Modification of Geneva Conventions

[GenuineRisk]

The following is from Andrew Sullivan's website. Guys, whatever terrorists might do to captured soldiers, it does not justify us torturing enemy combatants. We must never cede the moral high ground. And yet Bush does so. Shame on all of us, for tolerating it-- we are putting future soldiers in danger by going along with this. Anyway... most of it is the reservists; the last sentence is Sullivan's (I put the reservist's words in between quotation marks)

What We've Lost

15 Sep 2006 04:38 pm

A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes:

"I was deployed in my reserve unit (USMCR) as part of operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Marine infantry, and we were on the front lines, supposedly to guard a gunship base, but really, though, the gunships guarded us.

Not too much later, it was time to take prisoners. One of the platoons went north, and when they came back, there were stories about how Iraqi soldiers lined the roads, trying to surrender. I spent a week guarding Iraqi men in a makeshift prison camp, a way-station really, and more than I could count. They didn't look like they were starving or dehydrated. Apparently, once the ground war began, they just pitched their weapons and headed south at first opportunity. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that they knew bone deep that they'd get fair treatment. We gave them MREs (with the pork entree's removed) but almost immediately some Special Forces guys arrived and set up a real chow line for them. We gave each man a blanket, (I kept an extra as a souvie) and I think I saw a Special Forces doc giving some of them a once over.

Once, only once, one of them got all irritated and tried to get in one of the Corporal's faces, loud. (I was a lance-corporal). He wouldn't back down, so the Corporal gave him an adjustment, a rifle butt-stroke to his gut, not hard, but he went down. The Corporal sent me for the medic. The guy was ok, and now calm (or at least understanding the situation), and hand-signed that he was out of smokes and really, really needed one... Not a bad guy, just stressed-dumb and needing a smoke. None of the others prisoners in the camp even registered it.

We went north to mop up not long after that. I saw the Iraqi weapons: rocket launchers a little smaller than semi-trailers, hidden in buildings, AKs in piles, big Soviet mortars and anti-tank mines, everywhere but unarmed. They had food too. Pasteurized milk to drink, but most gone bad by then. Some of the mortar rounds were still in crates. They had long trenches that were hard to see in the dunes, bunkers with maps, fire-plans laid out, and blankets, all placed with decent vantage for command and control. They even had wire laid for land-line communications. The point is, they could have fought. Not won, no they couldn't have won, but they could have fought. Instead, they chose to surrender.

Looking back, I think that one of the main drivers in these men's heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they'd get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.

Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China... China or Russia. I don't think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn't even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this ******* who never once risked anything for this country?"

This president must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The following is from Andrew Sullivan's website. Guys, whatever terrorists might do to captured soldiers, it does not justify us torturing enemy combatants. We must never cede the moral high ground. And yet Bush does so. Shame on all of us, for tolerating it-- we are putting future soldiers in danger by going along with this. Anyway... most of it is the reservists; the last sentence is Sullivan's (I put the reservist's words in between quotation marks)

What We've Lost

15 Sep 2006 04:38 pm

A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes:

"I was deployed in my reserve unit (USMCR) as part of operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Marine infantry, and we were on the front lines, supposedly to guard a gunship base, but really, though, the gunships guarded us.

Not too much later, it was time to take prisoners. One of the platoons went north, and when they came back, there were stories about how Iraqi soldiers lined the roads, trying to surrender. I spent a week guarding Iraqi men in a makeshift prison camp, a way-station really, and more than I could count. They didn't look like they were starving or dehydrated. Apparently, once the ground war began, they just pitched their weapons and headed south at first opportunity. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that they knew bone deep that they'd get fair treatment. We gave them MREs (with the pork entree's removed) but almost immediately some Special Forces guys arrived and set up a real chow line for them. We gave each man a blanket, (I kept an extra as a souvie) and I think I saw a Special Forces doc giving some of them a once over.

Once, only once, one of them got all irritated and tried to get in one of the Corporal's faces, loud. (I was a lance-corporal). He wouldn't back down, so the Corporal gave him an adjustment, a rifle butt-stroke to his gut, not hard, but he went down. The Corporal sent me for the medic. The guy was ok, and now calm (or at least understanding the situation), and hand-signed that he was out of smokes and really, really needed one... Not a bad guy, just stressed-dumb and needing a smoke. None of the others prisoners in the camp even registered it.

We went north to mop up not long after that. I saw the Iraqi weapons: rocket launchers a little smaller than semi-trailers, hidden in buildings, AKs in piles, big Soviet mortars and anti-tank mines, everywhere but unarmed. They had food too. Pasteurized milk to drink, but most gone bad by then. Some of the mortar rounds were still in crates. They had long trenches that were hard to see in the dunes, bunkers with maps, fire-plans laid out, and blankets, all placed with decent vantage for command and control. They even had wire laid for land-line communications. The point is, they could have fought. Not won, no they couldn't have won, but they could have fought. Instead, they chose to surrender.

Looking back, I think that one of the main drivers in these men's heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they'd get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.

Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China... China or Russia. I don't think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn't even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this ******* who never once risked anything for this country?"

This president must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country.

GR,
Thanks for putting this up.
It's kind of ironic that I disagree with Sen John McCain on many issues, I really DO agree with him when he states "We must preserve the moral high ground". It give credibility to the United States as much as that torch held by the beautiful lady in New York harbor does.

Anyway, last report I saw said that Sen Frist was going to block the debate on the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham presented.
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

GR,
Thanks for putting this up.
It's kind of ironic that I disagree with Sen John McCain on many issues, I really DO agree with him when he states "We must preserve the moral high ground". It give credibility to the United States as much as that torch held by the beautiful lady in New York harbor does.

Anyway, last report I saw said that Sen Frist was going to block the debate on the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham presented.
DTS

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

I thought the same thing about Terry Schiavo. she seemed to respond when they would talk to her and pat her on the head. I'm far from a pro-lifer. I actually support Dr. Kevorkian. But I thought it was absolutely wrong for them to starve her to death. Her family was willing to take care of her. I thought the whole thing was disgraceful.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I thought the same thing about Terry Schiavo. she seemed to respond when they would talk to her and pat her on the head. I'm far from a pro-lifer. I actually support Dr. Kevorkian. But I thought it was absolutely wrong for them to starve her to death. Her family was willing to take care of her. I thought the whole thing was disgraceful.

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

I too would have much rather seen Terri Shiavo euthanized because their were some discrepancies between doctors considering what she felt and what she didn't feel. In fact, I did an argumentative speech in my public speaking class on this topic while it was going on because I thought that people like Terri should allowed to be euthanized and not staved to death. I think that it is an ethics question...

That whole situation was a mess...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Hey now... he's allowed his opinion as well. Only Schivo knows what she felt... and we'll never know that, will we? I would rather her have been put to sleep in Kevorkian style than starved to death. JMO.

My apologies, Rupert; Cajun's right; what I wrote did sound snarky and I try not to be excessively snarky.

Unfortunately, euthanasia is not permitted in Florida, so there was nothing to do other than pull out the feeding tube in her stomach and let her die of natural causes. I think Slate did an article on what it's like-- I'll see if I can find the link.

You guys are right, no one, other than Schiavo, knows what she felt or didn't feel over the last 14 years of her life.

Here's the Washington Post article on the autopsy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500512.html

Rupert, this wasn't a case of the feds stepping into a state case (which is what I assume the KKK stuff was-- state cases where the jury voted to acquit. Can you give me specifics about the cases to which you're referring? I may be completely wrong in my assumption here, so I need more info from you about it, please?) This is a case where several FEDERAL judges-- federal, not state, decided in favor of removing the feeding tube. The Supreme Court twice declined to hear the case. And the Republican-controlled legislature stepped in, writing a bill pertaining ONLY to this specific person and Bush flew back to Washington to sign it. The same Bush who is unwilling to get warrants before eavesdropping, and signed the Congressional legislation on torture by adding an addendum that he'd ignore it if he felt like it. What do you call a President who publicly says he's going to ignore laws? I call it something starting with a "K" and ending with an "NG" (Vanna, may I buy a vowel?) Rupert, his entire presidency has been about subverting the separation of powers. I'm happy to find you links and specifics if you'll read them and not skim them (and I'll find ones with facts, not just generalized statements. I don't like essays masquerading as serious articles, either). Let me know.

In any event, wouldn't you know it, I found an essay looking at both the Schiavo case and the Abu Ghraib situation (neatly bringing the tangent I'm responsible for introducing back to the main thread, which was torture). It's interesting reading:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/C...l_santner.html

Again, apologies for snarkiness in my earlier post!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I wasn't aware you were a neurologist, Rupert. Amazing the things you learn about people on this board! Senator Frist isn't, you know.

Did you read the results of the autopsy? Her brain was liquified. For that matter, did you watch all the hours and hours of tapes, or just the highlights the family cut together to make it look like she was responding? From what I read, the many hours of tape included lots of stuff they didn't show-- they only showed the moments that made it look like she was responding... you know, blind squirrel and all that.

I also do not oppose euthanasia, and would prefer someone being allowed to die be given drugs to let them die, but in Schivo's case, I sincerely doubt she felt anything.

If it were you, Rupert, would you want to be trapped in a body that couldn't think, couldn't move, couldn't do anything, or would you want to be let go?

In any event, sixteen (I think it was sixteen) judges, over half of them conservatives, had heard the case and found repeatedly in favor of the husband. But clearly the current man in the White House has no respect for separation of powers (see "torture" and "court finds against it"). Did you like how he spent our tax dollars on his special midnight flight back to Washington to sign that bill about her?

There were plenty of doctors and nurses that examined her that would disagree with you.

I have no idea what she felt or didn't feel.

That's a ridiculous thing to say that Bush has no respect for separations of power. I guess you could say the same thing when they use to try KKK guys in the south back in the 1960s on federal charges after they were acquitted by juries. The courts were obviously not doing their jobs back then when they let KKK members go free for lynching people so the federl government stepped in and acted.

With regard to the autopsy on Schiavo, did the doctor who did the autopsy have an agenda? I don't know the answer to that. I'm not saying he did, but I don't know that he didn't.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

Yup,
Same guy who lead the Fed interference in a family matter during a time of crisis, by passed Florida law and made it federal.
Same guy.
Guess he can't bring "flag burning", gay marriage, or any other diversions to current issues before the senate, and the election is coming in 49 days...
guess he's got to do something.