Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

US army admits to violating geneva convention

  1. Mar 27, 2005 #1
    "There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated.

    ....

    According to the report, the abuse included:

    -- Forcing detainees to perform exercises such as deep knee bends for hours on end, to the point of exhaustion.

    -- Blowing cigarette smoke into the sandbags the prisoners were forced to wear as hoods.

    -- Throwing cold water on the prisoners in a room that was between 40 degrees and 50 degrees.

    -- Blasting the detainees with heavy-metal music, yelling at them and banging on doors and ammunition cans.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Prisoner-Abuse-Iraq.htm?oref=login
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2005 #2
    The Geneva Conventions apply to POWs, and it is very specific about what defines a POW. From what I can tell; terrorists, or suspected terrorists for that matter, do not fall under any of those definitions. Not to say I support torturing anybody by any means, I just don't see credibity in brining up the Geneva Conventions in such situations.
     
  4. Mar 27, 2005 #3

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    I suggest each torturer be given 70 virgins immediately.



    ...
     
  5. Mar 28, 2005 #4
    Hah GENIERE, I suppose I should come to expect you to pop in with a smartass jab whenever a discussion involves Muslims.

    But on a more pleasant note, apparently we are looking to set a better example for civilized conduct:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1332387.htm
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/p...&en=f363e59197d6ef2a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2005
  6. Mar 28, 2005 #5
    Good, terrorists deserve more, but then we would really piss some people off, wouldn't we? They kill us, can't we make them miserable? Besides, that's not too bad, what about our POWs in Nam, liberals didn't scream and b**** about that, why should they now? Besides, the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists, they have have a uniform, a clear leader, and must fight for and under one nation. right now, none of that stuff applies
     
  7. Mar 28, 2005 #6
    The greatest and most common feat of war leaders since the beginning of history, has been convincing people that there are no rules of war, and that they don't apply.
    Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

    At the top:
    There is only one single exception to the rule in the article, and that is here:

     
  8. Mar 28, 2005 #7
    You invaded, destroyed and stole their country based on lies and against the international laws, and then you call them terrorists because they fight back?
    Others are joking about Muslims and show them as non human? It seems they use the same propaganda of German NAZI in 30s against the Jews to justify their dirty crimes?

    I do not understand this ‘ugly ideology and culture’ which is combination of ignorance and arrogant...
    Let’s see what the end of your arrogance..

    Let’s see what will happen for the international laws which developed through centuries to arrange the relations between different nations during peace and war.

    To justify your crimes because you think the other culture/religion/race is evil is the core of Fascism..

    At last,

    The nations of Middle East are not ''Red Indian'' , we (Atheists, secular, Muslims, Christian, satanic, Arab, Persian, Turkish, African , ..) will fight till the end . We know that we have no enough force to defend our countries, but the invaders will be exhausted with the time and we will give chance for China, Europe or any other Nation to lead this world.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2005
  9. Mar 28, 2005 #8
    I can't help but point out that this statement implies that Fascism is, in fact, evil. Which is wholely untrue.
     
  10. Mar 28, 2005 #9
    I know that the modern history is written by the ''winners of 2WW'' and it is not necessary to be true...
    But from my point of understanding, Fascism refers to racism and hate against other cultures. It depends how you understand it.

     
  11. Mar 29, 2005 #10
    ???
    You mean fascism is not evil?
     
  12. Mar 29, 2005 #11
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    Wikipedia to the rescue!!! To say fascism is not evil is to ignore the history of the word itself. It sprung up around an evil man during an evil time(there was a more evil man in Europe, but that doesn't raise Mussolini's exalted throne from the 9th circle now does it) and was used to describe a viscious political/economical/racial regime. To say Facism is anything but the most vile of concepts is to say "I really need to hit them thar his-tore-ee buks again!!!"
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2005
  13. Mar 29, 2005 #12
    Arguing the nature of evil with a guy named faust just seems silly. :tongue2:

    Seriously though, what part of the Conventions defintion of POWs applies to terrorists or even suspected terrorists? I don't see anything here that might:
    http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/b0d5f4c...2f681b08868538c2c12563cd0051aa8d?OpenDocument
     
  14. Mar 29, 2005 #13

    LMAO! Touche'

    Gotthold Lessing thought I was nobel to the point of writing a story wherein the devil released me from our little pact(I was in the military when I chose this alias--see the connection).

    Anyway, I don't have time right now to dig up the links but there have been reports issued by our very own government which state that most of the 'terrorist' activity is in fact the activity of so called 'freedom fighters'. How do you differentiate? Where does the fine line cut between liberators and terrorists? They are against our presence so they are terrorists? What where they when they fought the Soviet scourge then--freedom fighters, guerillas, friendly rebels? I'll admit there are terrorist but, and here's the kicker, once captured they fall under US Jurisdiction and our laws(Supreme court said as much with its GitMo ruling). When do we classify people as terrorist? After we shoot them? What if we were wrong? My Lai ring any bells? Kent state--National Guard troops shot first and asked questions later there didn't they?

    We pride ourselves on the law, the love of law, the adherence to the law, the system of law, yadda-yadda-yadda; however, as of late when the law has gotten in the way we as a nation have side stepped it by shooting first, or bagging and tagging prisoners, or shooting wedding parties up, or using deadly accurate vulcan cannons to kill enemy soldiers who are injured or have laid down their weapons.

    We have violated the convention. You(we) cannot kick a man off of a bridge for not telling us the right answer. We cannot shoot soldiers who have laid down arms or are wounded. Granted these infractions are seen as minor--you know war is hell--kind of crap happens. But, he have violated it IMHO to argue otherwise is akin to that ostrich that buries his head in the sand to avoid the charging lion.

    Well, I do have to run so I don't have the time to fully formulate my though. I'll get back to it later.
     
  15. Mar 29, 2005 #14
    When arguing with respect to the Geneva Conventions, the line is cut here:

    Now again, as I said in my first post in this thread; I do not torturing anybody by any means. I'm simply feel it is important to point out that bringing up the Geneva Conventions in regard to the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay is, best I can tell, barking up the wrong tree.
     
  16. Mar 30, 2005 #15
    To my understanding torture is only the physical abuse of another. We are known for having female officers strip in front of muslim men to try and mentaly disrupt them, along with lining the male detainees up naked next to each other(something about homosexuality is a major no-no to muslims) to again, mentaly disrupt each other.

    Though I might add, that most reports filed on sucessfull information retrieval from a person is by simply talking to them like a fellow man.

    Also just to add a tid bit, and as much as i hate to admit this, but the CIA took a man from NYC, flew him to syria, then tortured him to gain information, only to later find out he had no affiliation with the terrorists being researched, because they arent allowed to torture on US soil aparently...
     
  17. Apr 8, 2005 #16
    My friend, you are wrong. Saddam kills his own people, rapes them (not personally, he gets his thuges to do it), and helps terrorists. The US was attacked by terrorists in a clear act of war, and we have the right to fight back. We are the strongest country in the world, and we will not let cowardly terrorists bring us down. You may just watch too much Clintion News Network or Al-gezera(how ever you spell it) and don't realize that most Iraqi citizens are happier that we did what we did. Liberal bias will not let you see that, and you are a 'sheep' who doesn't double check everything to see what is right. and, if the rest of the world is mad at us, then so be it. Hopefully terrorists will hit them, and then they will see. They will see their wrong, and if they don't, they will die. Just like Rome, weakened from within until it fell. What may you ask happened after rome fell, total war. There was no superpower, just powerhungry kings. Mark my words, it may happen again if the US and free world don't take a stand. You need to look at the big picture, not the small details. Sure, people will die, but death cannot be avoided. The terrorists have awoken a sleeping giant, and they will pay with their lives.

    A house divided cannot stand.

    Fibonacci
     
  18. Apr 8, 2005 #17
    You seem to be missing one of the key points. Suspect Terrorists... Understand?
     
  19. Apr 8, 2005 #18
    The only 2 I can see people arguing is (b) and (d)
    Which is really getting off on a technicality, here's why:
    1. Snipers (I really shouldn't have to say more, use your brain)
    2. Alot do have recognizable signs, be it simply a ski-mask or holding an Ak-47, you know what it means.
    3. There are no discernable ways to prove which insurgent organizations do or do not, and to what degree, fullfill all the qualifications, especially (d).
    4. USA breaks rules of war too. Does the USA fullfill their own qualifications? In which case wouldn't the insurgents not have to abide by the rules of war on an enemy (USA) who does not abide by them either?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2005
  20. Apr 8, 2005 #19
    Firstly, is it impossible for you to imagine a scenario in which a Fascist organization would be preferable to any other devised system? Secondly, How can a concept be evil? A gun is used to create death and nothing more, is a gun evil? Is the idea of a gun evil? Don't be absurd, Fascism is not evil, Fascism is an idea that even Roosevelt referred to as a great political experiment.
     
  21. Apr 8, 2005 #20
    If they are in another country blowing up buildings and killing thousands of civilians that have no connection to the military then they are terrorists. If they are in their own country and someone has been dropping bombs indiscriminitely on them destroying buildings and killing thousands of civilians that have no connection to the military and they decide to resist and repel the invading force then they are not terrorists. Because the U.S. claims it has control of their country does not mean that everyone in Iraq agrees.

    In my opinion when people start dying everyone loses. All the oil in the world isn't worth the life of one person that wouldn't choose to die for it.

    What was the question again?
    Huck
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: US army admits to violating geneva convention
  1. POWs Geneva Convention (Replies: 35)

  2. Geneva convention (Replies: 1)

Loading...