Double Standards- U.S. and the Geneva Convention

[promethius9594]

illumina, i think you have confused what timber meant, as it is a reproduction of a section from master Sun Tzu's "the art of war."

i think, although timber can correct me if i'm wrong, that the idea is that the form of the military is always unconstant and that this too shall pass.

[Dreamer128]

US magazine reports: Rumsfeld approved interrogation methods

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersch has reported in US magazine The New Yorker that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave his approval for the controversial interrogation methods used in Iraq. A special access programme, known as a SAP, was believed to have been developed for interrogating al-Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan, now it is being used in Iraq with the Defence Secretary's approval.

Mr Hersch reports that according to intelligence sources the programme included physical coercion and sexual humiliation of prisoners in order to gain more information from them. He concludes that the abuses committed at the Abu Ghraib prison were not isolated incidents, but the result of instructions handed down from the Pentagon.

Seymour Hersch is a renowned veteran journalist. He was reported on the bloodbath committed by US troops in My Lai in 1968 during the Vietnam War.

(Rnw.nl)

[Faceman]

Originally posted by promethius9594: um, i would like to point out, for those who decry the government with shouts of "we cant stoop to their level" that we have not yet come remotely close to stooping that low... i wonder how the world would react if we made videos of cutting of a detainees head? or what if we skinned them and then hung their burned skinned bodies from a bridge? stooped to their level? i think not...

This is not a contest for being the good guys. It's about giving up what you're fighting for in the course of the fight.
This is not a relative but an absolute issue. It's not about being "unfair" to the "combatants" in Guantanamo, it's about betraying your principles and the principles you're fighting for.

[Black Baron]

Illumina-the difference between us and them is that we know that what we do is wrong but necessary. They think that it is fine.

We fight not for human rights (No one in the world cares about them) but merely for our personal safety. A country that traines terrorists endangers us. "Human rights" are never taken into a consideration.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

We know what we do is wrong, but necessary? No one in the world cares about human rights? Are you joking? This war is continuing on the basis of morals and giving Iraqis a bright new future. And if a country that trains terrorists endangers us, then I'm sure you're all for getting out of Iraq and declaring war on our ally so-called, Saudi Arabia.

[Timber Loftis]

Illumina, as Promethius pointed out, I was quoting Sun Tzu. And, to answer your question, if it takes it to guarantee our survival/safety, it may be necessary to "sink" to whatever levels. When it comes down to winning vs. losing, winning is the goal, and all other goals are secondary goals, luxuries that it would be nice to achieve, but which mean nothing in the face of losing.

My point, though is that for every maxim, there is an equal and opposite re-maxim.

Here's some more Sun Tzu, see if you grok its relevance (from Thomas Cleary's translation):

"Military action is important to the nation -- it is the ground of death and life, the path of survuval and destruction, so it is imperative to examine it."

"A military operation has no standard form -- it goes by way of deception."

"Without deception you cannot carry out strategy, without strategy you cannot control the opponent."

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersch has reported in US magazine The New Yorker that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave his approval for the controversial interrogation methods used in Iraq.

And the Pentagon vehemently denies the allegation. Let's hope the falsehood of these allegations are shown, and that this author gets shown to the same retirement home they send Mirror editors to.

[ 05-16-2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Black Baron]

Of course every one cares! How can i forget the "marvelous" care for tutsi. Or for example every one acts firmly against human rights anahilation in iran, syria and other countries belonging to that ilk. To say-"i care" is one thing. To act is quite another. Humankind is lazy. If the average human (and that is the majority) will have to actually rise from his comfty chair, move several hundreds of meters, donate more than 100 $ and participate, he will not do it . period.

To tell you the truth, i care a lot about the situation of honolulu cabbages. I really want them to be cheap and tasty. However- Since that i do not do anything to affect the situation, it does not count.

I think that when someone cares about human rights he should do something about it and on more regular and serious basis than sending 12 $ per year to Amnesty International ( free 100% Stupidity ) LTD.

Why do not we see demonstrations about "human rights in syria"? I do not ask much. let's say 100000 people each month in different places. That is an easy thing to do in a state like USA, for people that care.
Most people however do not care, so they do nothing.

Exceptions naturally exist.

[ 05-17-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Black Baron ]

[Black Baron]

Now about morals. Morality is something that is defined by a group of people. Eating your fellows is not moral. Cannibals have another moral, to them eating their comrades is 100% ok. So when we say-a war between morals, we mean: a war between 2 worlds. As such we try to force our moral on them. The ones that do not accept it, are killed or confined. Clearly there are no free cannibals in the USA that people know of. Any ideology with such hard and unflexible borders (moral) during war will seek to utterly destroy the opposite ideology.
Your ideology comes from an already determined set of believes and values that are comfortable and acceptable to you . Their ideology is also predetermined. When you see someone with different morale it makes you uncomfortable and you would like to change that. Here we arrive to conclusion that a "war of morals" is merely a war of "what is more comfortable".


By the way- i am also all for a war on :syria, iran and saudi arabia .
There are our enemies. Alas we do not rule the world (despite to the common belief in those states). If USA president will show some brains he will invade iran-syria and saudia in that order.

[ 05-16-2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Black Baron ]

[Timber Loftis]

Interesting to see you juxtapose a moral discussion with the advice to invade Iran and Syria. So long as they adhere to proper governmental function and fairness, I cannot see such an invasion as morally justified.

[Black Baron]

They breed and train terrorists. Iran funds hizballah, hamas and islamic jihad. Iran makes atempts to obtain an A-Bomb. More than enough reasons for me.