yes, BAD NEWS. his beliefs go right against the core army values. i watched him on cspan squirm his way through question after question basically stating that the geneva convention only applies in certain cases which essentially puts us hostages at risk. one question put forth that i found intriguing was if a country who felt their national security was at stake could they do what they wanted with us prisoners? surely not right? where is the christian right? where are these morals? does this only apply to unborn babies? i just don't get it. where's Roland? i'm sure he'll have something provocative to say.

I am trying my hardest to summon some sympathy for the cocksuckers at Guantanamo Bay and....nope, none so far. clicky clicky

two words: geneva convention then you're ok with abuse, rape, molestation, murder Roland? don't you feel that dismissing this issue puts troops like myself in harms way?

Well you asked for something provocative! Well setting aside the fact that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the douchebags at Guantanamo, let me clarify what I meant. The issue is what constitutes "torture". Liberals use it as a hot button word, but the reality of what we're talking about is different. I don't have a problem with sleep-deprivation, threats, loud music, pretending to send them to Egyptian interrogators, etc. That's no big deal and they should be thankful that it isn't worse. I do have a problem with the Abu Grihab stuff, but let's not confuse that prison in Iraq with Guantanamo Bay. Abu Grihab was an outrageous crime.

so what good is the Geneva Convention Roland? the purpose of it is to help protect US hostages if it does happen. not following that principle sets a bad precedent and in a sense we're committing the same atrocities the terrorists are. That's what makes us America and again, that kind of behavior goes directly against the core Army Values. are you familiar with the accusations at gitmo?

The Geneva Convention was written right after WWII. When army fought against army and they wore uniforms and many soldiers were conscripts who were basically good people being forved to fight. The dickheads in Guantanamo do not qualify. They fought for no country, they wore no uniform, and they played by no rules of war. There is no head of state in which to negitiate a treaty. They are terrorists who were caught on the battlefield trying to kill Americans. pardon my French, but fuck 'em. Don't get Abu Grihab confused with Gitmo. What happened in Iraq was an atrocity that does all the harm to our country and military that you're talking about. but I don't think Gitmo applies. it's a completely different situation.

no, you're wrong on this one Roland. Gitmo has everything to do with Abu Ghraib. do you know what's going on? do you know what the Red Cross has accused the US govt. of doing? you do realize that when the Geneva Convention isn't recognized here then it's no longer valid to any other world government. there are rarely rules in war Roland *surprise* but the US sets the precedent and standard as odd as that may sound. The Geneva Convention protects our soldiers and hostages. These terrorists are no different than the Vietnamese, the Germans or any other country we've opposed during war time. You're misunderstanding the whole concept and purpose of it. When it's dismissed here, it's dismissed everywhere - there has to be some sort of garuantee and law and I believe the GCs to do just that. It protects and it gives a framework on which to follow. I'm really quite surprised by your "Christian" attitude, I just don't see Jesus agreeing with you whatsoever here. Are we forgetting where these groups are getting their funding? Pakistan, Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan... mind you we're right in bed with Saudi and Pakistan as we speak. My point is, these terrorists are no different, they're still pows and there has to be a rule of law or else all is lost and we become exactly what we're fighting. I cannot stress enough, these so-called "values" you're endorsing go against the core Army Values.

These are not soldiers of a nation, they're random terrorists. There is a huge differerence and I already explained what it is.

It doesn't matter if they're soldiers of a particular said nation or not... it does not condone murder, rape, molestation, abuse etc. Even still, these terrorists are actually sponsored from said nations mentioned above. There is no difference, by giving into brutal behavior we will reep it so and in sense we've become what we're attempting to fight.

Let me get this right. The GC does not cover terrorists. However, dispite this fact, the United States should, on moral grounds, extend the privledges afforded to those who follow the rules of the GC to the terrorists who do not adhere to the "rules of war"? I can buy that. I think that "torture" should be defined clearly. For instance I would assume that bodily mutilation would be considered torture, but sleep depravation would not. Where the line is does need to be clearly defined. Here is another one - what about the threat of torture? Can we install the fear of bodily mutilation with out actually going through with it? Where does that lie? Remember the purpose (for my purposes) of this "torture" (in this paragraph is refers to all unwanted activity done to a person). It is used to extract information from people. This information would be used to prevent further acts of violence from happening - anything from a beheading to nuclear device going off in an american city. What is the line? I don't know the precise one. Also, it seems to me that the GC was drawn up for a standard set of rules. It's format was a if you do this, I will do this. Therefore, if one party does not do thier part, then the other party (as bounded by the agreement) was released from their commitments. With that aside, Gringo is wanting to make the argument that we are better than that, we don't need people to act a certain way inorder to treat them as human beings, the way we would want to be treated. Gringo, in my estimation, has a very good point.

what makes it hard for me is my utilitarian streak that runs through me.

Did I identify that the utilitarian steak is mine?

what makes it hard for me is my utilitarian streak that runs through me

can you elaborate on that? because you think torture works usually? or....?

You have to define "torture". Traditional torture (electrocution, beatigns, etc) doesn't work because the person will say anything just to stop the torture. but if it's tactics like sleep deprivation, threats, loud music, etc....I don't think that rises to the definition of "torture", nor do I think it's inappropriate to apply to an unlawful combatant/terrorist who is not part of an army.

But that's not what you've been arguing for Roland. You've stated that you're ok with "torture", abuse etc. and you're fine with not enforcing the Geneva Conventions pact. It doesn't matter if they're part of an "army" (a well organized group of individuals) or not. I find it interesting that your clause is that the GCs apply only when there is some sort of "structure" involved, it doesn't really make sense to me. But what the Red Cross has been reporting is abuse and it's well across the board in secret prisons etc. It's a very big issue and somehow a majority happen to think it's ok and permissive. Yes, you're right... torture has to be better well defined but on the other hand the Geneva Conventions is there for a purpose and we must follow it. I think most agree abuse etc. isn't kosher and puts Americans' lives in danger. If we're all for values, then let's stick to our guns and not say one thing and do another.

I feel like I'm repeating myself so I'll just say it one more time and then stop. The Geneva Convention applies to soldiers of a soverign nation who wears a uniform and does not comit war crimes like intentionally targetting innocent civilians. Terrorists to not fit this definition. Stuff like the Abu Grihab prison abuse is inexcusable. Those iraqi soldiers DID apply to the GC rules. And their abuse was for the amusement of a few sick soldiers, not in an attempt to save lives through interrogating a terrorist mastermind.

I do not see how there is a difference between prisoners that we pick up in Afghanistan or prisoners that we pick up in Iraq. They both come in a time of war, and they are both fighting against us. Is there really any difference?

Well, I"m not sure you're making a clear connection there Roland and I apologize but we disagree. You feel like you're repeating yourself but I still think you are repeating yourself without a decent explanation. I feel that I have made a decent explanation on why: our protection. This is the war on terror, a lot of these guys are flanking in from other countries as I mentioned above and they may not be officially sponsored but they're part of a loosely based organization. Prisoners are prisoners are prisoners despite if its organized or not. Apparently they need a uniform and an id card to qualify for human rights and I disagree.

It's so simple, watch: Iraqi soldiers are SOLDIERS. They wear unifirms and are part of an army and represent a soverign nation. Terrorists in Afghanistan are not. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the Geneva Convention itself then. Because it covers soldiers, not terrorists.

no, Roland... you're disagreeing with human rights. don't twist words to justify cruel behavior because that's what it is. no, i disagree with your thinking. i find it odd that you're trying to twist rules and regs to justify that sort of treatment. you are very wrong here and i think i can confidently say that a majority agree.

you're misunderstanding the entire principle. i think you're just being the devil's advocate here because the idea is as plain as day.

No I just think we identified the fulcrum of our disagreement. I believe in human rights for soldiers. I don't believe in human rights for terrorists. I know you guys disagree on this, but to me, they sacrificed their humanity when they embraced terrorism. I just don't want you to think I'm a COMPLETE monster by thinking that I don't afford that respect to Iraqi soldiers. I understand the importance of treating captured soldiers well. I just don't think terrorists apply.

"I just don't want you to think I'm a COMPLETE monster..." oh, that's golden. i have my doubts about you Roland, makes me a bit nautious to think if you were in this army. your kind of thinking doesn't do our soldiers any good, nothing... not even short of death because that's what it'll do. the GCs is our only guarantor and when we dismiss it everybody else will. Gonzales was asked if the GCs applied to US hostages held in other countries that felt their national security was at risk, he never answered either because he endorses it, he's ok with it. i dont know how that man sleeps at night, obviously he's never served a day in his life.

We're not dismissing the GC. We're applying it correctly. We're applying it to the people to whom it applies.

oh no you're not dude. you're skirting around human rights, that's exactly what you're doing. you're twisting, mincing words. prisoners are prisoners are prisoners. it's the ONLY garuantee we have. if we can do whatever we want, so can they. i don't even think you're reading this... 123 abc jesus loves me lalalala.

you even mentioned practicality yourself that torture doesn't work, it doesn't give us accurate intel. and if the practicality of it doesn't hold then what good is it? just beating the bloody hell out of them? that's what it boils down to.

There are different types of prisoners. Some are soldiers. Some are terrorists. The soldiers have rights that the terrorists do not.

then you've thrown out your christian values, the core army values, the GCs because these humans do not have rights. this is how your logic follows whether you agree or not, that's how it is, this is what you're saying, these are your values. this is what the nazis did, what the japanese did... they felt us pows didn't have any rights and yet the us still signed onto the GCs. your logic is flawed, your belief system is contrary to american and christian values.

THis is where YOU'RE being inconsistent. Japan and Germany wre wrong because what they did, they did to soldiers AND civilians. They're the reason we HAD a GC. You're just not grasping the concept that there is a difference between conscripted soldiers who fight for a country and a random terrorist murderer who does not. Terrorists are not soldiers. They're terrorists. Soldiers have rights. Terrorists do not.

Noooooo... a human is a human is a human. You're not reading what I've written, your'e so worried about being proven wrong; that's the problem. Terrorists are humans. Soldiers are humans. Prisoners are prisoners are prisoners. Duh. It's not rocket science Roland. Open your ears, open your eyes and ask "What Would Jesus Do?" for crying out loud. The GCs offers protection to our soldiers because they deserve, by dismissing it we put our entire operation in harms way. According to Bush's halfass doctrine, we came to obliterate terrorism but we're instigating more of it. Since when does a terrorist cease to be a human Roland? Since when is rape, molestation, abuse ok Roland? That's my point exactly about Japan and Germany, they harmed civillians as well as soldiers and despite that the US still agreed with the GCs because it was *logically consistent*. It is the only protection, garuantor we have and as a nation we have that obligation to uphold high standards. As I stated before, it's plain as day that the GCs works, it's logical, it's the moral high road that we should seek. This argument isn't about who's the longest winded but it's about values, it's about doing what's right regardless, it's about the golden rule and following through with it on a consistent basis. You're wrong Roland. wrong wrong wrong. This is a serious character flaw, something I see going right against what the Bible teaches. You're much longer winded than I am so have at it but read the GCs, read the core army values, and take a good long hard look at our men and women in uniform and ask if we're giving them the full protection they deserve.

You're wrong. not all humans are equal. if you use a gun to rob a liquor store, you forfeit many rights that law abiding citizens enjoy. You're still a human, but you forfeited many of your human rights. When you become a TERRORIST, you forfeit even more rights. Soldiers are soldiers. Terrorists are terrorists. I have already explained the difference between them. if any US citizens become terrorists in other countries, they're fair game too. Soldiers on the other hand should be treated like soldiers. because they're not terrorists. They're soldiers.

so what you're saying essentially, it's ok to rape, molest, abuse terrorists because they've forfeited rights? that's what we're discussing, we're not talking about prison, or just punishment... we're talking about the afore mentioned. i still don't think you're argumentis adequate enough on explaining the difference. they're different just because they don't wear a uniform, not part of an army (although still sponsored mind you), or not part of a well organized group (although that's very debateable). any wrongdoer loses particular rights, i agree, however, where we differ is if it's ok to beat the shite out of them. i disagree. a terrorist is a human being, a soldier is a human being therefore no difference. it's our only garuantee and gives us more cause, more right because we choose to operate by a moral standard that is logical and that works. if we choose not to then we become exactly what we're fighting. even still, you admitted that torture does not work. it doesn't work, it doesn't help matters either here nor there. the point being what good is it? ah but see, terrorists have lost certain rights... so i mame them for whatever reason because they've lost those freedoms? doesn't make sense to me, niether would i ever dare to be associated with that kind of thinking. so in the end, if torture doesn't work for any reasonable means then why? because of a loss of rights? and that makes it ok? how do you correspond your faith with this?

Actually, I did think we were discussing indefinite detention and various interrogation techniques. Rape? I don't see a reason for rape in an interrogation. At least you are starting to see the difference between a terrorist and a soldier though. e differ in that I believe terrorists forfeit their humanity when they commit their act of terrorism. You need to check out Ogrish for some graphic pictures of the aftermath of a homicide bombing for this to really sink in.

no, i don't see a difference at all. read what i've written. i don't need to check out any gruesome pictures to let this sink in Roland, you need to put some boots on, polish them everyday, say yes mam and yes sir for a couple of months and then you'll see what i'm talking about. you need to start speaking to soldiers who've lost good friends in the battlefield, you need to start speaking with 1SG's who've seen their units not come back as a whole. start treating them for their ailments, shrapnel wounds, etc.. you don't think i know this? what the bloody hell do you think i do? what you've been arguing from day one is this: terrorist lose the right to not be raped, molested, abused, even murdered. all because you think they've lost certain rights. that's what abu ghraib and gitmo are about as i've said before, prisoners are prisoners are prisoners. there is *no* (remember, no means no) difference. the GCs was set forth to protect citizens and US hostages, although not effective all the time, it gives us grounds to charge with war crimes so long as we ourselves are consistent in our views and practices of which we are not presently. how do your correspond your faith with this?

but there is a difference. One deals with innocent soldiers and the other deals with guilty terrorists.

just to be sure, this is what you're saying: terrorist lose the right to not be (including but not limited to) raped, molested, abused, even murdered because you think they've lost certain rights. i just want to be crystal clear on this, this is what you're saying. this what you've been arguing for. right? ah, you're toying with me... you have got to be.

I answered this a couple of posts above.

ok, you're probably going to think i'm a retard but i'm finding your "answers" to be a bit ambiguous (sp?). so just to clarify, what treatment do you deem appropriate and inappropriate for "terrorists". i know that you've said you've already made yourself more than abundantly clear. it seems you've said that you don't care for rape, however, you haven't limited what behavior is inappropriate. what i'm also interested in is the effectiveness of it or lack thereof which you and i agree on, it doesn't work mostly. so what good is it? the primary reason why i keep asking is because it's hard for me to understand why a person would condone such behavior. don't take this the wrong way, i'm just trying to understand your side a wee bit better.

Here it is: Torture is not very effective. I don't see any use for rape. I don't believe terrorists have ANY rights, so nothing is off the table, although that doesn't mean I condone rape. The threat of rape would be much more effective.