Forums | MacLife

Perhaps certain people are enamored of social contracts that deposit the "honor of the nation" in the institution of the army before vesting the political control of said nation in the hands of a liberal democracy. Naturally, such arrangements tend to lead to coups in which glorious and honourable generals publicly announce the restoration of moral values while preparing to have their political enemies herded onto planes, and dropped at altitude into the seas below. Such expeditious removal of thorns is best done without the meddling interference of journalists, but it is not known whether an embedding program is detrimental to the efficient distribution of propaganda.

Last edited by jerwin (2005-05-29 12:23 pm)

jondaris wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

No, I believe the government should be held accountable for its' actions, but the military is a completely different entity than the government as a whole.

So the military should have no accountability?

The military is accountable only to God!!

I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

Cyberpawz wrote:

jondaris wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

No, I believe the government should be held accountable for its' actions, but the military is a completely different entity than the government as a whole.

So the military should have no accountability?

If the military breaks the Geneva convention, they should be held accountable for their actions. At this point in time the military has not broken the Geneva convention.

Although you can't say the same thing for the people whom our soldiers are fighting against.

The current administration has been quite adament on this point.  --The Geneva convention does not apply to our treatment of these prisoners.  Hence, in regards to them, the U.S. military is not accountable to it.

Last edited by zdecker (2005-05-29 1:02 pm)

zdecker wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

jondaris wrote:

So the military should have no accountability?

If the military breaks the Geneva convention, they should be held accountable for their actions. At this point in time the military has not broken the Geneva convention.

Although you can't say the same thing for the people whom our soldiers are fighting against.

The current administration has been quite adament on this point.  --The Geneva convention does not apply to our treatment of these prisoners.  Hence, in regards to them, the U.S. military is not accountable to it.

I personally don't care what Bush or any other president says... the Geneva convention was conceived with the blessings of the US, and the US should not be above and beyond the laws it created.

That is my personal opinion...but it should also be something in which the US as a government, and a military should follow. Since the US itself says no one is above the law, the US as a government and military should not be beyond what they hold so dearly.

Steyr AUG wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Yes - Saddam was secular, though he did call for a Jihad (holy war).

Can a secular person actually call for a Jihad?  Isn't that like an atheist trying to conduct  communion?

Secular people struggle all the time, so I think so.

Perhaps I'm thinking of a fatwa.

jerwin wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

At this point in time the military has not broken the Geneva convention.

You seem awfully sure of yourself.

In this case, flushing the Koran down the toilet is not breaking the Geneva Convention.

Beheading someone is.... I wonder who broke the convention... hmm?

zdecker wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

jerwin wrote:

You seem awfully sure of yourself.

In this case, flushing the Koran down the toilet is not breaking the Geneva Convention.

Article 3, section 1, subsection C of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." 

I think flushing someone's sacred Q'uran down the toilet in front of them qualifies as degrading treatment.

Degrading an intimate object is not degrading a person.

Cyberpawz wrote:

zdecker wrote:

The current administration has been quite adament on this point.  --The Geneva convention does not apply to our treatment of these prisoners.  Hence, in regards to them, the U.S. military is not accountable to it.

I personally don't care what Bush or any other president says... the Geneva convention was conceived with the blessings of the US, and the US should not be above and beyond the laws it created.

Given this, can I assume that you believe that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay should immediately be released? 
If not, then surely they should at least be given proper mess facilities, canteens, religious premises, opportunities for physical exercise, freedom to write to their families, etc. 
Right?

Donovan Osaya wrote:

w3rd.

Very eloquently stated my good man

Cyberpawz wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

At this point in time the military has not broken the Geneva convention.

You seem awfully sure of yourself.

In this case, flushing the Koran down the toilet is not breaking the Geneva Convention.

But in other cases, it might be? Do tell.

There is one large loophole in your statement that concerns me.

Cyberpawz wrote:

At this point in time the military has not broken the Geneva convention.

Strictly speaking, the "military" refers only to soldiers, and not to sailors or marines. Guantanamo is a naval base; the the prison there is known as "Camp X-ray" and not "Fort X-ray". While this may seem rather pedantic, debaters have been known to take advantage of such linguistic nuances.

Of course, the prison at Abu Ghraib, home to the human pyramid and the dog leash, is run by various Military units, some attached to the National Guard; others to the regular army.

That said, the base at Guantanamo is not generally open to outside overseers. Although observers from the Red Cross have investigated, generally their reports are not made public--- the host government is expected, however, to address the ICRC's concerns. This expectation may be misplaced.

In a few instances, the ICRC has leaked portions of its reports, perhaps out of frustration. Those leaks indicate that all is not necessarily well. Isolated cases, or tips of the iceberg?

Cyberpawz wrote:

brendave wrote:

jerwin wrote:

And if the government misbehaves? What then?

Good point.  Free press is another check and balance in our society.  Take that away and who is watching the watchers?  If I could refer you (CP), to one of your own posts?  The "It's our country and not Congresses" post has relevance here as well.  It is our country, not the governments, and we have a right to know

unnamed source wrote:

what mistakes are being made in its name, as well as what improved procedures have been instituted in response.

There are some things that the people of the US should never know about, and one of them in many cases is what the military does in our name without us knowing about it....

And what I meant by that quote was about the politicians, not the military.

Why can't we ever know about it? 

Of course operational events should be kept quiet until they're complete, but why can't we know?  They're doing it in our name....how can we the people have oversight over our politicans, who should have oversight over the military, unless we know about it ?

zdecker wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

zdecker wrote:

The current administration has been quite adament on this point.  --The Geneva convention does not apply to our treatment of these prisoners.  Hence, in regards to them, the U.S. military is not accountable to it.

I personally don't care what Bush or any other president says... the Geneva convention was conceived with the blessings of the US, and the US should not be above and beyond the laws it created.

Given this, can I assume that you believe that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay should immediately be released? 
If not, then surely they should at least be given proper mess facilities, canteens, religious premises, opportunities for physical exercise, freedom to write to their families, etc. 
Right?

I say they shouldn't be released yet, but as for the rest...

Sure, as long as anything written is checked by the guards and military, just in case something in the letter may or may cause issues if released.

Although the last time I checked though, they already have an opportunity to pray when they need to and are given time for physical exercise...

jerwin wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Sure, as long as anything written is checked by the guards and military, just in case something in the letter may or may cause issues if released.

May cause issues? That's your standard? Cyberpawz, anything meaningful raises issues.

So then nothing gets sent... by your definition.