Torture

evince said:
We have prosicuted our own soldiers for waterboarding.

We have prosicuted others soldiers for waterboarding.

We have prosicuted lae inforcement members for waterboarding.

There are documents that tell Bush and team that waterboarding is toruture.

Its an international war crime.


The only place I can think that you are getting your information from is that circular file that is your ass ....or.......maybe you have been reaching into Cheney's ass?
Click to expand...

Its only a crime when used on lawful soldiers. Nor is it torture. *shrug*
 
Yurt said:
so you would not torture, not even a little, someone if they had information that could save your family or your life and the only way to get that info was to torture them, even just a little
Click to expand...
No I would not. I'm not a coward. I do not need to get a pack of lies from a coward by becoming a yellow bellied coward myself. I fail to see how that would help my family.
 
maineman said:
the UN convention regarding torture does not deal with POW's

moron

(honestly... are you really that stupid, or is this an act?)
Click to expand...

I could care less what the UN does. :gives:
The Military is governed during war, by the Geneva Convention.

The fact that you don't like it, is to bad.
 
Mottleydude said:
No I would not. I'm not a coward. I do not need to get a pack of lies from a coward by becoming a yellow bellied coward myself. I fail to see how that would help my family.
Click to expand...

What I would be willing to do as an individual is not the same as what I am willing to allow my country to do.

And if I did use violent methods to save my family, I would do so with the full knowledge that I could be prosecuted for it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I could care less what the UN does. :gives:
The Military is governed during war, by the Geneva Convention.

The fact that you don't like it, is to bad.
Click to expand...

our nation is governed by its laws... and, like it or not, not only the Geneva ConventionS, but also the UN Convention against torture is the supreme law of OUR land. That is what Article VI of our constitution says. sorry.
 
maineman said:
our nation is governed by its laws... and, like it or not, not only the Geneva ConventionS, but also the UN Convention against torture is the supreme law of OUR land. That is what Article VI of our constitution says. sorry.
Click to expand...
Does that law protect combatants who don't abide by rules of conduct?
 
For some reason I want to say that the determination of whether a person is a Lawful Combatant or an Unlawful Combatant is required to be made by an independent entity, not the force they are fighting.

I am not sure of that is from the Geneva Convention or from other international law. I will research it and get back.
 
WinterBorn said:
For some reason I want to say that the determination of whether a person is a Lawful Combatant or an Unlawful Combatant is required to be made by an independent entity, not the force they are fighting.

I am not sure of that is from the Geneva Convention or from other international law. I will research it and get back.
Click to expand...
I would say that the definition of a lawful combatant does not include men who don't wear uniforms, hide behind women and children, and intentionally attack soft civilian targets.
 
Southern Man said:
I would say that the definition of a lawful combatant does not include men who don't wear uniforms, hide behind women and children, and intentionally attack soft civilian targets.
Click to expand...


Figthing this fight on two fronts I see. Perhaps you could point out in this thread where the UN Convention Against Torture and the US Code permit the torture of "unlawful combatants."
 
Southern Man said:
I would say that the definition of a lawful combatant does not include men who don't wear uniforms, hide behind women and children, and intentionally attack soft civilian targets.
Click to expand...

The definition of "unlawful combatant" would be any combatant that does not fit the following:

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "


But my point was not that unlawful combatants are somehow noble. It was about how the determination is made, who makes it, and what the differences are in the treatment of the two types of combatant.
 
WinterBorn said:
The definition of "unlawful combatant" would be any combatant that does not fit the following:

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. "


But my point was not that unlawful combatants are somehow noble. It was about how the determination is made, who makes it, and what the differences are in the treatment of the two types of combatant.
Click to expand...


But this is irrelevant. The UN Convention Against Torture bans the practice altogether. Period. There is no exception for "unlawful combatants."
 
Dungheap said:
But this is irrelevant. The UN Convention Against Torture bans the practice altogether. Period. There is no exception for "unlawful combatants."
Click to expand...
It is an agreement between civilized peoples. Of course it doesn't cover those who didn't agree to it. *shrug*
 
Dungheap said:
Figthing this fight on two fronts I see. Perhaps you could point out in this thread where the UN Convention Against Torture and the US Code permit the torture of "unlawful combatants."
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating torture, merely water boarding and other enhanced techniques against unlawful combatants for the sole purpose of obtaining important intelligence to combat their cause.

If we don't have the CIA do this, then we'll have some other folks who aren't as civilized do it for us.
 
Southern Man said:
It is an agreement between civilized peoples. Of course it doesn't cover those who didn't agree to it. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Uh, no:

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Click to expand...
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not advocating torture, merely water boarding and other enhanced techniques against unlawful combatants for the sole purpose of obtaining important intelligence to combat their cause.

If we don't have the CIA do this, then we'll have some other folks who aren't as civilized do it for us.
Click to expand...


Well, that practice is banned as well:

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Click to expand...


Sorry, bud. No torture for you, sicko.

Oh, and I suppose I should point out that the practice has been stopped by the Obama Administration in any event. I understand your need to reflexively defend the Bush Administration and their barbarism but no need to pretend that you equivocations are necessary on a going-forward basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top