It would be utterly naive of me to even think that the insurgents in Iraq, of whatever religious or political persuasion would for one minute think that their conduct was covered under any rules of conventional warfare. Partisans in any conflict have rarely held themselves accountable for their actions or actions taken against adversaries captured, but you know, you have to wonder how the chickenhawk repudiation of the Geneva Convention might affect captured US Forces in the Middle East.
A video posted on the Internet Wednesday in the name of an extremist group claimed to show Iraqi insurgents dragging the burning body of a U.S. pilot on the ground after the crash of an Apache helicopter.
If, in the unlikely event the pilot of theat Apache lived, I doubt his longevity enhanced by the rage that the average insurgent feels towards Americans and American servicemen in particular.
The outright abrogation of the Geneva Convention by the 1600 Chickenhawks was another "swaggering moment" for them in their mas macho phase that led the gullible to believe that they stood for National Security, even as they were destroying it both from within by attacks on our Constitution, and from without as they managed to piss off people who were not even mildly annoyed with us.
Now there's talk of "surgical" airstrikes into Iran to "take out" their nuclear capabilities. Yeah, once again their chickenhawk guts, someone else's blood is the Plan of the Day.
I shudder to think what happens when a US aircrew is captured by an adversary who wants to make a North Vietnamese style propaganda show of "war criminal" before summarily executing them, because that Geneva Convention thingy? Why it's just a quaint idea.
posted by Jo Fish on 04.05.06 at 06:17 PM
Comments:
This is what most Americans-- and every single one who supports this Administration and its "get tough on dark-skinned furriners" bullshit-- just doesn't get. (Of course, it's the men and women of the military-- especially legal officers-- who have been the most outraged by the policies of anyone... but why should we listen to them now?)
No, our following the Geneva Conventions, humane treatment, due process of law, etc. TO THE LETTER certainly is no guarantee that others will follow suit.
But our abrogation of these obligations... which, notwithstanding what our chickenshit courts seem to be saying, are the duly ratified supreme law of this land... certainly guarantees that no one fighting us will honor them.
Too bad. We've spent hundreds of years building up the laws of war so that a few clowns could scrap them to win a couple of Congressional elections and reelect a clown to the White House.
Ask your selves this.
Why is the Senator from Arizona so fierciely defending that asshole setting at 1600 Pennslyvania?
Did that idiot calling himself God use the Geneva Convention rules in Guantanomo?
Did the Vietnamese use it on the Senator from Arizona?
And he is wanting to run our country= God help us.
One thing the Republiars forgot= You Reap What You Sow= Guantanamo good example
What Geneva Convention Rules? Those havent been followed since they started when it comes to American men and women service people.
posted by: utahrouge on 04.06.06 at 01:46 AM [permalink]
I still say, a quaint little blindfold on Abu Gonzales, and drop his brown ass behind the line in Iraq with AMERICAN and BUSH ADMIN OFFICIAL painted on his BACK..
See what that gets him in Haditha, or maybe Fallujah when the July duststorms hit, and everyone's tensions are at their end.
I'd like to see just how fucking quaint Geneva is then.
