BF2S Forums Gitmo - CIA tortured people they knew were innocent

Macbeth wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Nuclear Weapons aren't actually designed to be used in a war

They were and they have been, you just don't like the idea other people have them.

The idea of Nuclear weapons in this age is so that if you can field enough to make your enemy not want to attack you the better your chances of not having somebody attempt to invade you.

You're right, I don't like the idea of other people being able to challenge my dominance. I'm honest, it goes back to the whole "I rather be the bad guy than have everything I love destroyed or taken from me" if you don't understand that or it seems barbaric, your insane.

I disagree. While I don't want everyone having nukes because I frankly don't trust a lot of the world leaders, it further removes the world from thugs and musclemen running the world. Long live the nerds who live by the brain rather than the sword.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And what exactly would be achieved if Americans beheaded POWs they capture?
Just trying to be as bad as the enemy to achieve nothing is moronic.

I'm not saying we should behead our prisoners. But using mild torture is a far cry from taking a persons life. People need to get this in perspective.

They are both wrong though, don't blub about soldiers being summarily executed when you're torturing civilians.
And who says its mild? Enough people have died during it.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-10-12 21:07:33)

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And what exactly would be achieved if Americans beheaded POWs they capture?
Just trying to be as bad as the enemy to achieve nothing is moronic.

I'm not saying we should behead our prisoners. But using mild torture is a far cry from taking a persons life. People need to get this in perspective.

They are both wrong though, don't blub about soldiers being summarily executed when you're torturing civilians.
And who says its mild? Enough people have died during it.

Now you're equating torture to summary execution? As if they are somehow the same?

You have officially detached from reality, Dilbert.

And the GC that was enacted to protect civilians during war wasn't adopted until after WW2. So all that nonsense about Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or any other Allied operation violating the Geneva Convention because it killed civilians is hogwash.

Additionally, the realities of the differences between German and Japanese wartime industries make the differences between the legalities--even under the 1949 GC Articles--clear. Dresden wouldn't have been legal, but Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and even the fire-bombing of Tokyo would have. Why? Because the Japanese distributed their wartime production into the civilian population, similar to cottage industry, thus making them legitimate targets even under the strictures of the 1949 GC Articles.

But then again, to even begin to have a modicum of understanding of any of this would require you to actually read the damn thing...which you've proven time and again you cba to do.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-10-13 04:33:34)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Now you're equating torture to summary execution? As if they are somehow the same?

They're both illegal. The US has tortured people to death, so yeah they are equivalent.

Armed robbery is illegal too. It's not equivalent to murder.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the GC that was enacted to protect civilians during war wasn't adopted until after WW2. So all that nonsense about Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or any other Allied operation violating the Geneva Convention because it killed civilians is hogwash.

Incorrect again, you might like to read the Hague Conventions, and PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR,Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.

The US President at the time

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

And

Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

Seems Duhbya is guilty of a), Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall under b) 'not justified by military necessity'

1. Read the highlighted portion

2. GWB is guilty of no such thing

3. Read what I posted before about Japanese war production. Read also about estimates regarding invasion losses to the civilian population and civilian losses expected due to continued conventional bombing (again, due to Japanese methods of production that made civilian areas legal targets under international law--then and now). Then try to talk about military necessity in its truly legal definition, not what you think it means.

and the kicker

4. The Nuremberg Principles are not binding treaties like...say...the GC.

5. You might want to read this. WW2 was a watershed in the doctrine of aerial warfare, to include bombardment. Almost zero binding agreements--much less treaties or laws--were in effect prior to the start of hostilities.