The Green Light [on torture] - Page 2

danarhea · 04-02-08, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrank

So its ok to kill the enemy in the field of battle, but to torture them to save American lives is bad? There have been over 4,000 Americans who have given up their lives so that we can all debate if torture is ok or not. I wonder if we could have saved some of them had we NOT worried about being so soft hearted? Let's see, pour water over their head and make them think that they're drowning just to save some American lives. Me, I'd do it in a heart beat.

Remember, they cut off our heads and no one said a damn thing. We pour water on them and it's shame on us???

Just remember that, when you support waterboarding, you are enabling our enemies, now, and in the future, to do the same to our troops, should they be captured. Also, do not forget that we prosecuted and sentenced to long prison sentences, with hard labor, Japanese officers who did the same thing.

If you support water boarding, then you are not supporting the troops.

Lightdemon · 04-02-08, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrank

So its ok to kill the enemy in the field of battle, but to torture them to save American lives is bad? There have been over 4,000 Americans who have given up their lives so that we can all debate if torture is ok or not. I wonder if we could have saved some of them had we NOT worried about being so soft hearted? Let's see, pour water over their head and make them think that they're drowning just to save some American lives. Me, I'd do it in a heart beat.

Remember, they cut off our heads and no one said a damn thing. We pour water on them and it's shame on us???

Presuming that the ones detained are actually the enemy.

Clearly people who have been detained at these facilities, who have gone through the torture interrogations, have been released. You've never once heard of a prisoner being released in AG or GB?

cascadian · 04-02-08, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrank

So its ok to kill the enemy in the field of battle, but to torture them to save American lives is bad?

Yep. Someone on the field of battle is a direct threat to life and limb.Of course, I usually don't support creating battlefields where there aren't any to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrank

I wonder if we could have saved some of them had we NOT worried about being so soft hearted?

I wonder how much bogus and useless information we would have gotten from innocent people who would say anything to make it stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrank

Remember, they cut off our heads and no one said a damn thing.

What??? I don't particularly remember silence following beheadings. There is a bit of war-weary numbness after a while, but it's hardly tacit approval.

WI Crippler · 04-02-08, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

We ARE better than them, but we should be MUCH better than them. Instead we have been violating not only the Geneva Convention on torture, but also the anti torture convention that was signed by President Reagan in 1984. If this were one of our ideological enemies, we would be pushing for war crimes charges against them. This is a GOOD reason not to be breaking these conventions ourselves. It makes us look like hypocrites to the rest of the world. We are supposed to be the LEADER, where it comes to moral values.

I am unfamiliar with the anti-torture legislation signed by Reagan.

But according to the Geneva conventions, these people do not fit the requirements for POW, and therefore may not have the rights guarenteed to them in the Geneva Conventions. Per the Geneva Convention

Quote:

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. Nope. Not members of recognized 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.

They do not meet the requirements outlined in sections b or c, which they are required to fulfill

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

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.
Again, no
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.
Nope

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.
oh, they almost qualify except for the last part of the last sentence

Now if you can provide whatever it was Reagan signed, then I would be willing to take a look at it. But as it stands there is alot of grey area for the government and other governments to operate with regards to treatment of enemy combatants that do not qualify underneath the Geneva Conventions identification of POWs.

For one, I would like to see a clarification made on the part of the Geneva Conventions regarding non-uniformed enemy combatants that do not follow the rules laid down in the Geneva Conventions.

Zyphlin · 04-02-08, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Just remember that, when you support waterboarding, you are enabling our enemies, now, and in the future, to do the same to our troops, should they be captured.

I'm sorry but this is the weakest argument EVER in regards to the torture thing. Absolute hogwash.

Tell me, if this had never happened, the people we are facing right now wouldn't be cutting peoples heads off or eneacting pure forms of pain induced torture? Really? Really dan? Its US waterboarding people that has caused it? Really? That's your justification? THAT'S why you're saying they are doing it?

Suddenly if we stopped water boarding, if we stopped solitary confinement, if we stopped not giving them their holy texts, or not giving them food regularly, or letting them get a full 8 hours of sleep...Then, THEN they would stop torturing our people...including CIVILIANS...when they're captured?

Is THAT what you're trying to tell me? Cause it sounds like it. It also sounds a lot like what comes out of the backside of a male cow.

Quote:

Also, do not forget that we prosecuted and sentenced to long prison sentences, with hard labor, Japanese officers who did the same thing.

You also realized there are reports of us doing things that could be construed as torture on the japanese as well after they began doing such to our troops? One of the sad truths of the majority of conflicts you get into, from fights on the street up to major wars, is that the aggressor dictates the rules of war. The geneva convention, the "Rules of War", are great things when both sides follow them. If one side STOPS following them though, you are absolutely and completely foolish to continue going about that way you were going. Its much the same as my thought that we should not use a nuclear bomb...but by god if someone uses it on us that goes out the window. It is much the same that if you and a guy are about to get in a fight and both agree its going to be a fist fight...and then he pulls out a gun, you're an idiot to go "well, we agreed just to fight with fists" and go walking up ready to box him.

Quote:

If you support water boarding, then you are not supporting the troops.

Got any more catch lines Mr. Cochran? You need to get back to getting them to rhyme though. Little quips with no substance are so much more fun than debating though.

danarhea · 04-02-08, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

I am unfamiliar with the anti-torture legislation signed by Reagan.

But according to the Geneva conventions, these people do not fit the requirements for POW, and therefore may not have the rights guarenteed to them in the Geneva Conventions. Per the Geneva Convention

Now if you can provide whatever it was Reagan signed, then I would be willing to take a look at it. But as it stands there is alot of grey area for the government and other governments to operate with regards to treatment of enemy combatants that do not qualify underneath the Geneva Conventions identification of POWs.

For one, I would like to see a clarification made on the part of the Geneva Conventions regarding non-uniformed enemy combatants that do not follow the rules laid down in the Geneva Conventions.

Here ya' go. And don't forget, a signed international treaty becomes the law of the land, according to the Constitution.

Zyphlin · 04-02-08, 04:36 PM

Funny...I could've SWORE just a few months ago you were going on and on in support of a guy that seemed to wnat to pull out of the U.N. and most internationally signed treaties.

WI Crippler · 04-02-08, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

Here ya' go. And don't forget, a signed international treaty becomes the law of the land, according to the Constitution.

Thats alot to read. I'll have to look at it when I'm not at work. Its one thing to make quick passing shots, its another to get totally engrossed and engaged in something. I'm sneaky enough to pull off the first, but not the second.

I promise to go over it in detail though.

danarhea · 04-02-08, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Funny...I could've SWORE just a few months ago you were going on and on in support of a guy that seemed to wnat to pull out of the U.N. and most internationally signed treaties.

I did, but there is a big difference, Constitutionally, between pulling out of a treaty, and staying in while breaking it. One is legal, and the other, of course, violates the law. I was very much against Bush's pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, which had been signed by another administration, but I did recognize Bush had to do so. Breaking that treaty, while still a member, is still breaking the law of the United States of America, which is why Bush pulled out, as he intended to break that treaty. I disagree with his pulling out, but I admit that he has the right to do so. That is the difference.

danarhea · 04-02-08, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Thats alot to read. I'll have to look at it when I'm not at work. Its one thing to make quick passing shots, its another to get totally engrossed and engaged in something. I'm sneaky enough to pull off the first, but not the second.

I promise to go over it in detail though.

Article I is pretty much the meat of it. It is pretty short.