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.