They're sending in the Sioux. I wonder if they'll count coup? I assume that taking scalps is against the Geneva Convention, though.

The Bush Administration ruled that Taliban forces
are not subject to the geneva convetion.

I'm surprised Simberg isn't screaming for
Scalping. He's called for Torture,

He's called for Torture,

And you've answered the call.

anonymous,
Give it up - whatever arguments you have are completely masked by the ad hominem attacks.

I agree.

{anonymous}, you need to learn the basics of civilized discussion. You can't mix a slew of insults with intelligent reasoning. Why not give up the first and cultivate the latter?

By the way, D. Anghelone, Top Form ! Great line. Haha.

Of course, the Taliban is subject to the Geneva convention, because everybody is. What they aren't subject to are protections granted to uniformed soldiers and non-combatant civilians by the convention, because they are neither. In the end, applying Geneva protections to those who do not warrant it is as detrimental to the convention as not applying them to those who do.

Of course, to some people, the Geneva convention is just another rhetorical club to use against the Bush administration or America in general, logic arguments notwithstanding.

Of course, to some people, the Geneva convention is just another rhetorical club to use against the Bush administration or America in general, logic arguments notwithstanding.

Yes, many people ignorantly assume that the Geneva Conventions are about protecting the rights of prisoners, when the main point is protecting the rights of non-combatants, something to which the enemy is completely indifferent.

IMHO, it's too early to say whether the "Surge" is working or not. The abandonment of insurgents' positions around Baghdad and other areas is expected behavior. The big question is whether Iraq can keep them out of the areas that they retreated from. If the insurgents can successfully reestablish themselves militarily at some point in the not so distant future (say within the next three years), then the Surge wasn't effective.

I do find the changes promising though. The momentum is clearly on the Iraqi/allied side now and the US military appears more competently led than in the recent days of Rumsfeld.

Simberg is as usual incorrect or wildly overstating his case.

The Geneva convention is actually 4 treaties and 3 supplemental
accords.

3 of the 4 conventions deal with the wounded combatants
and POW's 1 convention deals with civilians, 2
protocol accords deal with victims.

Of course the real question is given Simberg's
support for torture is he also calling for scalping?

"They're sending in the Sioux."

Do you suppose they've decided to find Bin Laden yet?

"I assume that taking scalps is against the Geneva Convention, though."

Ironic, isn't it? Someone exactly like you probably supported the massacre of their ancestors, maybe in some old fashioned roll-printed gazette.

"many people ignorantly assume that the Geneva Conventions are about protecting the rights of prisoners"

Considering they do protect the rights of prisoners, apparently they are.

"when the main point is protecting the rights of non-combatants"

The main point is protecting human rights, a concept you can't seem to comprehend.

"something to which the enemy is completely indifferent."

As, clearly, are you. Just out of curiosity, whose side are you on? Civilization or barbarism?

Human Rights? You would let the barbarians thru the gates in the interest of human rights as I am sur eyour ancestors helped usher civiliztion into the firsst dark ages and you seem to be intent helping create another along with your 'special' partner.

I see Squidward has added stereo to the stupid.

Hey Brian, just because anonymous is hell bent on riding the short bus handbasket to its inevitible destination does not mean you have to fight to fit in it with him.

When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Anonyomus Jew-Hater, a wiser person would call that a 'clue' and swiftly seek corrective action.

Mike: "You would let the barbarians thru the gates"

And you would vote for them. But I have no more sympathy for foreign barbarians than domestic ones--the "gate" is freedom, and your lot would burn it down to sell the nails.

Mike: "as I am sur eyour ancestors helped usher civiliztion into the firsst dark ages"

My ancestors weren't even likely part of civilization at the time, they would have been Eastern European plains huntsmen.

Mike: "and you seem to be intent helping create another along with your 'special' partner."

Oh, I see: Geneva Conventions = Dark Ages. Don't forget that War is Peace and Slavery is Freedom. And be sure to buy Victory Gin for the war effort against Eurasia, or Eastasia, or Iraq, or Iran, or whoever the hell your Eternal Enemy is five minutes from now.

"just because anonymous is hell bent on riding the short bus handbasket to its inevitible destination does not mean you have to fight to fit in it with him."

What destination is that, Herr Puckett?

Mike: "When you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Anonyomus Jew-Hater, a wiser person would call that a 'clue' and swiftly seek corrective action."

Oh, I should stop thinking and put on a tinfoil Kaiser helmet to be with the "cool kids" like you Mike, you gotta stop watching Nickelodeon.

Custer must be spinning in his grave.

"many people ignorantly assume that the Geneva Conventions are about protecting the rights of prisoners"

"Considering they do protect the rights of prisoners, apparently they are."

WRONG! By that definition the GC would also protect everybody currently incarcerated in every prison in the US and its territories...and it doesn't. Rand is entirely correct (again), you simply can't read just parts of the GC (assuming you did read it) and pull out just those pieces of sentences that you agree with.

Squidward, I did not coin you that.

You may not know where your handbasket is going but you might find a clue when your absolutely worthless ass starts to catch on fire.

You are a cranially-rectically inverted, self-centered spoiled brat fool. Everyone else on this board with a scintillia of sense understands that.

That is what the rest of us in the real world call a 'clue'. You would be advised to take notice of it.

"WRONG! By that definition the GC would also protect everybody currently incarcerated in every prison in the US and its territories"

The fact that we're talking about people captured in a military conflict is understood implicitly.

"Rand is entirely correct (again)"

No, he is playing his usual game of making a Chewbacca Defense of the indefensible. What I'm saying is that the Geneva Conventions are "about" exactly what they do, which no reasonable argument could deny, while Rand insists that the law itself is irrelevant next to his idea of what it *should* be in his opinion.

"you simply can't read just parts of the GC (assuming you did read it) and pull out just those pieces of sentences that you agree with."

That includes not negating the entire document by torturing people.

Simberg has been in favor of torture, I'm just wondering why he
seems so squeamish about scalping?

Oh please...the GC is pretty straightforward. I guess you've already defined terrorists as soldiers of legitimate governments that have declared war on us.

Torture is illegal under the Constitution, under the US criminal code, under the UCMJ, under the laws of every state and territory in the Union, under the laws of every remotely democratic country, under the UN Charter, under the Geneva Conventions, and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, for anyone, ever, and those who commit, order, or knowingly allow torture under their authority are common criminals deserving of the longest possible prison sentences.