Republicans

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:


I didn't spend more than 3 minutes to find this on google, and I grabbed the first thing I found. I trust you'll find fault with whatever I present.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.


TAL

C'mon Tal! You know the Golden Rule of posting! Links/pics or it didn't happen!

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

C'mon Tal! You know the Golden Rule of posting! Links/pics or it didn't happen!

ANGRY:


Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com

Nov 2, 2007 ... One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding. ... Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States ...
www.washingtonpost.com ? Opinions ? Outlook & Opinions - Similar


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.

[Tread]

I appoglize for the big post, but it didn?t happen or is not true without working link or quotes.


What is Torture:

http://waterboarding.org/torture_definition

Waterboarding:

http://waterboarding.org/node/3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188008.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=waterboarding
http://terrorism.about.com/od/w/g/Waterboarding.htm

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

1) They are unlawful combatants and are not recognized by the occupying forces.

2) A militia in times of war would have state endorsment and would supplement regular forces. See:
?
The whole "military service" part would include them since that counts as state endorsment, but since the Iraqi government or the occupying forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force, they are unlawful combatants and are therefore not covered by The Geneva Conventions.

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)

Article 5.
?
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
?

If that tribunal rules that a combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then the person's status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There was no competent tribunal so they are under protection of the Geneva Convention.

Unlawful combatant:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

?
After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
?
The judgment quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
?
Combatants who do not qualify for POW status

A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court.
?
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US municipal law, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States. In addition the US Supreme Court invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.
Congress addressed these issues in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, so that enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants might be tried under military commissions, however on 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that Guantanamo Bay captives were entitled to access the US justice system, and that the military commissions as constituted under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 fell short of what was required of a court under the United States constitution.

Follow also the several Wikipedia reference Links.

Other Link: Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants?
http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/284

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)

Article 4.
(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.

No need to be militia.

Occupying Forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force??? What do you talk about??? The Terrorists are 1 occupying force.
Is it the War on Terror or against the Iraqi government? Did Saddam Hussein attack the US with planes??? What the hell are US Soldiers do in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Where did the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay come from, and from witch War???

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.

ANGRY:

Sorry, this is all I have. Maybe, this will work, if not google water boarding prosecutions.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, ...



TAL