Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 139

Thread: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    They actually do according to the supreme court. This has nothing to do with Liberals in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld the supreme court determined that the Geneva conventions do apply to enemy combatants.
    What does Article 3 of the Convention state?

    Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

    But alas, under the Convention, only parties to the Convention are entitled to it's protections. Where is it that these terrorists are parties to the Convention? Where is it in the Convention that the interrogation techniques used by the US were in violation?

    What does Clarence Thomas dissent state regarding this bad decision?

    In his dissent he asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction for this case for the reasons described in Scalia's dissent above; that Hamdan is an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention; that the Geneva convention doesn't prohibit the special court council proposed; and that the President already had authority to set up the special court council proposed.[27]

    Citing his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Thomas briefly reprised the roles granted by the Constitution to the three different branches in time of war. He argued that under the framework established in Ex parte Quirin and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, President Bush's decision to try Hamdan before a military commission "is entitled to a heavy measure of deference," inasmuch as Congress had authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future acts of terrorism when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


    Who are parties to the Convention?

    Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 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.


    Nothing above suggests that the prisoners in Gitmo apply here.

    Torure as defined by the UN:

    Part I
    Article 1
    For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


    The techniques used by our people hardly meet the definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    So far you're the only one spewing divisive rhetoric
    Only because you say so; but again, anything I state that is non-factual you are more than welcome to point it out factually.

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    You don't seem to know your history. Geneva didn't take place until 1949. The tokyo trials took place in 1946. So no Japan didn't sign onto Geneva during the time we tried and executed Japanese war criminals
    I guess you missed the part where there were FOUR conventions:

    On August 22, 1864 several European states congregated in Geneva and signed the First Geneva Convention.

    ....the Second Geneva Convention in 1906 and Hague Convention of 1899 which extended the articles to maritime warfare.

    Are you suggesting that no convention dictated the behavior of Nations in WWI or WWII? Really??

    Carry on.

  3. #103
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I guess you missed the part where there were FOUR conventions:

    On August 22, 1864 several European states congregated in Geneva and signed the First Geneva Convention.

    ....the Second Geneva Convention in 1906 and Hague Convention of 1899 which extended the articles to maritime warfare.

    Are you suggesting that no convention dictated the behavior of Nations in WWI or WWII? Really??

    Carry on.
    What was it you said originally? You said Japan signed and violated the geneva conventions. That was an incorrect statement. The term geneva conventions refers to the ratification of the conventions in 1949. So your statement was incorrect. Japan didn't ratify the conventions until 1953. The hague conventions were separate from the Geneva Conventions. So once again your statement was false and demonstrably so.

  4. #104
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    What does Article 3 of the Convention state?

    Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

    But alas, under the Convention, only parties to the Convention are entitled to it's protections. Where is it that these terrorists are parties to the Convention? Where is it in the Convention that the interrogation techniques used by the US were in violation?
    Funny your quote doesn't seem to imply that. Once again we are party to it. We are bound to treat others humanely because of our ratification of the convention. Also I bolded the part that applies. Also suspected terrorists. Aside from those who we knew committed crimes and were waterboarded. There are others who are suspects who we have tortured. You have to remember that Al-Qaida makes up a small percentage of the insurgency and that a majority are actual Iraqis fighting as a resistance group.


    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    What does Clarence Thomas dissent state regarding this bad decision?

    In his dissent he asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction for this case for the reasons described in Scalia's dissent above; that Hamdan is an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva convention; that the Geneva convention doesn't prohibit the special court council proposed; and that the President already had authority to set up the special court council proposed.[27]

    Citing his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Thomas briefly reprised the roles granted by the Constitution to the three different branches in time of war. He argued that under the framework established in Ex parte Quirin and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, President Bush's decision to try Hamdan before a military commission "is entitled to a heavy measure of deference," inasmuch as Congress had authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future acts of terrorism when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    Dissenting opinions don't amount to jack. How often do we hear about the dissenting opinions in Brown V Board of Education or other landmark cases?
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Who are parties to the Convention?

    Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 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.


    Nothing above suggests that the prisoners in Gitmo apply here.

    Torure as defined by the UN:

    Part I
    Article 1
    For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


    The techniques used by our people hardly meet the definition.



    Only because you say so; but again, anything I state that is non-factual you are more than welcome to point it out factually.
    Waterboarding does cause physical or mental harm even if it may be temporary the mental effects can be permanent. So yes that does fit the definition of torture. Even John McCain states its torture which makes you just seem even more foolish defending the practice. Jesse Ventura also underwent waterboarding and it is torture. How bout this you get someone in the armed services to waterboard you. Film it post it here and we'll see after its done with if you still think its not torture. Put up..

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    I see so anyone you disagree with must automatically make them a liberal right? So that would make you what? An extremist right?
    Not in the least; when you sound like a Liberal, spew Liberal talking points like a Liberal and avoid facts and substance like a Liberal, perhaps you really must be a Liberal.

    The notion that any of the drivel you have spewed here is “centrist” of course requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    You are a birther nothing to complain about there.
    Because you say so; but when pressed for facts to support your wild eyed emotional hyperbole, you come up with nothing better.

    But alas, never let REALITY, FACTS or HONESTY get in the way of your nonsensical emotion filled bile.

    Again, another example of your “liberal” tendencies; but what I do not understand is why people like you so desperately avoid that label; you should embrace it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Waterboarding as we have defined it. Once again we have prosecuted Waterboarding here in the US when a texas sheriff and 3 of his deputies used it on prisoners to elicit false confessions. Waterboarding is torture plain and simple.
    Wrong; it is torture because you say so, but the UN definition of the act does not fit the techniques used by the CIA.

    How amusing that the people trying to protect you from another attack are the bad guys and the ones who attack us are victims; perhaps this is more irony than amusing. A sad one at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    You do know that when we sign treaties we are obligated to follow them right? Regardless of if a country has signed onto it or not.
    What treaty applies in this case? Once more you keep referring to divined treaties where this case, none exist. What treaties did the terrorists sign onto? I wish there as a fraction of the outrage exhibited by Liberals like you regarding the methods used by the terrorist as you show towards the previous administration who tried to protect you.

    You’re the definition of the Alice in Wonderland logic being used by Liberals and Democrats in their pathetic efforts to impugn political opponents.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    What you seem not to understand is we have prosecuted Waterboarding here in this country. Regardless of the japanese we still have prosecuted it. So yes waterboarding is against the law no matter how much you pretend it isn't
    When you can produce the specific case you keep citing here that supports the notion that the conduct of this Sheriff was anything remotely similar in the case of the CIAs treatment of terrorists, then perhaps you have a leg to stand on; but for now, your efforts fail to have anything remotely conclusive to support your emotional hyperbolic claims that we torture our prisoners.

    Of course if we pretend that terrorists are parties to Geneva Conventions and that 9-11 never occurred, one could stretch credulity and have the positions you take.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    James parker and 3 of his sheriffs were convicted in 1983 of waterboarding prisoners to force confessions for crimes.
    Waterboarding: A Tortured History : NPR

    Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
    From your quoted NPR source:

    Waterboarding actually refers to two different interrogation techniques. One involves pumping water directly into the stomach. "This creates intense pain. It feels like your organs are on fire," says Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College in Oregon and author of a new book, Torture and Democracy.

    The other technique — the one more widely used today — involves choking the victim by filling their throat with a steady stream of water — a sort of "slow-motion drowning" that was perfected by Dutch traders in the 17th century. They used it against their British rivals in the East Indies.
    Neither of these are remotely like the methods used by our CIA.


    The Japanese Version:

    Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.

    In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:

    A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.


    Again, only desperate assertions for purely partisan purposes can suggest that what our people did are even remotely similar to the Japanese methods.

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Really? You seem pretty emotional here with some vile invective not based on any facts but rather your own personal feelings. Everyone who seems to disagree with you is a liberal and then you throw up strawmen to describe what you think a liberal is.
    Vile invective; now you wander from emotion filled hyperbolic rhetoric to outright absurdity.

    Watching you type “strawmen” reading your emotion filled drivel is truly the definition of irony.

    The only one spewing “strawmen” BS claiming I am a birther and a torture defender happens to be you. My comments are merely driven by the FACTS here.

    Fact: we were indeed attacked on 9-11 by terrorists.

    Fact: the definition of torture does not meet the methods used that are farcically begin claimed by Democrats and Liberals like you.

    Fact: the efforts in the thread article are purely “partisan” in nature and intended to do nothing more than impugn the previous administration placing our nation at even greater risk in the future to attacks.

    Fact: your desperate hyperbolic remarks do not support the notion that this effort is merely an effort at purification to ensure that we conduct ourselves with higher moral integrity than any nation on earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    I'm dealing with the facts you're spinning on emotion
    This is pure denial plain and simple.

    Carry on.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    What was it you said originally? You said Japan signed and violated the geneva conventions. That was an incorrect statement. The term geneva conventions refers to the ratification of the conventions in 1949. So your statement was incorrect. Japan didn't ratify the conventions until 1953. The hague conventions were separate from the Geneva Conventions. So once again your statement was false and demonstrably so.
    Your desperate assertions have been noted.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Funny your quote doesn't seem to imply that. Once again we are party to it. We are bound to treat others humanely because of our ratification of the convention. Also I bolded the part that applies. Also suspected terrorists. Aside from those who we knew committed crimes and were waterboarded. There are others who are suspects who we have tortured. You have to remember that Al-Qaida makes up a small percentage of the insurgency and that a majority are actual Iraqis fighting as a resistance group.
    This is again nothing more than "because you say so" in a vacuum of the facts of this case.


    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Dissenting opinions don't amount to jack. How often do we hear about the dissenting opinions in Brown V Board of Education or other landmark cases?
    If they do not amount to "jack", why have them?

    The FACT is that the contorted logic in the Supreme Court decision suggests that the Geneva Convention applies not because it does, but because a few justices say it does outside of their legal purview.

    But hey, when these terrorists are once again loosed on society and murder again (which many already have), we can all feel justified that we took that "presumed" moral high ground Liberals love to quote; yet these are the same people who have no moral compunction regarding abortion. Ironic don't you think?

    But it is hardly ironic if one comprehends that this is hardly a “moral” debate but more a highly charged hyper partisan political ploy by Liberal Democrats in a desperate effort to impugn their political opponents.

    Nancy Pelosi, the moral high ground poster child in this debate was even briefed; seems her morality didn’t appear until it became politically expedient.

    But alas, these FACTS and the REALITY don’t have a place in your emotional hyperbolic nonsensical pile of bile do they?

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Waterboarding does cause physical or mental harm even if it may be temporary the mental effects can be permanent. So yes that does fit the definition of torture. Even John McCain states its torture which makes you just seem even more foolish defending the practice. Jesse Ventura also underwent waterboarding and it is torture.
    Once more this is nothing more than "because you say so."

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    How bout this you get someone in the armed services to waterboard you. Film it post it here and we'll see after its done with if you still think its not torture. Put up..
    Once again this is hardly a surprising remark coming from someone more inclined to highly emotional hyperbolic BS than coherent debate.

    Once more you cannot comprehend the irony in your remarks can you?

    Carry on.

  8. #108
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Oh so we just made up war crimes as an excuse then Celtic.. gotcha
    Pretty much. "War crime" is at best an oxymoron and at worst a lie. It has a remarkable tendency to be whatever the victor decides is "criminal". That the victor is usually guilty of the same conduct himself is one of those things just not mentioned in polite society.

  9. #109
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Your desperate assertions have been noted.
    Desperate assertions? You stated that they signed the geneva conventions. That was an inaccurate statement. The Geneva Conventions emcompasses the full ratification of the accords, which took place in 1949 after we had the trials for the Japanese. You made a false statement.

  10. #110
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

    Re: Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected [edited]

    Bottom line, this isn't going to happen. This is lip service for the moveon.org and Soros crowd, whom Obama is heavily indebted to but represents a small sliver of the American populace.

    If he does this, he's done.

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •