• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This sounds like when pics emerged of American troops pointing finger-guns at the genitals of Muslim men in potato sacks on baskets.

    Holy shit, I can’t find the Gitmo pics of the lady doing fingerguns at their junks. I’m sure I could if I spent enough time, but 4-5 searches didn’t get their. That’s even more disturbing. This was a huge issue.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t make it right, but those were mistreated POWs who arguably didn’t have Geneva protections.

        These are apparently random civilians.

        • Schmuppes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Torture is torture, no matter if those in Iraq were civilians, guerilleros, militias or regular armed forces. It does not change a thing about the crime.

          • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think this is correct.

            Torture is dehumanization.

            If you’re willing to torture a terrorist, or even a serial killer or something, then you have it in your nature to torture anyone for any reason.

            Like people who abuse animals. It’s engaging in and cultivating a very dark part of a person’s nature, which can manifest in many different ways.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you want to pretend it’s not worse to torture random civilians out of pure spite than militants that’s on you I guess.

            • Schmuppes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Makes no difference. If torturing enemy combatants was acceptable, there would be no Geneva conventions. The moment they are captured and seize to actively take part in the conflict, they are protected from further harm.

              • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                So you believe that a single murder is just as evil as a genocide? That there is not a scale to evil?

                That all crimes should result in the same sentence?

                Because that is what you are arguing, that all evil is the same, and equally contemptible, with no shades of guilt or nuance.

                I disagree, and I don’t think you actually believe that either.

                • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nobody is arguing that it is more or less evil. The militant POW may face their own trials after the war, where a punishment is decided. But while they are a POW, they are unable to cause any damages. So they are also not allowed to be tortured.

                  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You will find that the actual laws of the Geneva Conventions only protect signatories and those that agreed to abide by the rules, which Hamas and any terrorist organization by definition does not. Rather specifically does not.

                    But, as mentioned, irrelevant to the civilians in question as they are protected.

                    Random terrorists, though? Legally they can be shot and dumped in the nearest ditch.

                    Of course, legality is not morality.

                  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    When they argued there isn’t a difference between torturing random civilians for fun and humiliating (suspected) terrorists.

            • Jaybob32@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some of those prisoners were not militants, just random civilians. Turned in by thier neighbors for a quick buck, is what happened.

            • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even I, who think the Palestinian leadership is full of shit and has been full of shit since before 1948, and think that using meat shields to protect military assets is the war crime, and that the civilian deaths that are occurring in the destruction of said tunnels are the foreseeable consequences of the aforementioned war crime, WILDLY AND ADAMANTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. What my government did in Gitmo, The fact that there was a prison at all at Gitmo, is a shitstain on American honor. What these individuals in the IDF are doing, or are allowing fucking nut bag whacko settlers to do, is a shit stain on the reputation of Israel.

          • sndmn@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s why they created the “enemy combatant” nonsense, so they could “legally” torture people.

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No no no you don’t get it. We don’t torture prisoners of war, that would be wrong. We may have subjected an enemy combatant to enhanced interrogation including intimate humiliation until the combatant achieved cessation of vitality, but that’s different because I want it to be.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          would this be after we decided that every male over the age of 12 was an enemy combatant regardless of their actions?

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. But don’t worry, the perpetrators got severely punished by being dishonorably discharged from the US Army. Then two of them married each other.

      Edit: Looks like you are already referring to the Abu Ghraib tortures.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, I really thought “this guy just didn’t look hard enough, they’re there”.

      Uh, spoilers: I did not find them.