Finally. The press see's my point: Bush's administration = War Criminals

[Santoro]

Crap, you guys have dragged me back in.

But allow me to illustrate how absurd and useless your scenario is:

Would you support a rollback of Bush's tax-cuts if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you vote for Kerry  if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support socialized healthcare  if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC?

Would you support a ban on assault weapons  if it was the only way to keep a nuclear bomb from being detonated in NYC? (well...that one's probably a bad example... )

I don't understand your logic at all.  These examples are all fantasy.

In contrast there have been numerous press reports (one is here) that there are probably more than several Russian Tactical Nulear devices (Suitcase Nukes) out there unaccounted for.  Bin Laden could easily afford a few of these puppies on the arms black market for his use.  TA's question is completely valid.

The 'black ant' thing is an adorable little ditty, but certainly not analagous.  The point it makes is that a nuclear detonation in NYC is on the same scale of atrocity as violating the Geneva Convention for a few particularly hard-core bad guys.   Is that really what you meant to say? The world just isn't that black-and-white.  Think 256 shades of gray.

I believe any reasonable Commander-In-Chief would violate the conventions for non-military threats far less than the probability of a tactical nuke detionation.  Sarin gas, truck bombs, etc all are large enough threats to US Security.  I go back to my previous point.  We are not fighting men who are soldiers fighting for an Army that adheres to the conventions, rather, these people have openly made it thier mission to destroy us NO MATTER WHAT it takes.  

Why in God's name would we provide them any protection whatsoever? We are taking a knife to a gunfight if we do.

[patrickl]

The Geneva conventions themselves don't stand in the way of getting the information. This "nuke or conventions" example is so far fetched that it is nonsense. You don't prevent a nuke from detonating by not living up to the geneva conventions. The only thing you get from violating proper conduct rules is that you become a barbarian yourselves.

[Crazy Cooter]

No its not - and its a question that requires only a yes or a no for an answer.
You have responded with a "yes".

Life must be real simple in your world where everything is "yes" or "no".

Would you snuff your mom if she was holding the nuke in a suitcase?  Oh, then you hate your mom.

You read, but you don't comprehend.

It's not a valid question.  And to say that since someone did this, now we can do that, is saying it's alright to stoop to that level.  I guess I just hold the President, and the actions of the United States as a whole, to a higher set of morals than others do.

Two wrongs don't make a right & the end doesn't justify the means.

[TA Pilot]

Life must be real simple in your world where everything is "yes" or "no".

Life must be real difficult in your world, where nothing is yes/no  and everything is nuanced.  



Would you snuff your mom if she was holding the nuke in a suitcase?  Oh, then you hate your mom.

And going to detonate it in an American city?  Without hesitattion.  Wouldnt you?

Oh... and while I hate my mom, I love yours - she gives a discount.


It's not a valid question.

Absolutely it is.  It directly addresses the issue of whether or not its acceptable to violate the GC for security reasons.



I guess I just hold the President, and the actions of the United States as a whole, to a higher set of morals than others do.

Only because he's a Republican.

[Santoro]

The Geneva conventions themselves don't stand in the way of getting the information. This "nuke or conventions" example is so far fetched that it is nonsense. You don't prevent a nuke from detonating by not living up to the geneva conventions. The only thing you get from violating proper conduct rules is that you become a barbarian yourselves.

Again with the black and white.  You are assuming that breaking the GC is as barbaric as Nuking Manhattan.  It just isn't.  I would shoot mother Theresa in cold blood if it meant that I could prevent 500 innocents from dying.  Would I be a barbarian?  There is a sliding scale here.  The other end of the scale is denying every detainee GC rights.  That would be barbaric.    See my point? Somewhere in the gray middle, the truth lies.

It is unconscionable to risk bad things happening to innocent people in the name of being 'proper.'  And while nukes may be the least likely scenario, Sarin gas is not.  We surely have a lot of people in custody who know of planned gas attacks.  Those people should get exacltly squat in terms of rights.

And, yes I realize that on occasion someone who isn't really a threat will be detained, mistaken for someone who does.  (Contrary to most here, I recognize that even the even the CIA is made up of humans.)  This is awful. Oh, but for the better good of the country as a whole, necessary.  

[saint]

Took me a while to catch up but this thread is officially dead due to nastiness.