1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

"Taxi To The Dark Side"

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Mr. Shaman, Sep 28, 2008.

  1. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    This all assumes that at the time we legally believed that the Geneva Conventions covered the people who were captured.

    Protocol III of the Geneva Convention is what would cover these groups, but the United States never signed that part and objected to it, thus making the US not bound by it.

    Of course you can hold people to a standard of legality that did not exist at the time if you would like, but it makes no difference in actual reality.

    This is not to excuse a few instances where we did cross the line, but those instances have been dealt with already, and the soldiers who did it prosecuted.
     
  3. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess we're gonna find-out how few-instances there were....along with all of the other talking-point justifications for torture.
     
  4. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I think a pretty big "talking point" is the fact that we are not a party to the protocol of the treaty that would give these people POW protections.

    I think legally this is a hard argument to get around, especially at the time it was going on.

    You can argue back and forth about the morality of it, but morality does not really translate into rule of law, until a new law is passed.
     
  5. Mr. Carpenter

    Mr. Carpenter New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They can try to, if they want to look really silly, but that falls under Ex Post Facto. You cannot prosecute someone for doing something that is now illegal, if it was legal when they did it.

    You're also absolutely correct that GCIII doesn't apply to any of the tango's, they weren't in uniform, they don't have a chain of command, or any of the other requirements. They chose to be "unlawful combatants", now they can deal with the consequences.
     
Loading...

Share This Page