Speaking of changing the Geneva Convention to retroactively protect

[The Backlash Cometh]

Bush, the CIA interrogators, and, um, Bush, have we yet determined that those interrogations yielded any information that stopped an attack on our soil? Or anywhere else?

[Zensea]

1. Sure we have, Bush told us so

Get with the progrom.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. So, we haven't yielded anything at all?

Isn't this where someone comes in to remind us that when you're torturing someone, they'll usually tell you what you want to hear. They'll even talk in tongues if that pleases you.

[yellowcanine]

3. "The PROGRAM will not go forward if I can't torture!"

[rusty charly]

4. you almost said my new tag line:

"Get With The Pogrom"

[madrchsod]

5. he can not change the geneva convention

the us congress can not change the geneva convention

they can only chose to ignore it.

[magellan]

6. And the decision to ignore it was made some time ago

They're just trying to ratify it, 'rat' being the operative word-part.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. So, Americans will be shot if caught by the enemy, but

everybody else will be treated according to the Geneva Conventions?

[magellan]

8. I'm not sure what you're saying

But how captured Americans are treated by others is largely out of our control. They might adhere to the Geneva Conventions and they might not. This has always been the case.

What we do have control over is our own morals and ethics, and the determination to live up to our principles regardless of what others do. That doesn't meaning rolling over and letting others have their way with us. But neither does it mean we throw off our principles and treat others as savagely as we're treated.

Many innocent people died on 9-11. Telling ourselves it's okay to treat other innocents inhumanely if it might stop more 9-11s says nothing but that we have as little regard for humanity as the enemy.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. What I mean is, I hope Muslims don't believe in "an eye for an eye."

If that's the case, the rules of engagement will change accordingly and they will probably treat us just as inhumanely as we plan to treat them when we meet on the battlefield. Of course, the current course of collective punishment isn't much better. Instead of an eye for an eye, it's really closer to: your eye, your mother's spleen, your father's heart, your infant son's life, your wife's leg for an eye.

[magellan]

10. I think the Muslims do believe in "an eye for an eye"

At least the radical ones do, and wouldn't you know it, they're the ones we're fighting. Remember Abeer? Iraqi word is those two captured soldiers from the unit that did it were physically mutilated to show it was payback for her rape and murder.

One big circle jerk.

The West have been practicing collective punishment in that region for a long, long time. You'd have thought we'd have learned by now that people in general don't take kindly to having their families maimed and killed for the actions of others.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Gee, if they're successful will that free, the "ignorant' and poorly

supervised enlisted young adults in the MP unit From Hell?

After all, someone was encouraging them and nary an officer nor even senior NCO paid *any* price. :grr: