News Torturing Democracy" Documentary: Must See on PBS & Bill Moyers

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The documentary "Torturing Democracy," aired on PBS and Bill Moyers Journal, critiques the interrogation techniques used by the U.S. government, particularly during the Bush administration. It highlights the ineffectiveness of harsh methods like waterboarding, arguing that traditional psychological techniques yield better results in obtaining information. Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent, emphasizes that successful interrogations often rely on rapport rather than torture, challenging the narrative that harsh tactics are necessary. The discussion also touches on the legal status of detainees, questioning the application of rights and the classification of individuals as "enemy combatants" versus POWs. Overall, the documentary raises significant ethical and legal concerns regarding the treatment of detainees and the justification of torture.
  • #51
mheslep said:
Yes, agreed this is about applicability of the art. 4 categories. So then you would agree that not every combatant out of uniform(b), with no military accountability(a), and hiding a suicide bomb under his cloak (c,d) requires a tribunal under the GC? That there are clear, easy to observe cases of Art 4 categories? We may still choose to treat combatants behaving in this way as POWs, but I assert the GC does not always require it.

It seems that you missed something in my reasoning. You seem to interpret article 5 as referring to doubt of exclusion as opposed to doubt of inclusion. I am holding that it is obviously the latter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
TheStatutoryApe said:
It seems that you missed something in my reasoning. You seem to interpret article 5 as referring to doubt of exclusion as opposed to doubt of inclusion. I am holding that it is obviously the latter.
Yes I think that is our point of disagreement. As a practical matter I think it must be the other way around.
 
  • #53
mheslep said:
Yes I think that is our point of disagreement. As a practical matter I think it must be the other way around.

As a matter of practicality it is probably much cheaper and easier to not honour the GC at all.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons ... belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4..."

The language is obviously inclusive rather than exclusive. Aside from the convenience of it can you make any argument as to why it should be interpreted the other way around? You realize that an interpretation of exclusion means that all POWs be tried to determine innocence save those that are apparently clearly guilty?
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
87
Views
11K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
595
Replies
1
Views
5K
Back
Top