To the extent that it was intended to institutionalize a serious respect for the rights of people caught up in war, sure. To the extent that it was intentionally drafted to exclude combatants who don’t follow Western notions of acceptable armed conflict, I see no violation of the G.C.'s spirit in locking up terrorist suspects and non-signatory irregulars. If they’d wanted to include everyone within the POW protections, they easily could have done it.
Thank you Minty. And Tomndebb, my apologies for being obtuse. Upon review of your replies, you are essentially correct in your analysis of the American Revolution militias (when applied to the Convention.)
Civilians do not take up arms. I would be wrong to ‘fight’ a man, woman, or child who is obviously carrying no weapon, but I would also be negligent to not detain and search them for such weapons (to a resonable point. I being a male, would not strip search a female. Things of that nature.) Non-combatants, eg civilians/chaplains/doctors/the wounded/the sick, are not considered POW’s, but are granted the same protections (as provided in Article 33 of the Convention.) That means they can be detained in the same way as POW’s or “enemy combatants,” but can be granted more liberties than true fighters.
Kimstu: Actually, I distrust Amnesty Int’l on most grounds. The fact that they devote as much space to detainees of the US as they do to Sudan and it’s two civil wars says something.
Villa: At least they, at that time, kept things in perspective. Back in the 80’s, they actually had something to anchor them in the center (eg, the USSR.) They drift more and more every time something happens. Its a shame, seeing as they used to be a valid and quality judge of the charachter of a nation. And good luck on your bar reviews!
To what standard are we to hold our current (and past/future) administrations? In my opinion, if the President is unwilling to issue orders which will lead to the deaths of every non-American on the planet so that the USA can survive, then he is unfit to lead (that’s why there’s always some poor officer with the SIOP breifcase right next to him. IMO, it should not come to that, but in worst case scenarios, it must.) I’m sure that you have another standard by which you judge the administration (again, current/past/future.) In the end, the only real way that the Administration could be ‘taken to task’ is by either voting some new blood into office, or by impeachment.
Zoe: Actually, I’m a member and supporter of the ACLU, when it addresses items here IN the United States. I’ve seen them on both sides of issues often enough that they’ve earned my respect (not that it counts for much.) Actually, I agree with the statements made by the DoD, FBI, USSC, and (gasp) UN Human Rights Comission. And please forgive the poor wording on my European anti-American statement.
Miller: Thanks for that. It’s not like we didn’t already hash that one over more than a year ago in two threads. Like the dogpile, including linked articles where someone attempted to go off board and contact my CO (btw, someone did try, but when it hit my lieutenant’s desk, he looked at me specifically (since I was the only one paying $2.20/minute for my own internet connection) and said “Cut the shit” before signing the citation for my JFCOM.) Also, please remember where I was at the time (which does indeed influence my attitude toward this arguement.) BTW, did you ever figure out how you felt about the fact that I hold you and your opinions in high regard? 
Anyway, back to the OP (I apologize for hijacking this thread.) No, Cheney isn’t being a dick about this. He’s being American, and (gasp!) he’s the #2 guy in the Administration. Think he would (should, could, does) defend the actions that he takes? Did Kennedy apologize for the Bay Of Pigs? Did Johnson apologize for Vietnam? He’s doing what he thinks is right and good. That’s his job, ya’ know?
Gawd, I fucked up that line. It should read “Like the dogpile? How about the posts where someone suggested that we go off board and contact my CO…”
No, but Robert S. McNamara not only appologized, he wrote a book about how they were wrong and why.
Guin, but McNamara wasn’t the VP. If Rummy said “Amnesty Int’l is a bunch of doody-heads” then it’d work. Johnson, et al. Fucked Up. Bush, et al. allowed fuck ups and may be proven to have Fucked Up (now with improved capatal letters!) but we still haven’t seen the end of this thing.
Perhaps, but Johnson died in the early seventies, didn’t he? So he wasn’t around long enough to appologize.
Very good point. I forgot all about that… 
Well USAF Airman ? Care to defend your comments? Its sad that smart people think so simply about “isolating” terrorists
I think its obvious that Gitmo was chosen for it not being US territory and in a sort of legal limbo… I think there are military bases in mainland US that could be just as secure as Gitmo. Especially those in desert like areas. No escaping.
Given that, it’s most odd that he hasn’t felt a responsibility to speak out in public in any way about the Iraq fiasco. If he really had learned anything significant from Vietnam, the lessons would be even more obvious now than they were before the war (when those of us drawing them were derided as defeatist reflexive Bush-haters).
[url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/mcnamara_4-17-95.html]The man himself said
Got anything to say about that last part now, asshole? Or are you still wrapped up in the excuse business?
Am I the only one who thinks this comment is, um, totally fucking insane?
It’s not that we don’t think it’s insane. It’s just that, considering the source, it’s hardly unexpected.
No. I think it’s insane also.
Why the hatred for every other being on the planet except for “Americans”?
Should we just mow all the other countries down–for what purpose? Is that what it would take to feel safe, post 9/11? What of our allies? Kill them too, just to be sure? And what of the dissenters at home? Lock them away? Where does the slope end, then? Rid the country of non-Christians, perhaps? Or those who suffer from handicaps/chronic illnesses? What the hell?
it is a disturbing (and also assinine) thing to say.
“…precious bodily fluids…”
Yes, he did. Cite. His popularity actually went up after he owned up to his mistakes.
It’s not just disturbing, it’s sociopathic. It sounds like something that Hitler or Stalin would have said. Did I just Godwinize the discussion? If so, screw it-that’s a really, really fucked up attitude.
ElvisL1ves, I do agree with you about McNamara-I don’t think he’s evil, per se, and perhaps in his heart, he really believes what he said. But yeah, he should be on the evening news saying, “Bush, dude, take it from me-you don’t want to go down this path.”
He didn’t say he hated every other being on the planet. He said the President must be willing to do whatever it takes to be sure this country survives. Which he must. Doesn’t mean he is looking forward to it or hoping to do it, just willing to do it.
It’s funny that you should say that, because I started a thread a while back about the utter lunacy of nuclear war and there were people arguing that if the President doesn’t push the button then he’s nuts.
So which one is it?
How do you get “hatred for every other being on the planet except for Americans” from:
“if the President is unwilling to issue orders which will lead to the deaths of every non-American on the planet so that the USA can survive, then he is unfit to lead.”
I mean, obviously, the President needs to be concerned about the welfare of Americans over foreigners. Where do you get hatred from?
I agree. Has nothing to do with hatred or bodily fluids. I cannot think of a situation given the current world situation where this type of order would be necessary, but the president should be able and willing to issue one.
Posited: International politics is a prisoners-dilemma situation. If a country deliberately makes a policy of doing what will help everyone over what will just help them, they will gain the trust and co-operation of other countries. This trust and co-operation is almost always worth more than whatever minor advantage can be squeezed out by ignoring the interests of non-citizens.
This a reasonable summary of why some of us don’t want US-at-all-costs policy?