Comment on Conservatives Quickly Turn Against “Idiot” Marjorie Taylor Greene
sxan@midwest.social 6 months agoGitmo had nothing to do with Geneva. It dealt with US law. If we brought them back to our soil, they’d have full protections under the constitution.
Isn’t that where the GC comes in? The convention isn’t about applying your country’s laws, but about ethical standards for treatment of enemy combatants. Gitmo being not on our soil is where Geneva should have come into play.
I was there for about six months
I’m sorry about that; maybe some people enjoyed working there, but I think it would have messed me up.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 6 months ago
No. Geneva has nothing to do with it. We have to comply with Geneva anywhere.
We picked gitmo specifically because it’s not US soil.
There is the whole debate if they weee protected under Geneva and if they was law enforcement, etc. but gitmo was only selected to avoid US law.
sxan@midwest.social 6 months ago
Yah I think we’re talking past one another. I wasn’t debating where Gitmo was located; when I said it was “outside Geneva” I meant it was operating outside of the agreements of the Geneva Conventions. Torture is not allowed for captured enemy combatants under the convention; prisoners at Gitmo were tortured. Gitmo was not obeying the conventions.
I’m sure there are all sorts of loopholes engaged in what went on there; were insurgents technically “enemy combatants?” By classifying them as “terrorists” were they excluded from protection? Since they weren’t wearing military uniforms, were they excluded from protection? Is waterboarding technically torture?
But nobody in the world is going to being the US in for trial, so the question was moot: we all knew Gitmo defied the spirit of the Geneva Convention; this is why I say it didn’t serve a purpose. We know torture is an unreliable way of gathering intel. If I waterboard you enough, eventually you’ll name your own child as a terrorist if I want you to.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 6 months ago
The torture is a whole different debate. It was called enhanced interrogation techniques. I’ll leave it at I wouldn’t want that shit some to me. I’ve been through many of the techniques and they’re no joke.
sxan@midwest.social 6 months ago
I suspect we disagree on a lot of things, but this one thing we’re in complete alignment. There’s a golden rule concept floating in here: I think if one takes the position that waterboarding isn’t torture, they should try it sometime. I don’t want to be incarcerated, but I’d be willing to try it for a while it if meant proving it’s not inhumane. Very few of the “approved” interrogation techniques I’ve heard come out of Gitmo would I willingly subject myself to.