Its from Al Jazeera so a bit biased, but is there any substance in this? I cant say the papers here would be falling over theirselves to be printing this.
Its from Al Jazeera so a bit biased, but is there any substance in this? I cant say the papers here would be falling over theirselves to be printing this.
Perhaps some legitimate concerns although some of the replys seem very biased. Just what exactly is defined as 'torture' anyway.Some would say that being interrogated for hours on end was torture. Others obviously would not i.e intelligence gathering. Personally I do not think much of that 'talking shop' known as the UN anyway.
From what ive read ( ie SAS books, back of cereal boxes etc) the escape and evasion excercises are used for the interrogators to brush up their skills. Logically in war time they'd be using much the same methods. Hoods, stress positions, white noise, sensorary (sic?) deprivation...all that good stuff. Technically it probably constitues torture as prisoners are supposed to be treated like visiting royalty under geneva conventions. Its designed to confuse and disorientate captives rather than actually break them.
On the other hand british forces need to extract info from captives to save lives. Not just their own but others. The more int they can gather the better the war goes the quicker its all over. If mohammed the errant goat herder can tell you exactly where his beardy buddies are in falluja it means the next airstrike is that much more accurate avoiding civilain casualties.
Could someone please tell me if Im wrong but none of these people that we are capturing have uniforms? So as far as im aware they are classed as spies and are therefore not protected by any rules of war and they are lucky they arent shot on the spot, surely if they were to play by the rules and not do all this cowardly suicide attacks and wear uniforms and then they would be treated like POW's but like said before surely they have no rights?
Just like seeing the footage of those US marines shooting that chap, what was wrong with that he may or may not have had a weapon and he wasnt wearing a uniform or part of a legitimate army, so what rights does he have?
Maybe? but can you honestly say that you believe an evil terrorist (Yes I would say they were terrorists and not freedom fighters, my personal view) has any rights, after they are willing to kill in such a cowardly way?
Im not arguing its just my point of view and i do understand your view, but on a rules of war and geneva convention note do they actually have any rights? Ive looked on the net and i cant really find any conclusive answers. It all depends on definitions and points of view from what ive read.
Basic human rights ie 'right to live' dont exist in a war zone.
Any rights given are given by the opposing force.
If your wounded and lucky the enmey might patch you up and treat you. If your wounded but happen to be part of a group that routinely uses dirty tactics like playing dead only to blow yourself up then expect a bullet in the head at the slightest provocation. You choose what team you want to play on.
Wendy from the Al Jazeera forum wrote:this is very strange, i thought that we were supposedly the 'civilised' people that held true to morals and ethics not in comparison to those that we claim are lesser than us but on the basis of those set out in international law, geneva conventions . so why do people compare our actions to that of those we are fighting against isnt that a false comparison and one that ultimately makes us just like them? the whole point of being better is to be obligated to maintain and enforce those higher standards regardless of those around us. if we fail to keep those standards then who are we to complain about the actions of our enemies? we are horrified by a ing but not by a 21 000 pound bomb that the air out of you and is akin to a mini nuke. we can use napalm like unconventional weapons in fallujah that melts and burns people to and yet be disgusted by a weapons cache found in a mosque. we can fire into the heads of iraqis and feel it justified in our illegal war.
''''''''''''''''''quote="Wendy from the Al Jazeera forum"]this is very strange, i thought that we were supposedly the 'civilised' people that held true to morals and ethics not in comparison to those that we claim are lesser than us but on the basis of those set out in international law, geneva conventions . so why do people compare our actions to that of those we are fighting against isnt that a false comparison and one that ultimately makes us just like them? '''''
Its a comparison. Its unfair to them because comparing a US marine shooting a possible threat in the heat of the moment with some bearded lunatic cutting off a captives head in cold blood makes them look bad. Because they are.
''''''''''the whole point of being better is to be obligated to maintain and enforce those higher standards regardless of those around us. '''''''''''
The whole point of being better is that you are BETTER than the other. We are. Which side would you rather be captured by Wendy?
''''''if we fail to keep those standards then who are we to complain about the actions of our enemies? ''''''
So someone who deviates from a loftly moral ideal (that their own culture created) a little because it is necessary to do so is no better than someone who does not even recognise that ideal and consistently acts in opposition to them? A girl who shoplifts to feed her kids has no right to complain when she is raped because she too has broken the law. Good one, wendy from al jazeera.
''''''''we are horrified by a ing but not by a 21 000 pound bomb that the air out of you and is akin to a mini nuke.'''''''''
not sure what 'ing' is-presuming beheading. Yes wendy killing captives, civilians at that, is different from dropping bombs on the enemy. If you dont know what the difference is, well i dont think you'll ever know. Tricky thing this moral business isnt it? And no a 21000 bomb is nothing like a mininuke.
''''we can use napalm like unconventional weapons in fallujah that melts and burns people to ''''
Not sure what the hell she's talking about here. White phosphorous? Either way: war: its nasty when people try to kill you isnt it? the sheer variaty of methods they'll try...tsk tsk....Burning alive sounds so nasty, yet writhing in agony for hours from a bullet to the gut doesnt sound much better does it?
''''and yet be disgusted by a weapons cache found in a mosque.''''
The only disgust was at the hypocracy of a people that would claim to be fighting for God yet use Holy places as military bases.
''''we can fire into the heads of iraqis and feel it justified in our illegal war. ''''
Thats what war is at the end of the day....firing lumps of lead into people. If it makes Wendy feel better, target is generally center of body mass. Surely wendy prefers a good clean headshot instant kill to a prolonged death from disembowling though.
