US Violated Geneva Convention
source: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22738.htm
-
-
- Highr0ller [removed]
- added this
3 Minute Video and Transcript
"When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized"
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22738.htm
Gen. Petraeus : US Violated Geneva Convention
3 Minute Video and Transcript
"When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized"
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22738.htm
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Politics, Green, 9 more
-
- tags:
- News, News and Politics, Politics, Not News, 71 more
-
- recommended by:
- Vierotchka
-
-
clownpuncher
-
Love the way the title twists the story....very liberal way of doing things.
- 2 years ago
-
clownpuncher
-
-
Highr0ller [removed]
-
"My urgent advice to you would be, not only always to think first of America, but always, also, to think first of humanity. You do not love humanity if you seek to divide humanity into jealous camps. Humanity can be welded together only by love, by sympathy, by justice, not by jealousy and hatred. I am sorry for the man who seeks to make personal capital out of the passions of his fellowmen. He has lost touch with the ideal of America. " President Woodrow Wilson; To Americans of Foreign Birth, 1915
- 2 years ago
-
Highr0ller [removed]
-
-
cztheday
-
Well, the obvious difference is when someone of General Patraeus' current rank, status, stature and reputation says so. Ted Kennedy saying so 100 times is not as significant as this guy, in his position, saying it once.
I am not particularly familiar with this area of international law -- but I guess I can find it pretty quickly -- I was just thinking about that phrase "US guilty of..." I don't recall the findings after WWII being that "Germany" was guilty of violating the Geneva Convention. I thought they focused such charges on the people actually giving the orders and acting on those illegal orders. I am going to be miffed if I have to serve time for violating the Geneva Convention, considering how I have felt about our "War Against Terrorism" all the way along...
When in doubt, either declare war on it (usually by dropping a bomb on it from about 5 miles away) or throw money at it until it goes away...it's the American way...
- 2 years ago
-
cztheday
-
-
Vierotchka
-
That's nothing new - the US violated the Geneva Conventions in the Korean War, in Viet Nam, in Grenada, in Panama, in Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. Double standards.
- 2 years ago
-
Vierotchka
-
-
clownpuncher
-
Vierotchka:
awwww, please dont lose sleep over it....poor thing, all worried about what the US does.
- 2 years ago
-
clownpuncher
-
-
Vierotchka
-
Vierotchka:
You ought to be worried about what the US does and has been doing, payback is on its way.
- 2 years ago
-
Vierotchka
-
-
Maeveeo
-
When you violate someones life by taking it away ,
ALL BETS ( even the GENEVA CONVENTIONS ) ARE OFF & Your Gonna Get Smoked ! So don't even try to mention that ! - 2 years ago
-
Maeveeo
-
-
Vierotchka
-
Maeveeo:
Insane.
- 2 years ago
-
Vierotchka
-
-
r3sidual
-
Maeveeo:
To Maeveeo:
Are you saying that once someone takes a life in any form or fashion that it is okay to enact vengeance?
Do you also mean that if someone did not directly kill another, but they supported the country, regime or group that did kill someone that they have forfeited their lives as well?
If your answer is yes then how do you define "support" because many groups find it fair game to kill or maim U.S. citizens for the same reason.
After decades of violence how would you determine "who started it"? Is there some international statute of limitations that groups/countries have to abide by?
In sports we penalize people who violate the rules. As Vierotchka mentions. The U.S has violated international rules numerous times, so how should we or others react?
- 2 years ago
-
r3sidual
-
-
unclecharlie
-
So what? Those terrorists who killed thousands of Americans in those attacks violated their victim's fundamental right to life. No tears from me regarding those Taliban killers.
- 2 years ago
-
unclecharlie
-
-
Highr0ller [removed]
-
unclecharlie:
brainwashed.
- 2 years ago
-
Highr0ller [removed]
-
-
jazzyjackson
-
unclecharlie:
If they are terrorists, we should have no problem prosecuting them - there are plenty of conspiracy and terrorism laws available to send anyone who had plans to attack America to prison for life.
Fact is, being a part of a political group should not be grounds to have every right stripped as you're locked away. Yes, the taliban is responsible for heinous acts against humanity, but not everyone who aligns themself with the Taliban is about to put a bomb vest on.
A taliban killer deserves no sympathy - but people who's only crime is trusting a hardline islamic group more than an invading US force should have, if nothing else, access to the basic rights outlined in our judicial system, not this secret prison bullshit.
- 2 years ago
-
jazzyjackson
-
-
Highr0ller [removed]
-
Transcript:
MACCALLUM: Let’s talk a little bit about Gitmo and what to do you know, as the president gets ready to close Gitmo. Where do you think those people should go?
PETRAEUS: Well it is not for a soldier to say. What I do support is what has been termed I think a “responsible closure” of Gitmo. Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard. Having said that I also do not want to see those individuals back on the streets, trying to reactivate networks to return to leadership in some of these networks.
MACCALLUM: What about the concern, having been so involved in all of this, that KSM or anybody of that ilk might be tried here in a u.s. court and the possibility because of some of the treatments they were used on them, they could go free?
PETRAEUS: Well first of all I don’t think we should be afraid to live our values. That is what we’re fighting for and it’s what we stand for. So indeed, we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battlefield and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think, in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in courts of law.
MACCALLUM: So you’re confident that those people will never go free?
PETRAEUS: I certainly hope that is the case yeah.
MACCALLUM: The former vice president has talked about waterboarding, which I know you’ve spoken against. He says it was only used on three people and that he believes it has saved lives.
PETRAEUS: Well my thoughts are that it is time to quit arguing about the past, probably, take the rearview mirrors off this bus in look to the future. And again if you start with the concept that we ought to live our values that is exactly what we should do as we move forward.
MACCALLUM: The argument for having the discussion now is there is always the possibility that a suspect could be in custody and an attack could be imminent.
PETRAEUS: Well I mean that’s always the debate — the doomsday scenario. I would be happy to leave that again with our judicial system to determine whether there might be an exception that would require extraordinary but very rapid approval to deal with.
But for the vast majority of the cases, our experience downrange, if you will, is that techniques that are in the army field manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them, those techniques work. That is our experience in this business.
MACCALLUM: So is sending this signal that we’re not going to use the techniques anymore, what impact will that have on those who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
See also: The Former Head of Abu Ghraib, Admits She Broke the Geneva Conventions:
Says the Blame "Goes All the Way to The Top”
"We all knew it was contrary to the Geneva Conventions. And we were told that this – these instructions were being given by Secretary Rumsfeld"
- 2 years ago
-
Highr0ller [removed]
-
-
r3sidual
-
Highr0ller:
If this administration is able to do some damage control in regards to how others view the U.S., what is to stop the next 'Bush' from being an autocratic ruler and putting us back in the same situation?
A large majority of people think the US should be in Afghanistan but virtually no one is happy with the misguided war in Iraq. Well, maybe Exxon and Cheney are pleased but regular people aren't.
If others follow the Hammurabi Code (eye for an eye) like UncleCharlie and Maeveeo support, then how will the US defend itself for the 1.3 million Iraqi deaths it caused?
- 2 years ago
-
r3sidual
-
-
Vierotchka
-
Highr0ller:
The war on Afghanistan was just as illegal and aggressive as the war on Iraq - it was planned for mid-October 2001, prepared, and ready to go BEFORE 9/11. Without 9/11, the American people would never have approved such a war, hence 9/11.
- 2 years ago
-
Vierotchka