Wives say sergeants are heroes, not criminals

The notion that a war can be fought under the Geneva convention assumes that all participants agree to them. This wasn't the case in WWII and it never has been before or since. In my mind, as a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan (I was in the navy from 2000 to 2006), war should be the very last option. If we go to war, it must be fully recognized by all aspects of our society. Industry and commerce must stop all production except for the war effort, a fair universal draft must be employed, every option must be made to the war effort. Our entire life must be placed on hold until victory, clearly defined from the onset, is reached. If these conditions are not palatable by the public, if the cost are deemed too high...then we don't go to war. This bullshit of trying to fight on the cheap, limiting the overall cost and workload to a small fraction of our society is insane.

Now if we do deem these cost to be worth it...then it must be a total war. The Allies did some horrific things to defeat the Axis powers...things that total would be deemed war crimes. But to look at the things that the Germans did to none Germans or those they deemed expendable, and the horrific things that the Japanese did to the people they invaded, I am hard press not justifying what we and our allies did. Furthermore, we didn't just invade, kill a bunch of leaders, and then got the hell out of Dodge. We rebuilt Europe and Japan, forcing drastic social and political changes to ensure that the mess after WWI didn't repeat itself.

I am not in any fashion advocating total war in Iraq or Afghanistan. What I am trying to express is that our current mindset and battle plan is completely insane and based on a childish, Hollywood inspired notion of what war is supposed to be. War isn't something that should ever be done half ass or made on a snap judgment.

Geneva convention does not exist, never has, never will

war is chaos. neither praising nor damning but when it comes down to it the only rule that won't be broken is the rule of the jungle.

Yeah and the family of a mass murder will swear he/she was a great guy who would never harm a fly. I say charge them, sentence them and let them rot.

"Given that fact, I would have killed the insurgents also. I just would have found a better way to do it. "

u love setting in the comfort of your living room throwing out platitudes dont u curtis...

you would shit in your pants if an insurgent came within 50 ft of u....

just stfu already.

Sarcasm to follow:

[Just think, if the Vietcong hadn't spared the life of John McCain, who knows where are our great country would be right now. Obviously they had some kind of decency to keep him in a tiger's cage, so he could become a great influencial senator and eventually run for president like god wanted.

Surely they didn't just keep him alive due to the fact that they could potentially ransom him back to us after they found out about his heritage.]

But seriously, this is why we can't fight wars on the ground anymore. Where is that tageted satalite laser beam that just turns people to dust when you need it.

"Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.

When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.

Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught. "

The Bush administration looked into the rules on torture and found loopholes. You can interrogate prisoners and even apply pressures but they are not supposed to feel physical pain or believe they are going to die. The interrogators found ways of getting around that. The had doctors and psychologists present, informed them thaty would be subjected to uncomfortable situations but would not die, and allegedly by the definition of what was torture, they side stepped it. So they extracted info that saved lives and helped capture terrorists and dismantle the apparus without having to kill them. I think that's worthy of commendation, not punishment.

I personally think Cheney was right that the Geneva convention is "Quaint" and not much more. Times have changed, we're at war with organizations that are not signatories to the convention and do not observe it, so we should not be held to observe it either.

You should read this article:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268
"Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs. "

My son is an officer in the military, having worked his way up from enlisted. He's seen plenty of this war. He's told of the ridiculous restrictions they have put on our troops, that their hands are tied. They are sent to do a job yet they are bound by ridiculous rules that only apply to them. The Geneva convention rules are not for anyone except western troops. The insurgents couldn't care less what the Geneva convention says.

I agree that the troops violated the convention. But I also know that they have been
ordered to do a job and then restricted to the point that it's impossible for them. I wonder how many times they have dealt with these same insurgents? If the same person kept breaking into my house and trying to kill me and the cops kept letting him go, I think I'd be pretty tempted to take matters into my own hands, too.

I don't think this issue is a clear cut as the article implies. I know during WW II it was pretty much a given that if you released an enemy soldier he'd probably be on the line the next day taking shots at you. To that end, many who were taken prisoner were simply shot rather than sent to prison camps and the military didn't ask questions.

However, there we also cases like the Mi Lai Massacre where civlians were shot because there was a "suspicion" they were Viet Cong. An article I read on this incident said that the soldiers had been shot at, entered a house and found four Iraqi men and a small arms weapons cache. Unfortunately it doesn't if the soldiers knew for certain that the shooting was coming from the house. Finding a weapons cache isn't proof because many Iraqis kept weapons for self defense.

Still based on what I read, the evidence that was required to hold a possible insurgent as a prisoner was excessive, unrealistic and maybe impossible to obtain (it required two statements from IRAQIS to support a soldiers claim that whoever was caught was an insurgent. A soldiers statement wasn't enough to hold anyone).
Based on this I can understand their frustration. The real issue here is if they knew for certain that the shots were being fired from the house where they found the men. If they were sure I can understand their actions. If not, then I believe they over reacted in an extremely tense situation.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to claim they are heros like their wives do, but similarly I would also hesitate to call them murders. The only thing for certain is that they were human beings who were placed in a terrible predicament by an arrogant Administration that didn't have a clue what they were getting into.

The Jihadi insurgents could give a shit less about the rules of the Geneva convention, never have, never will. They hunger to kill and die for the cause of Islam....we should accommodate them without restraint or remorse.

The Geneva convention also prohibits torture of prisoners does it not?

If that is the case then we already violated the Geneva convention, and not for much. Torture does not get accurate information and creates more hostility towards those who torture.

Another thing I am curious about is under what reasoning would the insurgents have been released? Is there not enough room for he keep the insurgents imprisoned? Was there no solid evidence that these people were insurgents? Why would insurgents who were captured while trying to kill United States troops be released? There has to be some excuse, if not a reason.