Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what waterboarding looks like [Politics]
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:15:30 -0500
- Delivery-date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:15:47 -0500
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Organization: University of Missouri
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060929
Jonathan King wrote:
There is evidently some question about whether waterboarding is or is
not banned by recent legislation addressing how we can interrogate and
try certain enemy combatants (and what an enemy combatant really is,
and that's very worrisome, because there are no hard standards).
Let me address just this issue of what constitutes an enemy combatant.
I am not an expert on the Geneva convention by any means. Being a US
citizen incurs certain rights (due process, etc), and also being a POW
incurs certain rights (Geneva convention, etc). But these also incur
certain responsibilities. For example, with POW's, the combatants
should be wearing uniforms. Presumably they should be fighting
according to the rules of war (e.g. white flag is never used as a
pretext for a surprise attack).
But here we are fighting a people who care nothing for the rules of war,
and indeed who are willing to use our inherent decency against us. Thus
when one group use a white flag as a means to get a surprise attack on
us, we still feel compelled to treat the next white flag as genuine.
And perhaps with good reason, because sometimes the next group of people
using the white flag really mean it. But I do think that the US has the
right to no longer regard the white flag.
Nevertheless, the US still comes under scrutiny. So for example, they
have check points which the bad guys frequently try to blow up using
suicide bombers. This leads the US to use tactics which can invariably
lead to innocent people being shot at check points, because the
civilians inadvertently fail to follow the proper procedures (or in some
cases they are forced to drive through at speed by the bad guys). But
the media always lay the blame on the US soldiers, and not on those who
have created this environment in which it is much harder to adhere to
decent rules of warfare.
In WWII, enemy combatants who did not meet the requirements of POW were
shot. This happened even after the war was over, during the occupation
of Germany, and the subsequent de-Nazification.
Stephen
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion