Detainees to be accorded Geneva Convention rights.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I understand what you're saying and can even agree; however does the Geneva Convention require any nation (not just the US) to treat enemies that have nothing to do with the Covention rules as if they did?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I haven't lost sleep knowing that terrorists are being treated like terrorists. Sure, it may not be the moral high ground, but morality is relative. It doesn't seem that strapping a bomb to one's body then killing several non-Muslims for no other reason than claiming them to be infedels is immoral.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states that affording trials to all detainees is regarded as an "indispensible right" that is recognized by "all civilized nations."

Is morality truly relative? You can make a legal argument that it is, but it would be hard to sustain that argument as an LDS follower (assuming you are one). The "morality is relative" issue is generally dredged up when one concedes that an issue is immoral, but then wants to say, "yeah, but look at what other people are doing!" Our nation holds itself out to a higher standard. Is it possible we know judge ourselves by what crazy Islaamic extremists find to be moral? Or should we aim a bit higher than that?

I find the idea of a non-absolute morality to be useful in the context of abstaining from legislating the moral beliefs of a certain sect to the detriment of others. In that context, the separation of church and state mandates that we recognize the possibility of a non-absolute morality. When, however, we are using our standard of morality to grant additional protection and rights to others, I see no reason to abandon our morality, if that makes sense.

The Book of Mormon talks about doing a lot of crazy things, but nowhere can you find an example of the good guys torturing the bad guys, no matter how dire the circumstances of the time were.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I agree. If we could eliminate the dependency of Middle East oil, I'd be all for ignoring that part of the world entirely, except maybe Israel.

If we got to the point where we didn't need Middle East oil, Israel would become irrelevant.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

If we got to the point where we didn't need Middle East oil, Israel would become irrelevant.

That is hard to imagine. What makes you say that?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states that affording trials to all detainees is regarded as an "indispensible right" that is recognized by "all civilized nations."

Is morality truly relative? You can make a legal argument that it is, but it would be hard to sustain that argument as an LDS follower (assuming you are one). The "morality is relative" issue is generally dredged up when one concedes that an issue is immoral, but then wants to say, "yeah, but look at what other people are doing!" Our nation holds itself out to a higher standard. Is it possible we know judge ourselves by what crazy Islaamic extremists find to be moral? Or should we aim a bit higher than that?

We're not in the religion department so in a way it's objectionable to discuss religious principles.

However, that said, one of the few absolutes, is the right not to be killed unrighteously. And the obligation of persons to receive ordinances of salvation at some point in an existence to receive exaltation. Other than that, our history proves little else is not maleable.

The BoM is not a record of everything that transpired amongst the Nephites, but a religious record of religious principles. So to cite it, as an all inclusive record of everything that is political permissible, seems very misplaced.

This is not an argument that torture is good, or even permissible, or that enemy combatants deserve extraterritorial rights. It is an argument that morality is indeed in most instances relative. And the fact that we are born with rights, however that magically occurred does not displace the argument that we can forfeit those rights. And it is an argument of American origin that those rights forfeiture are subject hearing, no matter what the Geneva Convention writes. Writing something down doesn't make it so, but is only evidence that somebody may have believed it was so. If nations decided the Geneva Convention did not apply to combatants fighting for no country, it would seem just as fair and just to me. The fact that others European bureaucrats disagree is of no moment to me.

Man is born into the world with nothing, he inherits nothing except that which is given or for which he fights. I don't see many other natural rights other than that.