I never said they were turn over "so that they could be tortured" at any point. I said we turned them over knowing they would likely be tortured. Here is what you first asked:
I just assumed you still wanted the answer to that question.
I also asked you "for a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured," to which you replied "Obviously, you aren't looking hard enough or maybe you just don't want to look hard enough."
Regardless, you haven't provided any evidence for
either of those claims.
When the US ratified the UNCAT, here is what they said:
The United States understands the phrase, 'where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean 'if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.
In order to show a violation of that treaty (or of any law), you have to show that the US was aware that it was more likely than not that any individual prisoner that they transferred to Iraqi custody would be tortured. I'm still waiting for any evidence to support that.
Threatening withdrawal of certain services we provide them or other threats pertaining to exposure and/or punishment of their illegal acts. Reducing diplomatic visits is another common tactic of applying pressure.
All of which are tactics that we presumably use to try to get the Iraqi government to do other things as well. Part of diplomacy is understanding that you have a limited amount of juice and deciding where that juice is best allocated. The US government, under both Bush and Obama, looked at the situation and decided that the ROI from pushing for the things you suggest was not worth it when compared to the other things they could push for. You disagree. Given the vast disparity of information and expertise, I'll trust their judgment over yours.
No, I am talking about the definition that is used by pretty much everyone who uses it and not a definition provided by government simply to cover its own ass.
lol
Yea, when discussing how to define "whistleblower," the definition that "pretty much everyone" (read: you) uses is far more relevant than the definition that the US and most every other country uses.
Did not say we were in one. I was making a point that treating all whistleblowers like traitors will lead to such a situation.
Who said we treat whistleblowers like traitors? Whistleblowers are fine. This guy wasn't a whistleblower.
When said documents expose war crimes? Many, I think that goes without saying. Exposing criminal activity on the part of people in government is frequently protected.
So link me to one. You have a bad habit of making claims that you don't back up.
One of them shows two people standing on a street corner that the journalists walk past and shows another picture claiming someone is armed, though it is only in the sense that he has arms. Also, the report makes another false claim saying someone with an RPG ducks behind a building. If you pay close attention to the video you see that the individual in question has a camera, not an RPG, though it is an understandable mistake since they have some long-ass lenses.
There's really no point in me wasting my time on this issue any more, as you very clearly are only seeing what you want to see.
I suppose we should have both kept reading:
Later Protocols that the U.S. has signed but not ratified are more specific in providing protections to good Samaritans.
....That's in the exact same section that we were just talking about. The section that applies to situations
that are no longer live battlefields.
Moreover, it still only applies "to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories" that I listed above.
Nothing in the Geneva Conventions covers this situation.
