Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
Did I list WWI? No, so your mouth (actually fingers) outpaces your reading comprehension.
|
Darn. You tricked me with the "Gulf War I". My responses are hampered by my unwillingness to actually spend much time studying what you write. Who needs that kind of grief?
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
Conveniently, you neglect to mention those fighting in the pacific theater. Whatever.
|
Not "'conveniently" -- I did it intentionally, and quite obviously, to acknowledge precisely the grievous abuses by the Japanese to which you infer.
You miss the point that the mere presence of these international norms and organizations like the ICRC, combined with the increasing speed of the spread of information in the modern world, do have an ameliorative effect on the behavior of many adversaries to the extent that they are not insane and care at all about their international image. For instance, despite the terrible abuses by the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese -- there were ICRC care packages to at least some POWs, and some ICRC visits/inspections (at least in VN), which made some difference.
It is better to have the rules than not, even though they are often violated. Similarly, to the extent that governments wish to be seen as complying with international standards (even if they are not), their behavior will be better than if those standards did not exist.
AG is taking very simple, principled positions: "No torture, please." and "If you torture them anyways , you go to keep it out of the CJ system." That position is easy to understand, and has the benefit of avoiding lots of very messy line-drawing.
Your posts on the torture subject are like the arguments of a bad litigator -- hammering on a few facts while ignoring the rest to mischaracterize the opponents' arguments. The problem is that this forum had no judge, no jury, no verdict (and thus no end to it).
S_A_M
