At least we have moral clarity.

[Michael Tee]

<<An Al Quieda member that slices up a prisoner is lible to get a commendation , you are trying to make an empty point , our troops will be treated badly when they are captured by Al Queda and this has always been so and there is no point in pretending that Al Quieda has any respect for the Geneva conventions.>>

When did you become such an expert on how al Qaeda disciplines its members?  For the record, I don't believe any American troops have fallen into al Qaeda's hands, so you have little if anything to base your opinion on. 

The question was actually hypothetical.  Is the "President" willing to subject American troops to the same treatment if they are captured?  If it's OK on captured Resistance fighters, is it OK on captured GIs?  You don't need to speculate on whether the Resistance forces will "improve" enought to capture Americans to answer the question.  WOULD you object IF the same techniques were applied to American troops?

[BT]

It is not an if then situation. The then is already happening, and if not with US combatants, it certainly is with civillian non combatants. Does the name Nicholas Berg ring a bell?

[Plane]

Americans have been captured by Al Quieda and other ad hoc groups for years , often as not they die.


Yes I do wish that Al Queda would improve thair treatment of prisoners , I do not think it possible that they copuld meet the standard set at Guantanimo or even Abu Graib , but it would be nice to see them try.


I am not willing to allow more captures just to give them the practice tho .


Have you ever heard of any Palestinian Authority , Hamas , Hezbolla , Saddam's army , Saders militia, Chechen resistance or anything of the sort ever ever useing any sort of disapline to discourage its troops from abuseing its prisoners?


I think it will take you some serious reasearch to find such a case.

[Michael Tee]

Sure the name Nicholas Berg rings a bell.  So does Daniel Pearl.  I was referring to American troops.  It is very much an if-then situation with American troops and my hypothetical question (still unanswered BTW) was whether the "President" was willing to have the same treatment applied to US troops?

(In default of an actual Presidential response, I invite supporters of the "President's" policies on torture and the treatment of prisoners to answer the  question in his stead, substituting their own thoughts for his.)

[Plane]

Sure the name Nicholas Berg rings a bell.  So does Daniel Pearl.  I was referring to American troops.  It is very much an if-then situation with American troops and my hypothetical question (still unanswered BTW) was whether the "President" was willing to have the same treatment applied to US troops?

(In default of an actual Presidential response, I invite supporters of the "President's" policies on torture and the treatment of prisoners to answer the  question in his stead, substituting their own thoughts for his.)


Well then lets see if the Al Queda can treat a prisoner according to the golden rule , supposeing that they ever have the ability to capture someone that is not unarmed.


I kind of expect that what they have been doing to the unarmed ones indicates a general attitude.

[Michael Tee]

<<Have you ever heard of any Palestinian Authority , Hamas , Hezbolla , Saddam's army , Saders militia, Chechen resistance or anything of the sort ever ever useing any sort of disapline to discourage its troops from abuseing its prisoners?>>

I would expect that it was as a result of discipline that Jessica whatsername (Lynd? Lynch?) was so well cared for by Saddam's army and army doctors.  I would expect that the Israeli soldiers currently in Hamas and Hezbollah custody, who have been shown to be in good condition recently, are well treated as a result of discipline.  

It is too bad that the same standard of care was not shown to the prisoners of Abu Ghraib, Baghram Base, Guantanamo and other torture centres now or formerly operated by US troops.  I don't think the problem was one of discipline, since the U.S. army must be at least as well disciplined as the others, obviously it is a problem of leadership and command.

[Lanya]

    The guys who have been convicted of the abuse evidenced in the pictures you brought here are going to be in Levanworth a long time , trials can take place of US personell who torture and it has never been otherwise.

     So you would like it to require less evidence or mete out harsher punishments?


      An Al Quieda member that slices up a prisoner is lible to get a commendation , you are trying to make an empty point , our troops will be treated badly when they are captured by Al Queda and this has always been so and there is no point in pretending that Al Quieda has any respect for the Geneva conventions.

Plane, where in this new law do you see any mention of Al Qaeda?
It's not a coupon, "Good for wars in which Al Qaeda is a part of, expires on death of OBL."
It is a law.  It will show other countries that we have chosen to  codify our disrespect of the Geneva Convention into law, and they may be Chinese, North Koreans, etc. 
Are you saying---surely not?---that if we face evil enemies, that use torture, we lower ourselves to that level?

We did not do that in WW2 and we should not do it now.  It is not American.

[sirs]

I invite supporters of the "President's" policies on torture and the treatment of prisoners to answer the  question in his stead, substituting their own thoughts for his

See?  Perfect example in the misuse of the word "torture"

[sirs]

Are you saying---surely not?---that if we face evil enemies, that use torture, we lower ourselves to that level?

And yet again.  Please let us know when we start beheading & burning our enemies, Lanya.  Cause I sure as hell haven't seen it so far.

[Michael Tee]

<<I kind of expect that what they have been doing to the unarmed ones indicates a general attitude.>>

A general attitude to Jewish-American journalists or Jewish-American businessmen might not reflect their leaders' attitudes to American troops.  The fact is you are just speculating.

So why don't you answer my simple little question?  Are you afraid of exposing a little moral hypocrisy?  If it's OK for US interrogators to use the "President's" interpretation of the Geneva Conventions to determine how the al Qaeda prisoners will be treated, will it be OK to treat Americans in captivity the same way?

Simple question, plane.  Curious minds await.

[Michael Tee]

<<See?  Perfect example in the misuse of the word "torture">>

So don't call it torture.  Call it "Presidentially-authorized treatment of prisoners."

You gonna answer the question or not?

[Lanya]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1877300,00.html

The military does not like this at all.

". The former secretary of state Colin Powell, Bush's "good soldier," released a letter denouncing Bush's version. "The world," he wrote, "is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and Bush's bill "would add to those doubts". That sentiment was underlined in another letter signed by 29 retired generals and CIA officials. General John Batiste, former commander of the 1st army division in Iraq, appeared on CNN to scourge the administration's policy as "unlawful", "wrong", and responsible for Abu Ghraib......"
[]
."In the summer of 2004 General Thomas J Fiscus, the top air force JAG, informed the senators that the administration's assertion that the JAGs backed Bush on torture was utterly false. Suspicion instantly fell upon Fiscus, one of the most aggressive opponents of torture policy, as the senators' source. Within weeks he was drummed out under a cloud of anonymous allegations by Pentagon officials of "improper relations" with women. His discharge was trumpeted in the press, but his role in the torture debate remained unknown.

Bush had intended to use his post-Hamdan bill to taint the Democrats, but instead he has split his party and further antagonised the military. His standoff on torture threatens to leave no policy whatsoever, and leave his war on terror in a twilight zone beyond the rule of law."

[Plane]

<<Have you ever heard of any Palestinian Authority , Hamas , Hezbolla , Saddam's army , Saders militia, Chechen resistance or anything of the sort ever ever useing any sort of disapline to discourage its troops from abuseing its prisoners?>>

I would expect that it was as a result of discipline that Jessica whatsername (Lynd? Lynch?) was so well cared for by Saddam's army and army doctors.  I would expect that the Israeli soldiers currently in Hamas and Hezbollah custody, who have been shown to be in good condition recently, are well treated as a result of discipline.  

It is too bad that the same standard of care was not shown to the prisoners of Abu Ghraib, Baghram Base, Guantanamo and other torture centres now or formerly operated by US troops.  I don't think the problem was one of discipline, since the U.S. army must be at least as well disciplined as the others, obviously it is a problem of leadership and command.

Your standards are unbeleiveably unequal.

One captured soilder is treated well and this is proof of good disapline?

So if I can find a single example of an Al Quieda fighter being treated well my case is made about American disapline?

This is not the question asked , where could you find an example of any of Americas enemys disaplineing their troops when there was evidence that they had been abusive?

If you do find a case , even one , I shall be amazed.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well then lets see if the Al Queda can treat a prisoner according to the golden rule , supposeing that they ever have the ability to capture someone that is not unarmed.>>

I think you have forgotten that after a 14-year-old girl was raped and, together with her family, murdered, by U.S. troops, the local Resistance fighters captured and executed two members of the unit that had committed the crimes.

You are very much mistaken if you think that the Resistance forces are unable to capture Americans.  Right now that's not in their plans, so it is not happening very much.  But they are not incapable of doing so just because it is not their priority.  I would think that capturing prisoners is not as difficult as holding them.  They'd need a large expanse of safe territory for that.

[Plane]

    The guys who have been convicted of the abuse evidenced in the pictures you brought here are going to be in Levanworth a long time , trials can take place of US personell who torture and it has never been otherwise.

     So you would like it to require less evidence or mete out harsher punishments?


      An Al Quieda member that slices up a prisoner is lible to get a commendation , you are trying to make an empty point , our troops will be treated badly when they are captured by Al Queda and this has always been so and there is no point in pretending that Al Quieda has any respect for the Geneva conventions.

Plane, where in this new law do you see any mention of Al Qaeda?
It's not a coupon, "Good for wars in which Al Qaeda is a part of, expires on death of OBL."
It is a law.  It will show other countries that we have chosen to  codify our disrespect of the Geneva Convention into law, and they may be Chinese, North Koreans, etc. 
Are you saying---surely not?---that if we face evil enemies, that use torture, we lower ourselves to that level?

We did not do that in WW2 and we should not do it now.  It is not American.

And in what part of this do you construe disrespect?

When there is evidence against a soldier who IS an American he is liable to be tried and sentanced for the crime , this includes recent cases of prisoner abuse which has always been against our rules.

For Al Queda it is just not against the rules at all to torture a prisoner , or humiliate him , or make him convert to Islam at gunpoint.


If we fight North Korea they might respect the Geneva conventions just as much as they did last time.

Whoever we fight , I would indeed like to see them proscicute any soldier who mistreats American Prisoners , just as we do.