Republicans

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

It's a bogus law, like John Yoo's legal mumbo-jumbo that legalized waterboarding AFTER THE FACT, which America has prosecuted as a violation of The Geneva Convention. Bush violated that law too.
...

Waterboarding is torture if done against us, but not when we do it, right? We're all good guys, and they are all worst of the worst, right. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Bush violated the FISA laws that were in effect from before RR, and violated The Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(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, fulfil 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.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

As terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

I said TORTURE, which is NOT permitted, dude. Torture is waterboarding, and that is NOT permitted under any circumstances.

No rights doesn't mean you can do anything you want up to and including death.


TAL

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

ANGRY:

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

So, we can do anything we want to them, including kill them?

Are there any things we cannot do?

How do you go from waterboarding is ok to killing them is ok? Are you not able to grasp varying degrees of concepts or can you only handle black and white?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

How do you go from waterboarding is ok to killing them is ok? Are you not able to grasp varying degrees of concepts or can you only handle black and white?

TRACY:

Do the words out of context mean anything to you?

It was an ongoing conversation, which if you followed it, you would see that it wasn't a leap.

Of course, you're a Conse 'Pub, which means find something to attack only, and this sentence cannot be taken out of context.


TAL

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The "no torture" only applies to those who are identified under The Geneva Convention. And waterboarding is not torture.

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

Waterboarding is international described as torture.
The US has prosecuted water torture as war crime many times in history, what should Waterboarding exclude from this?

In the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court of the United States decides that prisoners of terror can?t be treated as Unlawful Combatant.
So they fall under the Laws of War or Public International Law, and forbid torture.

It is not right to punish someone who infracted the law (terrorism) with lawless methods. That is an antinomy itself.

Simulating drowing is not torture; actually carrying through with trying to drown a person would be.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: 1tor?ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

This is how the "noble Arabs" operate: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2torture1.html

Comparing waterboarding to what they do is like comparing a pea shooter to a 155mm howitzer. Is this method uncomfortable? Yes. Does simulated drowning physically or mentally debilitate someone compared to beatings or other barbaristic actions? No.

I think people fail to recognize that the people who get waterboarded are not your average, run-of-the-mill citizen who has been mistakenly detained. They are die-hard fanatics who would kill innocent people in a heartbeat and with a smile on their face.

When you have commandos abduct you in the middle of the night, chances are high that you did something to deserve it.

[The Conquistador]

Some more Middle East torture methods...

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Simulating drowing is not torture; actually carrying through with trying to drown a person would be.

Simulating you?re dieing is (mental) torture.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

This is how the "noble Arabs" operate: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2torture1.html

Comparing waterboarding to what they do is like comparing a pea shooter to a 155mm howitzer. Is this method uncomfortable? Yes. Does simulated drowning physically or mentally debilitate someone compared to beatings or other barbaristic actions? No.

You can?t compare this that way.
One torture destroys you physical and possibly to death, the other destroys you mental, and you could also die directly by extreme mental torture.

As far as I know physical injuries heal faster and better or are better to live with than mental injuries.
Often physical tortures causes mental injuries too, but that don?t make them worse in general.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I think people fail to recognize that the people who get waterboarded are not your average, run-of-the-mill citizen who has been mistakenly detained. They are die-hard fanatics who would kill innocent people in a heartbeat and with a smile on their face.

No matter how evil they are, or what you or I think they deserve, no government can ignore its own standards for prisoners. And the US law does not allow torture under any conditions.

I don?t say they are innocent, but they never had a conviction, and the most of them are not the suicide-bomber who killed people.
It was never proven in with degrade they are involved. i.e. is someone who cooked the meal in a terror camp as guilty as the organizer of a terror act?

[Talvenada]

ANGRY:

That Conse 'Pub radio talker on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity tried waterboarding on the air, while he was filmed. He felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be EASY to attain. He lasted SEVEN SECONDS, and told a dismissive Hannity it was TORTURE.

The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS.

But even a Conse 'Pub saying it makes him a traitor at worst, and makeshim a RINO at best. I know whose side is he on!! Or you want proof to savage!!!

TAL

Mancow Muller waterboarding update: Hey Sean Hannity, it's 'absolutely torture'
By Craig Newman on May 27, 2009 12:24 PM |

[jimnaseum]

I'm not sure what President Dwight David Eisenhower would have made of Obama, but he would have busted Bush and Cheney down to buck privates in about 2 weeks. It wasn't til Nixon that you had a President you couldn't trust. We came out of WWII smelling like a rose, American products were the best back then. Even Germany and Japan respected us. Things sure have changed.