for my warriors. Did you pretend to tie electric cords to the japanese's privates! No! But to my men you ridicule them by making them imagine how bad a jolt of zappy-fire would feel to their nether regions! Regions we save for our future heavenly virgins. Will they like them crisp! This is what our warriors at gitmo have to think about. Praise Allah that i have not yet been captured!

As for Russia and their relenting on the use of their Nuclear weapons - the fools! If we had those weapons, Israel would be embers and the US too - the world for the matter because we would not have hesitated to use such weapons! Or the Nazis not killing more jews. I may be wrong but they did try to kill all they could. They are to be considered wise. No morals, sure, for they did not know Allah. Yes, Nate, every time a people has power to oppress others, they should use it! And if they do not use that power to oppress others, they are fools! Or what do you suppose keeps them from using such power? Perhaps, it is a moral code.

The US government is full of fools! Trying to oppress the world under its great might! The infidels will learn! One day i will be able to come out from under my stone without fearing the American thumb crushing me. Well, not directly crushing me - but standing back letting me know that if i try to oppress others in the name of Allah, i will have to face that mighty thumb! That is hell that you bring to me! It is unfair that i am not free to oppress people and threaten them for my gain and terrorize them so that i will get more goods and power. When i am able to oppress the world for Allah, then, there will be peace. Only the foolish US government stops this peace! Evil doers!

I am sorry, my wild ranting gets away from me. Praise Allah that the American infidels, blinded by their moral code instead of pursuing the evolutionary standard that Allah has empowered our good warriors to pursue, will fail! We see those there even protecting our warriors while their government wishes those captives the most grievous torture! Survival of the fittest! We will force everyone under Allah for only Allah is fit! He sets them against themselves and soon my recruiting efforts there will surpass that of their own army!

Over and out,
Ahmed

Nate - Be so kind as to bring me some of that most scrumptous ham that you have been providing me. Baked with honey, is it? As you like to say, yummy to my tummy! And as we like to whisper, Pork, the other white meat! - shhhh, do not let the sheikh know of this delight entering our bellies! Oh, i must also request that you allow me residence in your basement another two weeks - there is one more round of financing that needs to be delivered to ACLU and some lawyer friends Allah has provided to me.

#28809: — 06/17  at  07:31 AM
speedwell - i do not know what to say. I have never received such praise as this. Why fitting 10lbs of award for the Academy into a 5lb bag means i am worth 15lbs!

The joy within me is great and i know that Allah is firming my actions of jihad to a new fullness.

I must thank my mother. She delivered me despite great pain as i was born with turban! ha ha, that is our little joke when a child is born with a great mane of hair. She raised me firm and showed me at an early age how women are truly inferior to men. Thank you mother. My dad was a sum-beech, and i thank him for that. His ruthless beatings of me are largely the reason i can treat life with such disdain and only long for my place beside Allah (and of course the many many many virgins that await me - and with this award i am certain that number has been multiplied). there are many more to thank, my connection at Al Jazeera, he always is willing to show our tapes. Muhad Al Fatima, Malwud Diz Gasadi, his brother, Fuwed. Ah so many, and i am unprepared to give a speech. I was certain this award would go to Osama. Thank you Osama for sucking! ha ha, i kid. Thanks to Jamaar, you know who you are! Nate. Sean Penn. umm there are so many. Did i mention Allah? Har Hasamshiddi. I'm running out of time. Thank you Pharyngula for that platform. All you others that keep me so well hidden.

These tears are real!

Thank you speedwell. The Academy. I am sorry i must go. They wave me off.

#28821: — 06/17  at  09:20 AM
At the risk of feeding pork to trolls, I must say this Ahmed fellow is a good example of the pitiful state of conservative thought in America. He's as convincing as a white minstral in blackface singing "yo mama"- and as funny. Aren't there any conservatives who are embarrassed by this self-parody?

#28823: Chris Clarke — 06/17  at  09:23 AM
Zilch, you could have left off the words "by this self-parody" and your question would still have been germane.

#28826: Ron Sullivan — 06/17  at  09:42 AM
This is probably even tackier than blogwhoring, but I told ya so a few years ago, and damn it, it's true, legal mincing aside. Either a human right is a human right, therefore inalienable and a property of all humans; or it's a privilege of certain designated people, who are therefore the ruling class, the heirs of empire.

Has America followed the course of ancient Greek "democracy" by declaring certain people the demos and everyone else, what, helots? Stage scenery? And for extra credit: starting when?

If I were an optimist, I'd suggest that what we're seeing is the growth pains of the human rights concept, the widening of its scope as we're somewhere on the course from "(white?) male property owners" to "(still undefined) everyone." Pace Gramsci, I'm not sure whether it's difficult or merely foolish to be an optimist.

#28842: — 06/17  at  11:09 AM
If you guys can't see the IRONY in your utopia...yes you are "merely foolish".

My point is this:
War is not civilized. Murder is wrong. But when you declare war, murder of your enemy is acceptable. Same with torture. It is one hundred percent wrong. But war allows for you to go to extreme measures to protect your troops from the enemy and part of that is doing everything you can to extract information from the enemy. You are foolish to think otherwise. It is a good strategy.

It is easy for you to sit in your cushy chair and say "oh stop the torture!" "It doesn't work anyway!" But it is war. The rights of the enemy are not equal and inalienable. And if it didn't work, then why would the militaries ever waste time doing it?

"Um excuse me captive, do you have information about your troops?"
"no"
"ok then"

"what about you?"
"yeah"
"what do you know"
"i'm not saying"
"alrighty....next"

yep that is how it should happen. Maybe the geneva convention should say it is illegal for captives to withhold any information they have. Guess what will happen if that were the law...their own troops would try to kill them once they were captured.

On your optimism:
How can there be equal rights for all when there are those who do not want you to have rights unless you fit certain criteria. There are exceptions...period.

Somebody has to set the criteria...will it be you or them?

You, for instance, don't tolerate my parody. And you have already blackballed me and my thoughts from your "world".

How will your Utopia handle war? Oh, in your world there is no war. Well, then, your world ain't this one.

Ahmed Al Hasami is a dumb parody. But the fact of the matter is...there is a well funded group out there willing to slam planes into buildings to claim something they feel should be theirs. They do not have half the value of life that even your president, villified as he is, has. They behead people that are not even fighting them.

What is your optimism going to do with that? are you going to give those people full tolerance? Full rights? If not, how are you going to find those people?

I know what we can all do...let's find everything wrong with our military actions and point them out. Holy cow, our military is so evil! They murder! They ridicule people!

Ahmed Al Hasami has quite a following that would be ashamed of its warriors if ridicule is all they did to their captives.

#28847: — 06/17  at  11:38 AM
Mr. Homer, I will suggest that you go read slacktivist's post or Billmon's post on the subject.

You have obviously not understod the difference between being a regime/terrorist oganization and a civilized country (or coalition of civilized countries).

If the military kill people fighting them, it's part of what they do - the conventions even allows for this. Killing civilians or torturing people are not part of what a military does. Even, if you can't see that torture is wrong, maybe Senator Biden's argument will convince you:

There's a reason why we sign these treaties: to protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties, so when Americans are captured they are not tortured. That's the reason in case anybody forgets it.

Source: NY Times.

I have seen a clip of him explaining that to Rumsfeld, and as John Stewart said, even though he was smiling he still looked angry.

#28848: — 06/17  at  11:38 AM
Somebody please explain to me the difference between being forced to listen to C. Aguilera and being forced to listen to the endless muezzin's call.

One side is playing for keeps, one isn't.

#28852: Alon Levy — 06/17  at  11:48 AM
Two points Americans who apologize for Abu-Gharib and Guantanamo Bay often forget:

1. Torture is ineffective. On 24 and Nikita it works; in the real world, it doesn't. Most insurgents talk without torture 9 times out of 10, except religious fanatics who talk 6 times out of 10; but in both cases, those who require torture to talk usually say whatever will get them released, which is usually not the truth.

2. By the Red Cross's estimates, 80% of the people at Abu Gharib are innocent. Of every 5 people who got literally pissed on at Abu Gharib, 1 was a terrorist and 4 were civilians who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and of the wrong skin color.

#28862: — 06/17  at  12:25 PM

2. By the Red Cross's estimates, 80% of the people at Abu Gharib are innocent. Of every 5 people who got literally pissed on at Abu Gharib, 1 was a terrorist and 4 were civilians who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and of the wrong skin color.

A quibble: sometimes that 1 may not even have been a terrorist - just a garden-variety criminal.

#28867: — 06/17  at  12:50 PM
Alon Levy - where do you get your numbers! 6 out of 10 of my warriors are talking without any torture! Not even the threat of torture?! Aiiiy-ahla-akbar! (note to self - kill those 6 infidels when you see them) I will steal the style of Nate. From this point forward we will not even ask our captives for information, we will just hand them a pen and some paper. That is beautiful information, Allah be praised again, our interrogation costs will be a tenth of what they are currently.

As for the Abu Gharib/Red Cross numbers - yes, all the americans in the prison are guilty and all the warriors of Allah are innocent. So those numbers are seemingly correct. The part that makes me laugh is the how "pissed on" seems so bad to you! I get pissed on 5 out of 7 times i get off my camel. Wait! Were they clinching their Koran in their buttcheeks when this pissing occurred!? I would kill my camel for that. It has happened a handful of times.

I will say this, i saw that Aguilera woman on an MTV awards show, yes i watch those when i am able, anyway, she is one hot momma. I hope my virgins look as she does! Ach-ud-fah-saam baby!

I depart you now before Nate returns and yells at me for leaving my turban towels all over his house. It gets hair everywhere.

#28909: — 06/17  at  07:21 PM
I don't understand how it's happened. For years, we've been watching cop shows where the cops interrogate suspects by asking questions, persuading, promising, playing head games, comparing answers and confronting suspects with their contradictions, and seldom with any violence. NYPD Blue or Homicide: Life on the Streets, for example; beautifully scripted, intense studies of human behaviour.

Now, all of a sudden, the goons of the right are utterly convinced that the only way to extract information from suspects is torture. It's either torture or nothing. There seems to be no concept of putting together a case, of having to gather evidence. Is it because of shows like 24?

They're reshowing the very first series of 24 over here now, and it's scary how much of it prefigures the present situation: Jack Bauer routinely tortures suspects for information; CTU has access to all surveillance data, satellite and CCTV; and the US military is running a secret prison network.

Of course, Bauer <i>has</i> to use torture: since 24 supposedly runs in realtime, the script-writers can't waste screentime with Bauer getting to know a suspect, trying to draw him out, showing him contradictions in his statements, etc, until the suspect blabs. No, he has to have the information <i>right now,</i> before the commercial break, and the myth of torture is the handy televisual shorthand to getting it.

I suppose the dichotomy has always been in the media. Spy stories have the same split: on the one hand, Ian Fleming's James Bond has his televisual moments when he has to beat the truth out of a bad guy (though he also sneaks around, eavesdropping, not to mention honey-trapping vulnerable female agents); and on the other, we have John Le Carre's George Smiley, who ambles into an interrogation room, flicks through a thick file, clucks his tongue, polishes his glasses, thinks a bit, and asks a deceptively simple question which totally disarms the interrogatee.

Mmm, it's late, and I think I've lost my point. I'll come back in the morning....

#28926: — 06/18  at  12:15 AM
NelC, Salon had a good article about 24 Hours, and the use of torture in that series - it can be found <a href=http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2005/05/16/24/index.html">here</a>.

#28934: — 06/18  at  05:08 AM
Some people didnt get it. Powerline stated that the military was reduced to unorthodox, exotic, inefficient interrogation methods because back home, pansy liberals had made illegal the use of Inquisition-like torture chambers. This is nonsense, because a rapid search would have informed them that physical torture would have been in the Abu Ghraib framework, the least effective of the interrogation techniques, since religious fanatics come mentally prepared and physically ready for glorious martyrdom. What they are not prepared for is to be physycally degraded, made fun of by impure "whores", in front of their fellow holy fighters. Israel may have used similar methods to obtain information from Mustafa Dirani, a leader of the Lebanese Amal militia, about the whereabouts of MIA navigator Ron Arad. It became known that during interrogation, "George" - a Christian Arab in the Israeli Security - had relations with Dirani. Dirani said he was raped, others say it seemed love. Mr Dirani has become the laughingstock of the Arab world, a fate worse than death. In my opinion, in Abu Ghraib they were using the best techniques available, American military always does.

#28943: — 06/18  at  10:32 AM
Krisjan, your 58: the U.S. did sign the treaties -- I assume here you mean the Geneva and earlier conventions -- but that has NEVER protected our soldiers (and usually also not even our civilians) from torture, murder.

We should all be very, very clear about this. It has NOTHING to do with whether this or that interrogation technique is effective, or what the U.S. Consitution or laws may say etc.

Anyone who brings the Geneva Convention into the discussion just hasn't been paying attention.

#28948: — 06/18  at  11:19 AM
<blockquopte>Krisjan, your 58: the U.S. did sign the treaties -- I assume here you mean the Geneva and earlier conventions -- but that has NEVER protected our soldiers (and usually also not even our civilians) from torture, murder.</blockquote>

Harry, as the Geneva conventions only apply towards other countries that has signed them, it does indeed protect US soldiers against torture etc. If the US hadn't signed it, no country would have any obligations towards US soldiers when taken POW.

And the Geneva convetions has quite a lot to do with the torture - the Geneva conventions explicitly forbits torture of POWs and civilians - and even if you want to consider these people terrorists, the Geneva conventions explicitly states that they should have their case evaluated, to decide whether they are POWs or not.

Torture would be wrong, no matter what, but the US has signed treaties that states they are not allowed to do so (yes, Iraq and Afghanistan has signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions).

#28960: — 06/18  at  01:31 PM

Torture would be wrong, no matter what, but the US has signed treaties that states they are not allowed to do so (yes, Iraq and Afghanistan has signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions).

Kristjan, Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed regular army personnel carrying identification, not against irregulars from various nationalities fighting against the national army carrying out the orders of a democratically elected government, like in Irak and Afganistan. Anyway, the Geneva Convention could be extended to cover irregulars, should they fight following internationally accepted laws, and not aiming at innocent civilians or trading foreign hostages for money (that was the background of the liberation of the Japanese and Italian aid worker hostages). That is not legitimate warfare but terrorism + crime. Torture would still be wrong, no matter what.

#28993: — 06/18  at  09:40 PM
Krisjan, I am not interested, for the moment, in the morality or otherwise of torture etc.

I am merely stating a fact: The Geneva Convention has NEVER protected US prisoners. The history of US prisoners since the convention was written is a series of death marches, murders, tortures.

To argue that the US should follow the convention because doing so will protect US prisoners in return is stupid. It doesn't work that way.

The ONLY thing that protects prisoners is the fear of retaliation against prisoners of the other side.

If the other side either doesn't have any imprisoned hostages (which is what they are) or doesn't care what happens to them (always the case in Asia), then the convention is a dead letter.

#29000: — 06/18  at  11:36 PM

I am merely stating a fact: The Geneva Convention has NEVER protected US prisoners. The history of US prisoners since the convention was written is a series of death marches, murders, tortures.

Harry, read this article. There, a former Vietnam POW argues that even though North Vietnam didn't abide by the Geneve Conventions, the existence of them, combined with international pressure, was a safeguard against the worst attrocities.
So, a person who actually has been held prisoner, says that the Geneva Conventions protected him - you know what, I'll take his words for it, over than yours.

Pete Peterson, who wrote the article, also explais why he is appaled at the US administration using the argument that the prisoners are not POW, but crimminals, as this is the very same argument the North Vietnamese used about the Americans.

#29001: — 06/19  at  02:16 AM
Harry Eagar is perfectly correct:

If the other side either doesn't have any imprisoned hostages (which is what they are) or doesn't care what happens to them (always the case in Asia), then the convention is a dead letter.

As we have demonstrated in abu Ghraib and Bagram: they don't have any of our guys, so the gloves are off.

#29009: Chris Clarke — 06/19  at  08:09 AM
If the other side either doesn't have any imprisoned hostages (which is what they are) or doesn't care what happens to them (always the case in Asia),

Ah, yes. I recall that scene from Hearts and Minds where William Westmoreland, sitting in his comfy chair, said "The Asian mind places a far lower premium on individual life than does the Western mind."

This was followed by about a minute-and-a-half-long shot of a small Vietnamese boy at his father's open grave, weeping and wailing inconsolably.

Harry, I speak here on behalf of my in-laws, each one of whom - despite being from Asia - routinely shows a much greater respect for others' lives than I have ever witnessed in your comments: fuck you.

#29028: — 06/19  at  12:53 PM
And I speak as someone whose father, after sinking a Japanese destroyer off Iwo Jima, tried to save 300 men in the water. They preferred to drown.

A few weeks later, he took the surrender of a garrison on a small island, keeping the commander's samurai sword. I remember taking it out, as a small boy, and looking at the blood still on the blade, from the necks of Australian POWs who had had their heads chopped off.

My sister once asked Dad, 'Why did he give you the sword?'

Dad's answer: 'He wanted us to be nice to him.'

Then there was Korea, where GIs had their hands tied behind their backs with wire and were shot in the head.

The US prisoners of the Vietnamese were kept alive, barely, because they were valuable negotiating chips. Not by the Geneva Convention, despite what Peterson may believe.

The explosion, today, of several suicide bombers in Iraq, of course, demonstrates the equal value that Asians put on human life compared with other peoples. Conflict is as savage on other continents as in Asia, but suicide bombers are almost never found anywhere but Asia. Yet they are found all over Asia.

Why is that?

#29061: — 06/19  at  10:30 PM
@ Kristjan Wager
Don't make things up - you are wrong! (next time try to get something correct - like say the correct article of the treaty that defines a prisoner of war) The folks we captured are not entitled to the treaty rights, as POWs, of the Geneva Convention - the relevant part is below:

ARTICLE 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art3

The terrorist/enemy combatants captured DO NOT fit this description

I asked for our fellow readers to "assume" all were so that I didn't have to right an explanation and argue back and forth everytime I wrote the word terrorist - it makes posting a lot easier but if you would like to argue of what a terrorist is, I am game for that too.

And even if there might be legitimate reasons why a specific person should be locked away for life, why can't it be handled by the normal court systems?

Because these are not normal criminals (and you make a point about them in your posting). We live in a country of laws - the enemy combatant prisoners do not qualify, because of their status, for protection under these laws. Criminals get trials - enemy combatants captured during wartime get military prison camps for the duration of the war (if necessary). Again, the ones we have captured are not, by definition, POWs.

given the fact that some have been released as undangerous, it would seem like that not even the US military believe they all are terrorists.

Alternatively, we could keep them all in prison since some released prisoners have been recaptured on the battlefield. And the US military hasn't said that the released weren't terrorists, -

"Col. James Yonts, the U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the 53 were 'low-level combatants' who committed hostile acts against civilians, Afghan forces and U.S.-led coalition forces. 'These individuals were found no longer a threat to anyone,' he told reporters in Kabul."
(search and you will find this in a press release)

So in addition to terrorists, the US is holding enemy combatants which according the the Geneva Convention, it can hold until the end of the conflict. They are lucky to be let go during wartime - and unfortunately we are lucky enough to have ~7-8% of the released "innocents" - combatants who committed hostile acts against civilians - back fighting for the Taliban against US troops (computed from #s released and #s found back on the battlefield - probably higher since we surely haven't caught all of them again).

Amnesty international (and other unnamed organizations according to you) raised a cry about prison rape - where is your outrage? Where is the world outrage? The outrage from the Muslim world? The outrage from the Bible literalists who preach man lying with man results in eternal damnation? Where are the lefties and the Civil Rights folks? You seem to think it is ok for one man to rape another in a US prison since there "clearly" is a difference between that and other forms of torture. The issue is whether so-called torture is bad only because it is happening and makes W look like an idiot or is it bad because it is torture. If it is bad because it is torture, then all torture should be bad and I question why you aren't out protesting in front of a max security prison against it. All I hear from you is spewing about how bad the USA is b/c of alleged torture at prison camps for captured terrorists and combatants (not POWs). If you don't answer anything or respond emotionally instead of critically to all else - answer here. What are you going to do about torture in US prisons? Put a new bumper sticker on your car next to your "Support The Troops Bring Them Home" tag? Are you posting on prisoner rights blogs? Are you writing your Rep or Senators to put an end once and for all to all prisons b/c abuses occur in them? Tell me what you have done and what your strategy is to stop the abuse - or are you doing nothing because there "clearly" is a difference? No one cares about common criminals b/c it doesn't make good press - but its ok to jump on the I hate the Right bandwagon b/c of terrorist abuse and that does get tons of press. (Personally, I don't hate the right, I merely disapprove of a lot of its policy initiatives)


As for real torture, one need only look at what the USMC found yesterday in Iraq - a literal real life torture chamber. (no this doesn't make any bad actions by a US soldiers any better but it does show what real torture is - I am sure those folks would trade loud music and cold cells for the beatings and electricutions)

One last note (and I steal this analytical theory from another blogger): When you speak of the captured soldier in Vietnam and how he was kept alive b/c of the Geneva Convention - I must add that the plural of anecdote is not data. The US is honorable for trying to follow the letter of the law in regards to the Geneva Convention, while most other countries flaunt the rules to their advantage (and our disadvantage). The reason the recent failings of some US soldiers is world wide news and such an outcry has been raised is b/c we hold ourselves to such a high standard and any fall from grace is fodder for the mAsses.

#29067: — 06/20  at  12:17 AM
Observer, I notice that you don't include Article 5:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

This would include the so called illegal enemy combatants. If there is no doubt whether they are POWs, but rather that they are civilians engaged in terrrorist actions, the Geneva Conventions IV would step into effect - the relevant paragraphs are:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
...
Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict
...
Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.</blocquote>

Emphasis added. So torture is illigal towards all prisoners, no matter their status. Also, the so called "illegal enemy combatants" should have their status determined by a "competent tribunal". As, I said, the prisoners are entitled to certain rights under the Geneva conventions III and IV, not necessarily the same rights as POWs or civilians, but nevertheless they still have rights.

So, observer, before you start saying to other people they are wrong, try to actually read the full conventions, and not just the parts that support your opinions.

<blockquote>The US is honorable for trying to follow the letter of the law in regards to the Geneva Convention, while most other countries flaunt the rules to their advantage (and our disadvantage). The reason the recent failings of some US soldiers is world wide news and such an outcry has been raised is b/c we hold ourselves to such a high standard and any fall from grace is fodder for the mAsses.

The individual soldier might do so honourbly, but the >US armed forced as a whole doesn't, as they rutinely break the conventions, as I have just shown. I have stated earlier how Denmark reacted when allegations of torture arose, so I'll just say that I'm not too impressed by the "high standard" the US forces are held to.