flyingswoosh Wrote:if they were linked to terrorism, they deserved to be abused.
Aren't we fighting the war on terrorism so the rule of law will prevail? If we don't have the law on our side, meaning if we torture and abuse terrorists or suspected terrorists then the rule of law is no longer in our domain, so if we don't have the law on our side in this war, then what are we fighting for?
It is against American principles to abuse and torture people known to have committed crimes, even really bad crimes like blowing folks up.
How can we claim the moral authority in a war on terrorists if we abuse and torture terrorists? Certainly they may deserve torture, but doing so does not bring back the thousands of people who've been blown up by terrorists. If we were to abuse and torture terrorists in our custody, then we've acted immorally.
On other points on this thread, Oddball there are thousands of provisions in the Geneva and Hague Conventions that we've been violating for 40-50 years now. Many of these are rules and laws that member nations should follow and many of these fall outside of the realm of warfare. We routinely violate the Geneva Convention because all adult citizens by age 19 should have read and been tested on the provisions of the Geneva Convention. We don't even teach the provisions to boots at Parris Island, nor any other enlisted group in the military. We may simply gloss over some of the provisions when troops are on their way to a theater of combat, usually done in briefings.
It has been the policy of West Point and the Naval Academy to teach the rules of warfare only to officers, and officers are to reign in the men in their command.
