It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. ARMY to Delete Geneva Protocols

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Sorry, maybe I did go a little to far on that one. But it's all I could come up with on such short notice that would stress how strongly I feel about this.




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Not even on the same page.


No question, but it does not take a genius to see what direction the wind is blowing... Let's remember the path that brought the Nazis to their depravity...It too did not happen overnight. Similar steps, however premature, are being pressed here.

Most Germans failed to recognize the peril of their times. I wonder if we are not doing the same? Would you have recognized the Nazis for what they were at the time of their ascension to power...as a German? I think not. The success of many a tyrant has been in the ability to fool the people into believing that they act in our best interests... That is the logic the Pentagon wishes to deploy now, and I will have no part of it... The United States is better than this!


[edit on 6-6-2006 by loam]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
you cannot fight a war, with one arm and leg tied behind your back against people that use ANY means necceasry to destroy you or your way of life.

now with that said...

I am seeing a growing trend of things I never dream were possible for the US to do.....

the #1 thing that shocked me, that I never thought Id see was the use of white phosphorous as almost a chemical weapon....and the very little outrage from this.

and this just adds to the list of things Im seeing that are shocking me in the US.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
I find this action by the US Army shameful and deplorable. The Geneva Protocols are there to prevent the inhumane treatment of any prisoner of war not to mention, the countless civilians caught in the crossfire. I tend to think that with this endeavor, that would prevent any future legal actions against the United States in the Hague--even though everyone one knows that some of the Marines have been found to shoot down un-armed Iraqi civilians--a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Civilians during times of war.

So, I see this as a measure to cover themselves if other things end up violently and horrendously--which I know will happen as the stories trickle out.

After all, Americans don't want to know that they belong to a country that avidly supports and participates in war crimes against other countries, do they?




[edit on 6-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Wow - I am kind of surprised at the number of people who AGREE with this new Subtraction of Geneva Protocols. I see they actually have no problem with that at all. Now, let me check why were Geneva Conventions actually Written, to refreshn our minds, mmmkey?


Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns.

So - lets do a little Subtraction of ourselves, shall we?

IF Geneva Conventions were written to set Standards for International Law for Humanitarian concernes - they THOSE who WISH to IGNORE it, do not bow to ANY International LAW and have NO HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS AT ALL.

Are things so far Clear?

Are you following me?

So - the Great, Democratic, Fantastic, Super-Dooper US Army DELETES Geneva Conventions from their Books, Manuals and other "Paper Work" nobody wants to read in the first place. What exactly does that action make them then? Are they still representing Democracy, Freedom AND Justice for ALL? How can they represent JUSTICE for ALL, if they do not show any Justice according to International Law and that "Other Stuff" like Humanitarian Concerns? Yes, let's just REWRITE this little unimportant Laws and Conventions and make them work for US instead US working for THEM!

That should Work!

N O T !

Aphorism 146 by Friedrich Nietzsche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you!"



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
we supposed to be different, we supposed to be the "shining city on a hill" we supposed to live our morals we supposed to be a beacon of hope we supposed to do the right thing what the others do be damned....one more bit of our ideal pawned by people who only care about the reteroric. G. Bush and his administration far from upholdig american ideals, represent the failed soul of our country. I mourn.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I find this action by the US Army shameful and deplorable. The Geneva Protocols are there to prevent the inhumane treatment of any prisoner of war not to mention, the countless civilians caught in the crossfire.
[edit on 6-6-2006 by ceci2006]


I'm sure you all know this but I'm going to state the obvious anyway. These decisiions are being made by people far away from the front lines, some who have never served in the military. Some of those in the military making these high level decisions have never seen combat.

The poor shmos on the front lines, the combat vets on their third and some fourth (is it even more at this point?) tour of duty are the ones who will pay the price. This will effect them more than anything else because it's the foot soldier who suffers. And I'm not talking about what happens if they get captured I'm talking about the psychological damage something like this could have on troop morale.

The gloves are off, uncertainty is in the air, the enemy knows you're now fighting like them...you were nervous before but now it's all about getting them before they get you, shoot first ask questions later. Because you can't afford to be taken alive and you certainly don't want to die so if you have to level a city block with heavy artilary...so be it. All this will do is escalate the kill ratio in all combat situations. Not a good idea.

This (if heaven help us they remove these conventions) is supposed to help the "intelligence community" and that is usually and most certainly in this case in direct conflict with what is best for the ground troops.

IMO of course.

SPiderj



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
It will be interesting to read the revised rules, when they are made public. But, while I am against torture, I agree that "humiliation" can be broadly defined, to a detainees advantage. From the base article:


Many intelligence soldiers consider questioning the manhood of male prisoners to be an effective and humane technique. Suggesting to a suspected insurgent that he is "not man enough" to have set an improvised explosive device sometimes elicits a full description of how they emplaced the bomb, soldiers say.

The Pentagon worries that if Article 3 were incorporated in the directive, detainees could use it to argue in U.S. courts that such techniques violate their personal dignity.

"Who is to say what is humiliating for Sheikh Abdullah or Sheikh Muhammad?" the second official asked. "If you punch the buttons of a Muslim male, are you at odds with the Geneva Convention?"



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
We cannot on one hand condemn terrorism, and on the other justify merely "less terrible" tactics by using terror as an example of how we could be even worse. Are we to say, essentially, that what is ethical is now measured relative to the actions of terrorists, rather than relative to our own ethics and standards?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
In case you haven't been paying attention, in this war, "others" cut off our heads when they catch us. I can't wait until they "treat us the same." You?


You must understand the context of these actions and why they take place. First of all the common feeling throughout the Islamic world is one of humiliation when ever the west is involved. We do very little to alter that feeling. Situations like Abu Grahib is all about humiliation. Until we can get past this feeling of humiliation, and attempt to elevate the common feeling throughout the region as that they are not being subjugated, we are not going to make any head way.

Now, if you analyze the beheadings that we have seen you will notice a common thread through them. The victims have been dressed in orange coveralls, just like the detainees (nee prisoners) at Guitmo. The captors have gone out of their way to get similar clothing to make their point. One of the most humiliating things that can be done to you is to publicly lose your head. The decapitation and placement of the head back on the corpse is a symbol of the humilation the terrorists are attempting to make the west feel. The motivations and actions are symbolic.

As long as we do not hold our government and military accountable for observing international treaties and accords, we are only feeding the fires that keep the Islamist machine rolling. The ignorance on the part of the military and the administration is very disturbing and leads me to believe they are incapable of drafting reasonable responses to the threat posed by terrorism, nor capable of dealing with them in a productive fashion.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Fun fact: did you know that even Nazi Germany recognized the Geneva convention?
Sorry but it's a bad sign when you are doing something even the Nazis wouldn't do.


Fun fact more like made up fact. The Nazis broke the Geneva convention so many times with Soviet POWs its not even funny.

In a mere eight months of 1941-42, the invading German armies killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet prisoners-of-war through starvation, exposure, and summary execution.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]


The german troops were dying of starvation on the easten front they coulden't actualy provide food or shelter. Hittler did treat US and UK POW's well.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
This all boils down to the fundamental principals that help us to differentiate between "Good-guys" and "Bad-guys", aside from where we hang our hats.

A "Bad-guy" will fight by any means necessary, morality be damned, to win a conflict.

A "Good-guy" will fight within the bounderies of sound ethics and still be victor because the good-guy is supposed to win, right?

Emotions, Economics, and national pride aside, it doesn't make for a very fair fight.

However, IMO, when we equate our passion for doing what is right, and our economic might, and also the deeply ingrained national character we share as Americans....

We can win this fight and still stay the "good-guys."

Right?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
my understanding is that the US Army is just following the lead of AQ and the insurgency in Iraq as to how to properly treat the Geneva Convention. Sounds good to me.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
You must understand the context of these actions and why they take place.
:
One of the most humiliating things that can be done to you is to publicly lose your head. The decapitation and placement of the head back on the corpse is a symbol of the humilation the terrorists are attempting to make the west feel. The motivations and actions are symbolic.

Someone can walk away from the humiliation of being threatened by a snarling dog. It is impossible to walk away from a beheading.


As long as we do not hold our government and military accountable for observing international treaties and accords, we are only feeding the fires that keep the Islamist machine rolling. The ignorance on the part of the military and the administration is very disturbing and leads me to believe they are incapable of drafting reasonable responses to the threat posed by terrorism, nor capable of dealing with them in a productive fashion.

Is it too unreasonable to expect them to draft reasonable responses also?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Jsobecky,
Are you seriously trying to argue that torture is okay??? I can not believe that anyone can condone this type of behaver.
Plus to dehumanize and humiliate people only adds justification to their cause, by making us as evil as they say we are. We can be better then them by acting better then them. You are what you do.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Jsobecky,
Are you seriously trying to argue that torture is okay??? I can not believe that anyone can condone this type of behaver.

This is another reason why participating on this board is so frustrating.

Did you happen to read where I wrote

It will be interesting to read the revised rules, when they are made public. But, while I am against torture, I agree that "humiliation" can be broadly defined, to a detainees advantage. From the base article:



Plus to dehumanize and humiliate people only adds justification to their cause, by making us as evil as they say we are. We can be better then them by acting better then them. You are what you do.

Read all the responses before you jump the gun again, Mr Mxyztplk. I was responding to a post by The Iconoclast.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Oops my bad, I'm doing a couple of things at once and didn't reread the whole thread, at a glance it looked like you were arguing for torture. In the future I will try not to repeat my mistake.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
First - Consider the source. The LA Times is one of the most unreliable, biased papers in the world.

Second – One of the sources of opinion is trying to sell a book on the subject.

Third - Not a word about what is actually contained in the new draft. How can you judge a document you have not read and that the source chose not to provide. I see no quotes from the document in that article. It belongs in the OP/ED section, not the news. It’s all he said she said.

Fourth - That language may well have been updated and rewritten rather than omitted. It could be that the new standard is even more stringent and since no one posting has read it where are your opinions coming from? Directly from your bias against the US or Bush? Again; this is the LA Times.

If this article turns out to be accurate and if it truly does allow abusive treatment of prisoners; then I’d say it is a monumental mistake. I’m withholding judgment until I read the actual document in context. To do anything else is a bit foolish.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kipman725

The german troops were dying of starvation on the easten front they coulden't actualy provide food or shelter. Hittler did treat US and UK POW's well.


The Germans did not start the bulk of the atrocities until the tide of the war had turned and the world attacked them. We seem to be arriving at that point in our offence a little early.

Can you imagine what this country woud be capable of if faced what Germany faced?

I am getting so I dont want to live here anymore. My god I used to be such a patriot, now I see this greedy crazed corporate run bully that needs its arse kicked. Our kids are being fed horribly bad morals on TV, violence reins supreme and the little buggers are learning to kill through video games.

How did we get here? I cant hardly believe it. How did we become this ugly greedy no holds barred country of hate?

We the people in order to form...



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast
The ignorance on the part of the military and the administration is very disturbing and leads me to believe they are incapable of drafting reasonable responses to the threat posed by terrorism, nor capable of dealing with them in a productive fashion.


Either that or they know exactly what they are doing.

Wribbit...
.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join