Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda
Point 1
They did it 163 times because every time they did it, they hit the jackpot.
Point 2
Not to sound like an Islamophobe but there are valid reasons why Arabic interpreters might be prejudged as a security risk. Being a good Muslim and the rule of taqiyya. They could also be influenced by a fatwa from millions of places. I don't say that it is right but I do say that it could be justifiable.
Point 3
There are reasons that a person could be summarily killed in a combat theater. Being a combatant, out of uniform. Sabotage. Those 2 cover a lot of them. These are not a problem with Geneva that I ever heard of.
Throughout time it has been the looser who is prosecuted for war crimes. One would have to be an idiot to want to change that.
Any country fool enough to try to prosecute our former Vice-President and Defense Secretary would in time suffer such consequences as to boggle the mind. This is why Spain has toned down its rhetoric. Any attempt to prosecute a member of the winning team for pure political reasons would only serve the lefty loony supporters of out present administration. It is thought by most Americans that these men were defending them. Political suicide.
Yoda
|
Agree.
Point 1 - there's a big difference between theory and practice. If it works, don't stop.
Point 2 - A serious problem with Arabic interpreters (foreign native, 1st generation US) is whether the person's religion affects the interpretation. If a Sunni Muslim translates for a Shi'ite Muslin, or a Copt translates for any Muslim, or any of several combinations, the interpretation itself can be suspect. Add into the mix gender bias based on religious beliefs and the problem continues. These problems have been noted for decades by the Department of Justice and the courts, and now the Department of Defense enters the equation and it gets more severe. It's just not a simple situation.
Point 3 - The Geneva Conventions were meant to be rules to be applied where the opponents agreed by signature to the Conventions to be bound by them. When one or more of the opponents are not signatory(ies) to the Conventions, the Conventions are not binding.
As far as the International Criminal Court is concerned, the last time i checked the USA, Russia and China are not signatories to it, and it has no jurisdiction on non-signatories. So, "international justice" is a smoke-and-mirrors term.
We are indeed a nation of law - but our laws! There was no "torture machine" and the practice of "aggressive interrogation" is standard operation procedure for every intelligence entity on this planet. It's not pretty, and it's not nice, and it's darned tough - but that's the nature of being in harm's way and trying to keep people from being turned into bio-waste by the actions of the opponent.
When I was in the cross-hairs of national opponents, I appreciated every attempt by "aggressive interrogators" to gain tactical information because they made it more possible for me being here now. Given the opportunity, I'd buy them all a beer....