• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-Bush Official Set To Testify On Waterboarding

Indeed, they are entirely distinct legal constructs, and we are legally, morally, and ethically obligated to adhere to both sets of laws.

Whether or not the Constitution/the Bill of Rights afford the same legal rights to citizens and non-citizens, the Geneva Conventions clearly state that we must follow certain humanitarian laws and legal procedures when dealing with non-citizens of any stripe, else risk prosecution for war crimes.

And we can adhere to the Geneva Conventions without affording Bill of Rights protections to our war prisoners. In fact, until the Bush Administration, no one ever argued that the Bill of Rights applied to wartime prisoners. Ever.

International Laws to which we are signatories such as Geneva Conventions trump both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

No. They do not. If you think they do, then you don't know much about the Constitution OR international law. I suggest you educate yourself.
 
That case was in reference to Boumediene v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not the issue at hand. Since they have not ruled on that, the 14th still applies otherwise. Unless you implying the 14th Amendment now no longer applies...

Thus you are attempting to take a ruling over a specific issue, Habeas Corpus and applying it to the Constitution as a whole in regards to all persons of the world. Doesn't work like that, nice try though.

Your claim was that the constitution did not apply to non-citizens. How does this case not address that point?
 
WE fall under the Geneva Conventions. We signed on, and we are therefore obligated to adhere to its rules and regulations, even when/if others are not.

If you don't understand the following legal statement from the GC, just let me know and I'll try to help you sort it out.

You still don't get it.

Non-uniformed, non-state combatants are specifically excluded from prisoner of war status protection BY the Geneva Conventions.
 
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorist... it applies to the armed forces of governments, not to terrorist.

Once again WE are signatories to the GC. Therefore WE are obligated to follow its rules. EVEN IF OTHERS DON'T.

Sorry, they don't play by the rules, why should the rules apply to them ANYWAY.

*sigh*

WE said WE'D play by the rules.
 
Once again WE are signatories to the GC. Therefore WE are obligated to follow its rules. EVEN IF OTHERS DON'T.



*sigh*

WE said WE'D play by the rules.

One more time . . .

The "rules" by which we play say non-uniformed, non-state combatants are specifically excluded from prisoner of war status protection.
 
Your claim was that the constitution did not apply to non-citizens. How does this case not address that point?

That was a specific question of procedure that was ruled in a split decision on certain rights under certain circumstances from which you are implying a much larger role.

to take your logic, all people across the global are to be afford by the US Government the rights afforded to US Citizens. Does this mean we can no longer go to war? But instead have to send in the cops to arrest other countries soldiers?


Seriously, think about what you are trying to say here.
 
Once again WE are signatories to the GC. Therefore WE are obligated to follow its rules. EVEN IF OTHERS DON'T.



*sigh*

WE said WE'D play by the rules.
We are following the rules, when they apply. In this case, they don't apply, therefore we haven't violated the Geneva Convention. But I expect more emotionalism and faux outrage, so I'll go get some popcorn and return to enjoy the show.

popcorn4.gif
 
Glinda,

If the GC says terrorist are not covered, which it does and which they aren't.... why are you trying to say we should still give them such protections accorded?

Seriously?
 
One more time . . .

The "rules" by which we play say non-uniformed, non-state combatants are specifically excluded from prisoner of war status protection.

Nope.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons [not "non-uniformed" persons, not "non-state" persons; in fact, no specific designation whatever], having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy [i.e., us], 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. --Geneva Conventions, Part 4, Article 5

In addition:

The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ... the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and also article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. --Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
 
Last edited:

Yep. If a person does not fall into the following, then POW status may not be granted. And there's a humanitarian reason why only the following get the status.

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.

The part you quoted has only to do with questions about status applicability.
 
Last edited:
You're conveniently ignoring the part about those who cannot be identified as "official" enemies.

Got any comment on the Supreme Court's ruling?
 
Last edited:
All of you braying on about the Supreme Court and the GC.. miss something important.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Detainee_Amendment]Detainee Treatment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

THAT is what is at stake, and THAT is what the rulings are on about.

But it's obvious you guys are ignoring that in your attempts to back your positions up.
 
So, the Supreme Court's ruling doesn't count?

What about it? Applying the GC III, non-uniformed, non-state, non-regular combatants do not fall under POW status.
 
You're conveniently ignoring the part about those who cannot be identified as "official" enemies.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm giving you the GC III. You're simply attempting to morph to a different point.

Got any comment on the Supreme Court's ruling?

Already done.
 
That's what the Supreme Court ruled? I could have sworn they said otherwise.

THEY were referring to the DETAINEE ACT in regards to and pertaining therein.

Which is something all you lefties keep IGNORING.
 
That was a specific question of procedure that was ruled in a split decision on certain rights under certain circumstances from which you are implying a much larger role.

to take your logic, all people across the global are to be afford by the US Government the rights afforded to US Citizens. Does this mean we can no longer go to war? But instead have to send in the cops to arrest other countries soldiers?


Seriously, think about what you are trying to say here.

I'm not trying to say anything except pointing out that your generalized statement is not true when said in the manner in which you said it. *shrugs shoulders*
 
I'm not trying to say anything except pointing out that your generalized statement is not true when said in the manner in which you said it. *shrugs shoulders*
They were reffering to the specific act which was used as authorization for the actions taken...
 
I don't care what the Geneva Convention says. We shouldn't be torturing. Waterboarding is torture no matter how much some on here and in government want to church it up.
 
Rice adviser wrote memo alleging tactics violated ban on cruel punishment.



From: Ex-Bush official to testify on waterboarding - Security- msnbc.com
There's a video interview of Zelikow.

Just another notch in the belt for Bush and Cheney's corrupt and lying administration.
Here's some accountibility for ya'll.

Here we have yet another ex-Bush aide coming clean on what really happened during those 8 years in which torture was shoved down the American people's throats as... uhh... legal. :doh

Should be interesting how the right wingers try to minimize this guy since I don't think he has a book coming out. :2wave:


Once again when Bush Administration member says anything you want to hear you believe it immediately without thought.
Yet when anything or anyone from the Bush Administration says opposite you decry it as a lie without thought.

IMO that is the most telling thing everyone can take form this thread.



anyway...his opinion was overruled.
In a way this akin to saying the burger flipper kid at the local McDonalds disagreed with the CEO of McDonalds...and?
 
Last edited:
Once again when Bush Administration member says anything you want to hear you believe it immediately without thought.
Yet when anything or anyone from the Bush Administration says opposite you decry it as a lie without thought.

IMO that is the most telling thing everyone can take form this thread.
Well why don't you post some kind of evidence that counters Zelikow's testimony? What he is saying is consistent with information coming from other sources. There isn't a box of evidence that contradicts this man. That is what is so telling. Had Zelikow been been trying to say something absurd, like "waterboarding isn't torture, and it's extremely effective, we have saved hundreds of thousands of lives by doing it to detainees" then we would be saying, "yeah okay, prove it because many, many experts refute that theory...we'll need to see some evidence."

anyway...his opinion was overruled.
In a way this akin to saying the burger flipper kid at the local McDonalds disagreed with the CEO of McDonalds...and?
No, it' nothing like that.
 
Why don't you post some kind of evidence making his opinion as a staffer more important then those he worked for decision.

What he is saying is consistent with information coming from other sources.
...and inconsistent with information coming form other sources.

There isn't a box of evidence that contradicts this man.

There is plenty of opinions opposite his opinion and there is already evidence in released documents that contradicts him.
Examples have been posted on this forum for the past week or so.



It comes down to this-

A Bush Administration person suddenly becomes the font of truth when he says what you want to hear. Yet everyone else who worked alongside him who does not say what you want to hear is still a liar.

That does not undermine the mans opinions(that is done by what information is known)...it does though undermine your use of the mans opinion.
 
Its not like the guy is new news. He's been around for a while in this role and gained popularity amongst the 'lets lose wars' crowd mainly do to Woodwards portrayal of him as one of the people who disagreed with the overall decisions in regards to Iraq

That he showed up at a Democrat led "hearing" whose intent is to use partial information to defame political opponents is about as surprising as the Democrats calling Al Gore when they blab about Global Warming.
IOW he's there because he says what they want to hear/be heard and they believe he can be used by them to form perceptions in others.

Like numerous other former non decision making administration employees in every WH who didn't agree with a decision made he's using the opportunity to out his angst.
 
They were not tortured, waterboarding is not inflicting severe anything, and has no lasting mental problems. So you fail... right then and there. Torture is inflicting pain and anguish simply because you can. On that score alone, waterboarding three terrorist fails to meet that standard.

However, the obvious next question is, for you, we capture another KSM, and we treat him "oh so nicely" and say.. a big attack goes off, like the one that was prevented by waterboarding and finding out in time....

Let's jsut say that happens, can the survivors and families sue because we had the man with information and did not prevent the attack?

Who has more rights? The living US Citizen to live free from death and anguish from terror attacks, or the terrorist bent on committing said acts?


Sounds like plenty of you here are willing to let others die to protect terrorist feelings.
All the democrats care about is preserving the rights of murders, and not their fellow countrymen.
 
Back
Top Bottom