The Case for Torturing Lt. Chase Nielsen

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
First point - Water torture and the current technique of water boarding or about the same as the difference between being shot with .50 caliber rifle or a paintball marker. Yeah, you “might” be able to shoot out someone’s eye with a paintball marker . . .but you can also shoot them thousands of times with little effect (I can personally vouch for this- having been a favorite target of my friends). However, there is never merely a bruising effect from a .50 cal slug.

Water torture involved the REAL threat of drowning - something the victim of this torture is very very very aware of as his head is being ducked repeatedly into a barrel water - it is the real threat of death and the inability to prevent it that makes this a true torture. Water boarding with a cloth over the face and 20 seconds of restricted breathing while medical personnel are on hand to minister to any slight water inhalation is a far far cry from the original practice. If you can’t get that through your head - you need to find a new topic!!
[/quote]

Man, you keep on this nonsense that waterboarding is new, and before it was “water torture” where the subject’s head was dunked in a barrel.

This is an excerpt of the testimony by Lt. Nielsen in the case of United States v. Shigeru Sawada:

[b]“Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again. I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.”[/b]

This was from the mouth of the man who was tortured. Care to address this, or are you going to go on another Bugs Bunny rave, hoping that the truth gets lost?

[quote]borrek wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Man, you keep on this nonsense that waterboarding is new, and before it was “water torture” where the subject’s head was dunked in a barrel.

This is an excerpt of the testimony by Lt. Nielsen in the case of United States v. Shigeru Sawada:

[b]“Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again. I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.”[/b]

This was from the mouth of the man who was tortured. Care to address this, or are you going to go on another Bugs Bunny rave, hoping that the truth gets lost?

[/quote]

what’s up doc (see what i did there?)

it would seem, if one were to actually read the documentation that were available to one for reading that one would discover that one had missed a very obvious statement and a very very important fact that one should not have missed. It would be a good thing to not miss such important facts - it would behoove one to be thorough when attempting to reply to the irishsteel about things one should not have deigned to discuss in the original instance.

The statement - maximum of 20 seconds - big difference between 20 seconds and “until I was almost unconscious.”

The fact - it was not because of the water torture alone- but because of the many many heinous acts of barbarity perpetrated by these soldiers that they were punished.

My point has consistently been that with the applied guidelines we abide by and the safety procedures we are mandated to follow -there is substantial difference between the current technique and the classic form of the water torture. So once again, you have made my point more pointed and appropriate by your vain attempt at a rebuttal. Congratulations for assisting me again.

And (except for that one rave in Denver with that hot little latina vixen dressed up like a playboy bunny) the absolute unvarnished truth is that I have never been on a Bugs Bunny Rave and I am offended that you think I would give drugs to a cartoon character or attend a rave where people dressed up like Warner Brothe . . .dang it, you and your rascally rabbits - got me going the wrong direction again.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
If you want the standard of no torture - you should logically denounce war and disband our military immediately.

:slight_smile:

I agree.

A pacifist? are you really a pacifist or one of those “debate” pacifist? I’ve never met a real pacifist.

Oh no! If I said I was a pacifist then how could I say I have any right to my property or even my own life (which I claim I own)? Anyone who does not defend his own property is inherently claiming it is not his to defend. Even a toddler undestands property rights enough to know he must make a stand for what is, “mine!”

Every person has the responsibility to defend his own person and property. Morally, we should not imbue others to do it for us for then we have issues such as the ones we are raising here about torture, etc.

As a person who accepts anarchy as the natural order I must come to terms with the fact that others might try to do me harm and therefore I must take action to defend myself – otherwise my claims of anarchy are baseless. There can be no pacifist anarchists.

(I will attempt to answer the other more difficult questions you raised a little later. I am pressed for time today.)[/quote]

very interesting line of thought here. I look forward to developing this conversation more so that I can delve into this curious rationale - I must say at face value it has some interesting merit to it.

Then are you a true anarchist and thus a kindred spirit?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
it would seem, if one were to actually read the documentation that were available to one for reading that one would discover that one had missed a very obvious statement and a very very important fact that one should not have missed. It would be a good thing to not miss such important facts - it would behoove one to be thorough when attempting to reply to the irishsteel about things one should not have deigned to discuss in the original instance.

The statement - maximum of 20 seconds - big difference between 20 seconds and “until I was almost unconscious.” [/quote]

Page 15 of the Bradbury report states:

In our limited experience, extensive use of the waterboard can introduce new risks. Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness.

Now, how do you think they talk about loss of consciiousness?

Waterboarding is waterboarding. Its use is believed to help get confessions and the like (although the validity and reliability of what you get is debated).

You can’t have it both ways;

  • Either it is a useful as a physical abuse technique to break people, or it isn’t. If it is, then it must be torture. The UNCAT defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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.”,

  • Or it is child’s play whereby the kidnapped or arrested person is safely made to hold his/her breath for 20 seconds at a time, with no physical or psychological harm. And if that is your position, it must then surely be useless. And why use something so controversial that you know is useless?

I don’t expect you to understand arguments and be able to reason. You don’t even have the guts to say “I would torture to save other people’s lives! America, fuck yeah!”. That would be a infinitely more reasonable than this sissy crap you’re spewing.

P.S: Having health personnel in torture facilities isn’t always driven by concerns for the welfare of the tortured. It is to keep the person alive so that they can be tortured some more. Dead people can’t talk.

[quote]lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Page 15 of the Bradbury report states:

In our limited experience, extensive use of the waterboard can introduce new risks. Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness.

Now, how do you think they talk about loss of consciiousness?

Waterboarding is waterboarding. Its use is believed to help get confessions and the like (although the validity and reliability of what you get is debated).

You can’t have it both ways;

  • Either it is a useful as a physical abuse technique to break people, or it isn’t. If it is, then it must be torture. The UNCAT defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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.”,

  • Or it is child’s play whereby the kidnapped or arrested person is safely made to hold his/her breath for 20 seconds at a time, with no physical or psychological harm. And if that is your position, it must then surely be useless. And why use something so controversial that you know is useless?

I don’t expect you to understand arguments and be able to reason. You don’t even have the guts to say “I would torture to save other people’s lives! America, fuck yeah!”. That would be a infinitely more reasonable than this sissy crap you’re spewing.

P.S: Having health personnel in torture facilities isn’t always driven by concerns for the welfare of the tortured. It is to keep the person alive so that they can be tortured some more. Dead people can’t talk.[/quote]

Wow - you guys just love giving me help in proving my points - don’t you? Really you can stop anytime - I’m doing fine on my own. We;re not going to do that Rio thing again no matter how nice you are.

Didn;t you stop ti think for one moment that since they obviously KNOW that this is a risk that they will be on the lookout for it - WHEN they actually use such a technique? Or do you honestly think they are stupid enough to ignore the training and warnings that they receive?

Did you stop to notice that the danger is not from the technique directly - but instead directly from actions on the part of the person being questioned?

And let’s revisit the earlier fact that the times that we have used it - we did actually get actionable information from the terrorist KSM!

I don’t want it both ways. After that time in Rio . . . but I digress . . .

So, if it is a form of applying psychological and physiological pressure designed to elicit information from a prisoner - it’s torture in your book? Well, then just the mere act of yelling a question or swearing at them would constitute torture - but then you ruin your own point by stating that TORTURE IS ANY ACT (OF) SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, WHETHER MENTAL OR PHYSICAL.

And once again you aid me in my quest to prove you wrong.

SEVERE - hmmmm at what level does something become severe pain or suffering?

You spin your wheels so well - I say it is child’s play but ultimately out of sheer boredom becomes effective. If it were true torture as you claim - he would have broke in the first 5 times not at the 168th time. So yes it is child’s play - but the worst possible technique we have

I am all for much worse techniques on terrorists (ie real torture methods - you know, hat pins up the thumb nails, slice open the arm and pour in salt and then stitch it up, ball peen hammer to the digits, power drills through soft tissue, acids burns) - but since we are not allowed to use them - I am perfectly fine with using our childhood pranks.

So at the end of it all - I guess I do get it both ways!

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

You spin your wheels so well - I say it is child’s play but ultimately out of sheer boredom becomes effective. If it were true torture as you claim - he would have broke in the first 5 times not at the 168th time. So yes it is child’s play - but the worst possible technique we have

I am all for much worse techniques on terrorists (ie real torture methods - you know, hat pins up the thumb nails, slice open the arm and pour in salt and then stitch it up, ball peen hammer to the digits, power drills through soft tissue, acids burns) - but since we are not allowed to use them - I am perfectly fine with using our childhood pranks.

So at the end of it all - I guess I do get it both ways![/quote]

information was obtained, and it was my understanding that it was a piece at a time, not all at once after the 168th session of “childhood pranks”.
If I were in the same position, I could only reason that when I had no more information - I would be of no further use to my captors and would thus be executed. So the fear of possible death by waterboarding would be less than my fear of certain death by a pistol aimed at the base of my skull.

though I may have been broken more quickly by other methods, for example the being placed in a small metal box and subjected to the Barney theme song played at a high volume for extended periods of time - oh for the sweet release of death!
:wink:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Page 15 of the Bradbury report states:

In our limited experience, extensive use of the waterboard can introduce new risks. Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness.

Now, how do you think they talk about loss of consciiousness?

Waterboarding is waterboarding. Its use is believed to help get confessions and the like (although the validity and reliability of what you get is debated).

You can’t have it both ways;

  • Either it is a useful as a physical abuse technique to break people, or it isn’t. If it is, then it must be torture. The UNCAT defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female 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.”,

  • Or it is child’s play whereby the kidnapped or arrested person is safely made to hold his/her breath for 20 seconds at a time, with no physical or psychological harm. And if that is your position, it must then surely be useless. And why use something so controversial that you know is useless?

I don’t expect you to understand arguments and be able to reason. You don’t even have the guts to say “I would torture to save other people’s lives! America, fuck yeah!”. That would be a infinitely more reasonable than this sissy crap you’re spewing.

P.S: Having health personnel in torture facilities isn’t always driven by concerns for the welfare of the tortured. It is to keep the person alive so that they can be tortured some more. Dead people can’t talk.

Wow - you guys just love giving me help in proving my points - don’t you? Really you can stop anytime - I’m doing fine on my own. We;re not going to do that Rio thing again no matter how nice you are.

Didn;t you stop ti think for one moment that since they obviously KNOW that this is a risk that they will be on the lookout for it - WHEN they actually use such a technique? Or do you honestly think they are stupid enough to ignore the training and warnings that they receive?

Did you stop to notice that the danger is not from the technique directly - but instead directly from actions on the part of the person being questioned?

And let’s revisit the earlier fact that the times that we have used it - we did actually get actionable information from the terrorist KSM!

I don’t want it both ways. After that time in Rio . . . but I digress . . .

So, if it is a form of applying psychological and physiological pressure designed to elicit information from a prisoner - it’s torture in your book? Well, then just the mere act of yelling a question or swearing at them would constitute torture - but then you ruin your own point by stating that TORTURE IS ANY ACT (OF) SEVERE PAIN OR SUFFERING, WHETHER MENTAL OR PHYSICAL.

And once again you aid me in my quest to prove you wrong.

SEVERE - hmmmm at what level does something become severe pain or suffering?

You spin your wheels so well - I say it is child’s play but ultimately out of sheer boredom becomes effective. If it were true torture as you claim - he would have broke in the first 5 times not at the 168th time. So yes it is child’s play - but the worst possible technique we have

I am all for much worse techniques on terrorists (ie real torture methods - you know, hat pins up the thumb nails, slice open the arm and pour in salt and then stitch it up, ball peen hammer to the digits, power drills through soft tissue, acids burns) - but since we are not allowed to use them - I am perfectly fine with using our childhood pranks.

So at the end of it all - I guess I do get it both ways![/quote]

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Signing Statement, UN Convention on Torture from 1984

Ronald Reagan

Art 1.

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.:

Article 2

  1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

  2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

  3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

  1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

  2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

  1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following eases:

(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

Article 6

  1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.

  2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

  3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides.

  4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

  1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

  2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the eases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

  3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

[b]

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given. [/b]

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
[b]
Article 16

  1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [/b]

So much for the UN convention pushed through by Ronald Reagan.

So, when are we going to see those trials?

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Art 1.

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.:

So, when are we going to see those trials?

[/quote]

“The length of one’s posting on a discussion board does not bear direct correlation with the accuracy of their perspective or the length of their johnson.” - IrishSteel, 2009

Hmmm, now which signatory state party would a non-state terrorist belong to? That would be . . .uh, NONE.

Under the definitions of the Geneva Convention terrorists are non-uniformed, non-state mercenaries and are afforded no protections under the articles of the convention.

So once again, a very lengthy post proved me correct again - thank you very much!

And you still have to define what is severe pain or suffering.

For instance, what is severe to Orion is probably just foreplay for me.

It’s so fun rehashing the same points over and over with you guys - but come on, seriously - prove a point already or give up in inglorious defeat.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

“The length of one’s posting on a discussion board does not bear direct correlation with the accuracy of their perspective or the length of their johnson.” - IrishSteel, 2009

Hmmm, now which signatory state party would a non-state terrorist belong to? That would be . . .uh, NONE.

Under the definitions of the Geneva Convention terrorists are non-uniformed, non-state mercenaries and are afforded no protections under the articles of the convention.

So once again, a very lengthy post proved me correct again - thank you very much!

And you still have to define what is severe pain or suffering.

For instance, what is severe to Orion is probably just foreplay for me.

It’s so fun rehashing the same points over and over with you guys - but come on, seriously - prove a point already or give up in inglorious defeat.
[/quote]

damn, Irish you’re too good at this.
I wasn’t actually debating it’s legality, but thanks for posting that bit about the Geneva convention.(serious)

as far as legality of an action defining it as right or wrong…

I can appreciate your fervor for exacting vengeance at any cost, though I may not agree with it.

and defining the severity of suffering is really subjective, so you have another valid point - but thanks for alluding to your enjoyment of auto-erotic asphyxiation XD…

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Voltaire

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Art 1.

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “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.:

So, when are we going to see those trials?

“The length of one’s posting on a discussion board does not bear direct correlation with the accuracy of their perspective or the length of their johnson.” - IrishSteel, 2009

Hmmm, now which signatory state party would a non-state terrorist belong to? That would be . . .uh, NONE.

Under the definitions of the Geneva Convention terrorists are non-uniformed, non-state mercenaries and are afforded no protections under the articles of the convention.

So once again, a very lengthy post proved me correct again - thank you very much!

And you still have to define what is severe pain or suffering.

For instance, what is severe to Orion is probably just foreplay for me.

It’s so fun rehashing the same points over and over with you guys - but come on, seriously - prove a point already or give up in inglorious defeat.
[/quote]

Non of this is relevant, because the US has signed the treaty.

The same is true for the Geneva convention, which also applies if a country, that has signed the convention, has occupied a territory.

As you can clearly see the Convention on Torture does not even mention the legal status of those that were allegedly tortured.

It does however call for an immediate investigation.

[quote]miroku333 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

“The length of one’s posting on a discussion board does not bear direct correlation with the accuracy of their perspective or the length of their johnson.” - IrishSteel, 2009

Hmmm, now which signatory state party would a non-state terrorist belong to? That would be . . .uh, NONE.

Under the definitions of the Geneva Convention terrorists are non-uniformed, non-state mercenaries and are afforded no protections under the articles of the convention.

So once again, a very lengthy post proved me correct again - thank you very much!

And you still have to define what is severe pain or suffering.

For instance, what is severe to Orion is probably just foreplay for me.

It’s so fun rehashing the same points over and over with you guys - but come on, seriously - prove a point already or give up in inglorious defeat.

damn, Irish you’re too good at this.
I wasn’t actually debating it’s legality, but thanks for posting that bit about the Geneva convention.(serious)
[/quote]

The only one sharing that interpretation of the Geneva Convention are Bush and his lawyers, meaning noone, not even them.

You can look it up yourself, at the very least those detainees would have had the right to a trial determining their status.

But we have places were we resolve such disputes, we call them “courts”.

[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Non of this is relevant, because the US has signed the treaty.

The same is true for the Geneva convention, which also applies if a country, that has signed the convention, has occupied a territory.

As you can clearly see the Convention on Torture does not even mention the legal status of those that were allegedly tortured.

It does however call for an immediate investigation.

[/quote]

Thank you once again for your wonderful assistance in proving my veracity.

Since you are so fond of quotations - let me posit a brief one from the Geneva Conventions as well . . .

Art. 47. Mercenaries

  1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

  2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

So - as you rightly point out, the US as a signatory to the GC rightly assumes that enemy fighters, recruited locally and abroad, motivated by private gain (go virgins!), not a national of a signatory party or resident of a signatory party, not a member of a signatory party’s armed forces and has not bent sent by a non-signatory party on official duty as a member of its armed forces - are and of a right ought to be considered mercenaries.

And therefore as mercenaries - they cannot be considered either a combatant or a prisoner of war and are thus not afforded the guidelines and protections of the articles of the Geneva Conventions. That would include your comment about a trial . . .

please stop helping me prove you wrong- I’m starting to doubt my ability to do so without your help.

[quote]orion wrote:
miroku333 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

The only one sharing that interpretation of the Geneva Convention are Bush and his lawyers, meaning noone, not even them.

You can look it up yourself, at the very least those detainees would have had the right to a trial determining their status.

But we have places were we resolve such disputes, we call them “courts”.
[/quote]

OH - you are so quick to drive that horrible accusation of lumping me together with Bush. Yep - guilty by association, so all of my points must be wrong, because you linked me to Bush. Why oh why didn’t I see that coming . . it caught me so off guard.

I don’t know how to respond . . .i mean this is as bad as that time the police falsely arrested me for shooting all of those liberals simply because I had a gun, they were dead . . . and lined up against the wall of my house . . . inside . . . with my scooby doo pj’s used to tie their hands and feet . . . and a video camera recording the slaughter . . . I’ve was framed I tell ya!

Seriously - wow. You aren’t very good at this are you?

Well, I see your Bush (see what i did there? - kind of disturbing) and I raise you one fact filled absolutely correct post - see earlier posting

But look here:

LIMITS ON DETENTION
7-39. Mistreatment of noncombatants, including prisoners and detainees is illegal and immoral. It will not
be condoned. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 makes the standard clear:
No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or
under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or
technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field
Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [FM 2-22.3].

7-8 FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 15 December 2006
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government,
regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or punishment.

That is from the US counterinsurgency field manual

The manual mentioned therein, FM 2-22.3, which includes all permissible behavior regarding detainees is here:

5-74. All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status, shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, ?Department of Defense Detainee Program,? and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.

AND:
5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations
prohibited actions include, but are not limited to?
?
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
?
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
?
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
?
?Waterboarding.?
?
Using military working dogs.
?
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
?
Conducting mock executions.
? Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

And that were the fucking relevant US field manuals regarding the issue of waterboarding.

But they aren’t mercs, are they, because they don’t fulfill the condition put forth by 47.2.c, or at least, we can’t prove that they do.

If it were really that easy, Bush’s lawyers would have just classified them as mercenaries instead of the more ambiguous “enemy combatants”.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
But they aren’t mercs, are they, because they don’t fulfill the condition put forth by 47.2.c, or at least, we can’t prove that they do.

If it were really that easy, Bush’s lawyers would have just classified them as mercenaries instead of the more ambiguous “enemy combatants”.[/quote]

The Bush Administration renamed all kinds of things in the hope that the laws magically would cease to apply.

Fortunately these conventions contain provisions on how to determine who and what is what, unfortunately Bush never wanted his legal ideas examined in a court which was unlawful in and of itself.

And which is interesting enough, in and of itself.

[quote]orion wrote:
But look here:

LIMITS ON DETENTION
7-39. Mistreatment of noncombatants, including prisoners and detainees is illegal and immoral. It will not
be condoned. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 makes the standard clear:
No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or
under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or
technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field
Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [FM 2-22.3].

7-8 FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 15 December 2006
No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government,
regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or punishment.

That is from the US counterinsurgency field manual

The manual mentioned therein, FM 2-22.3, which includes all permissible behavior regarding detainees is here:

5-74. All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status, shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, ?Department of Defense Detainee Program,? and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.

AND:
5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations
prohibited actions include, but are not limited to?
?
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
?
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
?
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
?
?Waterboarding.?
?
Using military working dogs.
?
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
?
Conducting mock executions.
? Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

And that were the fucking relevant US field manuals regarding the issue of waterboarding.

[/quote]

So, I assume that you acquiesce on the points I raised regarding the Geneva Conventions. Thank you.

Now on to your new point . . .

We used water-boarding in 2003 - and the regulations you quoted were posted in 2006 . . . and this applies to military personnel - my sources say the water boarding was conducted by CIA personnel . . . and you used the “f” word - and I didn’t . . . and they weren’t relevant - and I am still better looking than Tom Cruise!

Once again - you help me too much. I may have to retire my keyboard and let you simply make my points for me.

This is like taking candy from a baby . . .or a baby from a candy, if your a cannibal . . . but that is type of behavior is typically frowned upon.

Well, I’m just going to sit here naked and covered in syrup (Mrs. Buttersworth holds a lot of syrup) while I strum my string- less guitar and watch reruns of the Twilight Zone. Kind of freaks out my boss- but he leaves me alone now-especially after that Twinkies incident.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Non of this is relevant, because the US has signed the treaty.

The same is true for the Geneva convention, which also applies if a country, that has signed the convention, has occupied a territory.

As you can clearly see the Convention on Torture does not even mention the legal status of those that were allegedly tortured.

It does however call for an immediate investigation.

Thank you once again for your wonderful assistance in proving my veracity.

Since you are so fond of quotations - let me posit a brief one from the Geneva Conventions as well . . .

Art. 47. Mercenaries

  1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

  2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

So - as you rightly point out, the US as a signatory to the GC rightly assumes that enemy fighters, recruited locally and abroad, motivated by private gain (go virgins!), not a national of a signatory party or resident of a signatory party, not a member of a signatory party’s armed forces and has not bent sent by a non-signatory party on official duty as a member of its armed forces - are and of a right ought to be considered mercenaries.

And therefore as mercenaries - they cannot be considered either a combatant or a prisoner of war and are thus not afforded the guidelines and protections of the articles of the Geneva Conventions. That would include your comment about a trial . . .

please stop helping me prove you wrong- I’m starting to doubt my ability to do so without your help.[/quote]

Interesting theory.

Let us see how that works out in the trial determining their status even those mercenaries are entitles to under the Geneva convention.

Which would maaayyybe make their indefinite detention not illegal but water boarding would still be against US law or at the very least worthy of an investigation as required by the UN convention against torture, ratified by the US senate 1990.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
But they aren’t mercs, are they, because they don’t fulfill the condition put forth by 47.2.c, or at least, we can’t prove that they do.

If it were really that easy, Bush’s lawyers would have just classified them as mercenaries instead of the more ambiguous “enemy combatants”.[/quote]

Oh really - you’re saying that they were not paid? Your saying that they were not motivated by private gain (whether temporal or heavenly)?

come one guys - come up with some real logic and some good arguments please - this is like beating 5 year children at shot putt (I would have used 6 years old but one beat me last year and I haven’t got over the shame yet - although I think he was juicing)

And stop draggin bush into this - seriously, I know you are fascinated with bush, but this paranoia is getting ridiculous.

I feel like the nagging old house wife - I just want you to talk to me!!

[quote]orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
But they aren’t mercs, are they, because they don’t fulfill the condition put forth by 47.2.c, or at least, we can’t prove that they do.

If it were really that easy, Bush’s lawyers would have just classified them as mercenaries instead of the more ambiguous “enemy combatants”.

The Bush Administration renamed all kinds of things in the hope that the laws magically would cease to apply.

Fortunately these conventions contain provisions on how to determine who and what is what, unfortunately Bush never wanted his legal ideas examined in a court which was unlawful in and of itself.

And which is interesting enough, in and of itself.

[/quote]

That was sort of my point. In order to classify them as mercenaries, the US would have to prove that they are, in fact, mercenaries as defined by article 47 of the Geneva Convention.

Prove, you know, in a court.