The new field manual released yesterday for members of the US Army has eliminated separate classifications for detainees and the accompanying treatment they may receive, and instead now stipulates that all detainess will be afforded treatment consistent with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (the prohibition of cruel treatment and torture).

In our war against Islamic fanaticism, this is a small victory. The lapse into barbaric behavior evidenced at the prisons in Iraq was a terrible mistake that brought us down to the level of our enemy, and cost us dearly on the world stage. Returning to the high ground of a civilized nation will better serve us not only with the people of the region but also with many of our allies in the European theatre, who have not been shy in voicing their displeasure with the practices of this administration in prosecuting the war.

CIA interrogators working in prisons operated by other countries will still have a free hand to use "alternative questioning techniques", but the guidelines contained in the new manual will apply to all prisoners of Defense Department facilities as well as any interrogatorss working there.

CIA interrogators working in prisons operated by other countries will still have a free hand to use "alternative questioning techniques"

...and therein lies the problem. This is just a political move by a shithole administration before an important mid-term election. They can still torture the fuck out of anyone...ANYONE they want.

It is posturing, plain and simple.
This is just a way the Administration can say they took a stand on the issue.
The only problem I have with this is the people we are fighting have no obligation to follow the Geneva Conventions, while we are forced to "play by the rules".
I likened this to a UFC bout where you tell the bigger, stronger fighter he's not allowed to use his feet, but the smaller fighter is allowed to use any move he wishes in an earlier post.
While I understand the need for the Geneva Convention's rules, it sure is a bitter pill to swallow when you see people getting their gourds hacked off on camera, with no world wide reaction to such.
However, when soldiers make a "butt pyramids" with detainees, and have a dog barking in the face of a guy that was trying to blow up his buddies just a day before, you get the "dogpile on the Americans" syndrome.

I'm okay with using alternative information extraction methods.

I'm okay with using alternative information extraction methods.

On who? You? Who decides whether to apply Geneva conventions or not? If you apply them to ALL prisoners, the debate is over. If you let a government decide for themselves who they give rights to and who they strip rights from....your going down a very, very slippery slope.

...and Sixee, it's the difference between knuckle-dragging morally bankrupt terrorists and US. How can we fight a war on terror if we are terrorists ourselves. We have to maintain at least the perception that we are in the right...if we are secretly torturing anyone we care to anywhere we want, how are we different? If you want to give our government to strip rights and torture people in secret at it's discretion with little or no oversight... let's just burn the fucking constitution right now.

...and to the anonymous negative rep. giver. You my friend are a gutless, mindless, asshole, go fuck yourself sideways. If you disagree fine, state your case, I'll listen. I don't mind getting negative hits when I'm out of line, or post facts that haven't been checked or are wrong, but at least have the guts to leave your name.....I promise I won't leave a revenge neg rep hit, I actually base mine on content, and I sign them<added in edit after seeing the rep hit>

I wanted to add what this lowlife said in the neg rep hit, and why it made me so angry: "yersuchafckintool" <added in edit>

let's just burn the fucking constitution right now.

The Constitution only applies to American Citizens, and has nothing to do with how Prisoners of War are treated.
You are comparing apples and monkeyshit. The government can't strip the rights of people who don't have those right to begin with.
Our government is here to protect us from our enemies. If you don't like what they are doing, vote people into office that think like you do.
Otherwise, it's just pissing and moaning.

Let's start this off slowly...

Ail, who were the Geneva Conventions written for to protect?

Why bother Akipt? You cannot change the mind of someone so buried in hatred for the current administration.Why not change the subject to something more interesting.. like Global warming and how this year was suppose to be the worse hurricane season ever...

We should sue Katrina for not abiding by the Geneva Convention Accords....

Don't fucking pretend to be superior Akipt and try to bait me....

What I'm saying here is this... once our government is allowed to decide for itself who it can secretly imprision and torture, our country is doomed. Right now , as far as we know, who they are doing this to is non-citizens they have significant proof are terrorists. I believe this to be the case.....but as long as we make this legal, or keep it legal, they could extend it to anyone they label as a terrorist. It's a slow errosion of the values this coutry should uphold. If we are truly in a "war on terror" aren't all terrorist foreign combatants...covered under the Geneva convention? I agree they don't deserve Geneva rights...but that's really not the issue.

I understand the arguments against my stand and the angry side of me says, fuck those damn terrorists, torture them do what ever you want to them so long as I'm safe....but at what cost to this nation and what it is supposed to stand for on basic human rights? I want to know, are their really Americans that support secret prisions to tortue information from people...that have no oversight?

Besides you, who says they have no oversight?
Isn't that up to the CIA's chain of command to oversee overseas operations?
Is it just because you don't like this Administration that you bring this to the forefront?

Why bother Akipt? You cannot change the mind of someone so buried in hatred for the current administration.Why not change the subject to something more interesting.. like Global warming and how this year was suppose to be the worse hurricane season ever...

So do you support secret torture prisions Shanno, is that what you are saying? I shouldn't bother trying to argue with people whose heads are so far buried up Bush's ass that they can no longer step back and see what is happening to this country.


.....Global Warming is fact...our effect on it is up to debate. :o

...it is strange that the horrible hurricane season predicted never materialized. :eek:

...The question isn't whether Katrina should get Geneva rights.....but should the Army Corps of Engineers get them. ;)

So do you support secret torture prisions Shanno, is that what you are saying?

He has stated here before, that yes, he does support the use of torture.

Isn't that up to the CIA's chain of command to oversee overseas operations?

No, oversight would be from another party not in direct command. i.e. congress. The CIA's chain of cammand is running the prisions at the behest of the executive branh...not too good of oversight IMO.


Is it just because you don't like this Administration that you bring this to the forefront?

Great question, and Shanno's comments made me think as well. I don't agree with it no matter who the administration is....I would bet they have been running through every administration going back20, 30..who knows how many years. Granted, it's my utter distrust of this administration that is making me agitated about right now...I try to not let it blind me, and I readily admit that sometimes I let it. I don't trust this administration with running secrect, non oversighted torture prisions.

Don't fucking pretend to be superior Akipt and try to bait me....

Bait you?

Climb down from your penthouse soap box and look at the pretty forest you're overlooking.

So do you support secret torture prisions Shanno, is that what you are saying? I shouldn't bother trying to argue with people whose heads are so far buried up Bush's ass that they can no longer step back and see what is happening to this country.




Maybe I do.. especially after I see people getting thier heads chopped off on TV.. What of thier rights? When you are dealing with animals.. treat them as such. As for having my head shoved up someones ass..at least when it comes to voting I will still choose the best.. ie.. I am registered Republican.. but I voted for Carl Levin, and I voted for Granholm and most likely will again (michigan). How about you.. are you choosing the best or voting against Bush (who is not even up for re-election).. tell the truth now...

I would be hard pressed for find ANYTHING positive from you about this administration, and do not come back with the whitty comment about how as soon as something good does...blah blah..

Ok.. tell me about Global warming.. I assume you are a scientist and have your own data to convince me.. because I can find many scientist who debunk global warming...

Bait you?

Climb down from your penthouse soap box and look at the pretty forest you're overlooking.

Make an argument Akipt...right now you haven't said a damned thing. Some content please.

I am not a fan of torture, its wrong on both legal and moral grounds. and the use of torture simple puts us on the same level as those who we are fighting. Its simple a matter or morality. Torture is wrong, and usually doesnt get you decent intel either as most human beings will tell you anything to get you to stop hurting them. there are forms of torture , "not the right word", that do not fall under the Geneva convention to the best of my knowledge, that could be used, but they take longer and are also much more likely to give good intel, sensory deprevation for one.

Its simple a matter of image, do you want to be known as the country that does what is right in regards to the Geneva convention or be known as a country that is no better that those you fight against.

Rev

I understand your agrument Shanno, and I apologize for Bush's ass comments (shouldn't post right before lunch, too grumpy). My problem is , who decides who is an animal and who is not? I can't trust this adminitration that power. I try to vote for the lesser evil.

As for postives...

- The invasion of Afghanistan and how so many Afghans actually were used in the fight. Though not 100% complete, I'd count that as needed and successful.

- No Child left behind - Great idea, so far poorly implemented, but a great idea.

- Getting Libya to dismantle their Nuke program...playing off the strength of the response in Afghanistan.

- increased funding significantly for the National Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation) and National Institutes of Health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health), creating education programs to strengthen the grounding in science and mathematics for American high school students. (okay had to go to Wiki for this.)

- They were 100% effect in stealing two elections <joke :devil

Please do tell about "scientists" that claim that the global temperture has<n't> been rising.....we could start another thread.

And don't forget about Al Zarkawai's death, Saddam's capture, Saddam's son's deaths, Bin Laden hiding.
All pluses in my book.

Maybe I do.. especially after I see people getting thier heads chopped off on TV.. What of thier rights? When you are dealing with animals.. treat them as such.
The shannos and Bises of the nation would have us sink to the level of our enemy, but I think the Founders would deplore such action. Consider the inalienable rights noted in the DoI and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution. Torture was the tactic of the very tyrants and oppressors the Founders saw as negative examples of good government. Our country should stand as a guardian against such evils, not let those evils dictate our actions and draw us down into emulation.

I'm sure Shanno could present just as strong a case against global warming as he did against evolution, but it belongs in another thread.

Good points Sixee....

Count any terrorists death as a plus....though I wish that just grenaded the hole Saddam was in. Bin Laden needs to be caught to be a plus, he's always been hiding from someone. :o

Bin Laden hiding

I really don't count this as a plus. He's still out there and able to exert some form of influence. I'm not saying it's easy work to find something hiding in a mountainous region (which is obvious by now or he would have been captured).

I won't say it's a negative either, as such though, because he's not able to exert as much influence as before. The fact he's still a free man though shows me that it's at least a work in progress to contain his evil influence. Now, I'm not deluded into the thought process that when he's captured, that all these terrorist acts will cease. I am a firm believer that someone will step in and take his place, and may be even a harsher opponant than we face in bin ladin's al queda regime.

Why bother Akipt? You cannot change the mind of someone so buried in hatred for the current administration.Why not change the subject to something more interesting.. like Global warming and how this year was suppose to be the worse hurricane season ever...

Why do folks continue to drag all this baggage into a simple debate. The Geneva Conventions are an agreement between nations on the acceptable manner in which war will be conducted, with certain conduct prohibited. As a signator to the Conventions, the United States has pledged to act in a specific manner when engaged in the act of war. This has nothing to do with whether or not our enemy has the same obligation, it has only to do with America and whether America is honorable enough to hold up it's pledge to maintain the articles put forth in the Geneva Conventions.

The arguments are so fucking moronic it is pitiful. According to some, whatever we see others doing is ok for us to do, as payback, more or less.
Unfortunately, too many appear to have skipped school too often to have learned that the reason the U.S. has been a leader in the world is that we have embodied freedom, and respect for people, and a set of laws that honor the idea of innocent until proven guilty. People have ben flocking to the U.S. borders for over 100 years with the dream of becomiong citizens because we DID NOT engage in such atrocious behavior.

Because some fanatics are cutting off heads does not mean that anyone we capture in an area of combat, especially when we are an occupying force within their borders, should be subjected to cruel and torturous interrogation. We are better than that. We are not the barbararous people we are fighting against. If you want to sink to that level, and think that engaging in such measures is productive or entertaining, go join them.
You most certainly are not a countryman of mine.

This is not an issue of party or politics or administration bashing; it is an issue of American practices and honor.

Well said Byte that reflects my precise feelings on the issue so i'll just add a Ditto.

The Geneva Conventions are an agreement between nations on the acceptable manner in which war will be conducted, with certain conduct prohibited. You and others (namely the vitriolic spewing emotionally venting Ailwon) both get it wrong from the foundation of the argument.

The Geneva Conventions are an agreement between nations on the acceptable manner in which war will be conducted betweem the signatories, with certain conduct prohibited in order to protect the civilians on both sides.

It's not about the terrorists and their rights. It's about the civilians. Terrorists worldwide now have the right to a lawyer after spraying a market full of women and child with a AK. I'm so glad my country has the moral fortitude to stand back and say 'he has rights too you know.' That'll make me sleep really well at night.

The conventions are an agreement in order to protect the innocent civilians in a time of war.

Someone keeps bitching about oversight. You're not going to get much of it from the conventions, otherwise Lt. Smith wouldn't be able to summarily execute our enemy's spies on the battlefield. I'm sure the Red Cross will make sure his family gets the personal belongings after his brains are swept up on the street.

Please stop proclaiming that any wrongdoing done to a terrorist is some unholy sacriledge done at the expense of the holy writ Geneva Conventions. It's much more complicated than that.

The arguments are so fucking moronic it is pitiful. According to some, whatever we see others doing is ok for us to do, as payback, more or less. And then you project this up to be everyone's beliefs, even the president's when it's not.

I'm not for cutting people's tongues out and neither is Bush. SCOTUS ruled Congress needs to set those boundaries and Bush is going to ask them to make it law... Political move? Yeah maybe, he waited till the anniversary of 9/11 to announce all of this... but the Dems forced the issue by playing politics. Don't like politics, stop serving it up.

Someone brought out the bs line that torture doesn't work. It does and much more successfully than anyone reading this would probably like it to.

Senator McCain himself has admitted that he divulged national secrets from his torture. Also if what I've read is true, three 5 second sessions on a water board is quite productive. Pakistan has practically admitted to torturing their Al Quida captive that revealed the recent UK airline attempts. Did they have to do it or was that the key? I'm not going there on this one, but torture does work.

The problem with the current situation is, even yelling at a terrorist can be seen as torture. That's bullshit and everyone here who is honest will admit that.

Honestly, I think if the CIA or whoever can save a life at the expense of someone having hard nipples rubbed up against their backside (which is torture now too), I'm fairly certain the moral authority is going to be to save a life. The poor infidels.

WOW...some people just don't get it.

It's not about the terrorists and their rights. It's about the civilians.

Couldn't agree with you more. Which one of us gets to pick out the terrorists in the next neighborhood roundup in Baghdad?

Fil

I'm not for cutting people's tongues out and neither is Bush.
Of course not -- it's tough to confess without a tongue. Now, a few years ago the Bybee memo prescribed the limits of torture on behalf of the administration. It defined torture as inflicting "pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death" (text here (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/doj/bybee80102mem.pdf)). This was accepted for two years until the cat got out of the bag and political pressure induced withdrawal of this interpretation. I'd say your estimation of what Bush is willing to do to captives is off a few degrees.
Senator McCain himself has admitted that he divulged national secrets from his torture.
Senator McCain also introduced a well received amdendment (http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html) against torture. Bush signed the host bill into law but, in his signing statement, declared that he would ignore the amendment if it suited him to do so.
The problem with the current situation is, even yelling at a terrorist can be seen as torture. That's bullshit and everyone here who is honest will admit that.
Maybe someone out there does view yelling as torture (millions of adolescents might agree), but that is the opposite end of the spectrum we're examining. What constitutes torture is something we as a people should discuss and come to some sort of agreement on, but the current president has historically chosen to bypass that discussion and decide for himself our nation's moral viewpoint on the matter.
SCOTUS ruled Congress needs to set those boundaries and Bush is going to ask them to make it law... Given the above, I'm not sure what good a law will do. FISA is a law, too. When was Bush planning to ask exactly?

Akipt, you are citing only one "Geneva Convention", there are four...here's the third:

Third Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention) "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention_%281929%29), last revision in 1949 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949))


So you are starting with an incorrect basis for your argumment. Now i ill agree that it's questionble whether those taken from Afghanistan fall under the provision...but it clearly states in the convention:

"Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt as to whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. "

Prisioners in the CIA secret prisions have not been ruled at all under the convention. Those in the Bay were "delcared" by the administration as not falling within the convention...no "tribunal" has been held to my knowledge. Bush isn't competant or a tribunal. :')

To be fair, I'm not upset about G. Bay prisoners. They aren't being tortured from everything I've seen. ...and this really is beyong the Geneva convention, it's really comes down to this:

Do you believe it's right for the govenment to have secret prisions where they torture people and have no oversight?

Three possible answers:

Yes, you trust that this pwer won't be abused by whatever administration is in power.

Yes, but it needs oversight to make sure it's not being abused

or NO, The USA should represent the ideals of human rights and should not have secret torture prisions.


It's that simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian) during times of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. This should not be confused with the better known Third Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention), which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war).

The original reasons for the conventions were first and foremost for the protection of the wounded and those non-military folks in a war zone and those that were caring for the sick and wounded on the battlefields.

"Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt as to whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal....no "tribunal" has been held to my knowledge. "

Bush was in the process of giving Gitmo prisoners tribunals, but SCOTUS ruled (Hamden?) Congress needed to set the rules, not the military.

They aren't being tortured from everything I've seen. ...and this really is beyong the Geneva convention Actually it was all about the conventions. Gitmo detainees were always being protected under the them.

My argument is primarily against using the Geneva Conventions (and our Constitution for that matter) as some kind of holy writ against things just because it feels good to say it. Yeah, people have very strong arguments against using torture and I agree with most of them.

I only asked for this discussion be grounded properly in reality. The Geneva Conventions explicitily denies any protections to terrorists, so basing any argument on the Geneva Conventions in giving them any sort of protections is irresponsible and quite stupid.

Frankly, we need a new Article to handle terrorists, but since the UN believes Michael Moore's bullshit line of one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, I don't see it happening.

Senator McCain also introduced a well received amdendment (http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html) against torture. Bush signed the host bill into law but, in his signing statement, declared that he would ignore the amendment if it suited him to do so. ... Maybe someone out there does view yelling as torture (millions of adolescents might agree), but that is the opposite end of the spectrum we're examining. When even yelling is considered torture, it has everything to do the problem. Pretty much the reason Bush ignored it and I don't blame him.

Given the above, I'm not sure what good a law will do. FISA is a law, too. When was Bush planning to ask exactly?Furtivus, myself, and others have previously detailed here several times exactly how Bush has every right and responsibility to not use FISA against international calls with suspected terrorists. Honestly, your arguments were very similar to the aforementioned use of the Conventions to argue for the protections of terrorists. Sounds good but very weak in reality. I suspect the FISA issues will be addresses by Congress as well before the midterms.

My argument is primarily against using the Geneva Conventions (and our Constitution for that matter) as some kind of holy writ against things just because it feels good to say it.
The Constitution is not a feel-good guideline but the "holy writ" that establishes the rules and practices of governing the country. We give our word to stick to conventions and treaties, and our word is our bond. I'll leave it to others to parse how and whether the GCs apply to Gitmo and other situations, but your point is exactly the opposite of what you make it out to be. We shouldn't be against applying the GCs or Constitution because it feels good to do so or because we don't like the ramifications.
Bush was in the process of giving Gitmo prisoners tribunals, but SCOTUS ruled (Hamden?) Congress needed to set the rules, not the military.
It was the nature and duration of the process that resulted in the case going to SCOTUS in the first place. Saying Bush was "in the process" of granting tribunals is like saying a newborn is in the process of dying of old age. There's been stonewalling aplenty, and innocent persons have been kept imprisoned for years. We can do better.

EDIT: The military and various GOP reject (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08detain.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1157688000&en=0c26649f53b989ef&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin) Bush's tribunal plans. Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”
Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the judge advocate general of the Army, made the same point, and Rear Adm. Bruce E. MacDonald, the judge advocate general of the Navy, said military law provided rules for using classified evidence, whereby a judge could prepare an unclassified version of the evidence to share with the jury and the accused and his lawyer.
...
“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/lindsey_graham/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”
When even yelling is considered torture, it has everything to do the problem. Pretty much the reason Bush ignored it and I don't blame him.
Where is yelling considered torture? How does this justify "pain equivalent to organ failure or death" as a metric for interrogation of a suspect?
Furtivus, myself, and others have previously detailed here several times exactly how Bush has every right and responsibility to not use FISA against international calls with suspected terrorists.
Strawman. Bush has admitted to using warrantless wiretaps on American citizens, which goes against law and Constitution. He realized he couldn't change the law (which his own people extolled anyway), so he circumvented it in secrecy, unaccountably. Spying on its citizens without due process is not the American way.

2 Reasons the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these people.

1. If you aren't in uniform, you aren't protected:


(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.



2. Many people here are quick to point out, We Are Not At War; WANAW.

Lets talk about torture and what rights terrorists should have then.. Who decides what should be constituted as excessive force? Is firing your 9mm into a barrel next to the head of an informant, that resulted in getting information about a inpending attack excessive? Well, many did.. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031028-113335-6042r.htm

I am glad he did what he did. Not only did he save his own life, but the lives of others in his convoy. So for anyone here that thinks that was excessive.. fuck you, and then put yourself in this LTC's shoes and tell me you have acted differently. I love sitting back and watching you people act holier than thou and say how we would be sinking to thier levels. If you have ever been face to face with these people, then you would know that there is not a middle ground with them. They want nothing less than your death and will sacrifice everything, including themselves for it. We cannot sue for peace here, so we need to do whatever it takes to win. For some reason people think that they would act differently if we were nice to them and gave them icecream at dinner. They are not going to change how they feel one way or another.. so why coddle them.


The next time there is a terrorist attack, how do you think the survivors of the victims will feel about not sinking to thier level, and giving terrorists rights who do NOT deserve them. If the terrorists want protection under the GC.. then they can start by facing us with honor and treat thier prisoners with the same respect.. unless you call sawing your head off slowly on camera respect....

Amidst the bleating we have a pertinent question:Who decides what should be constituted as excessive force?
I'd go with our elected representatives, after considering a variety of viewpoints at open hearings. This in contrast to what was, essentially, the unilateral, secretive decision making process the administration has taken in this and other areas.

But the Rebublicans hold majorities in the House and Senate.
Wouldn't this just be another "Example" of why it's "bad" for the Executive and the Legislative branches to be of the same party?
How long before we would hear the Democrats screaming about how it's all just a "whitewash"?

Many people here are quick to point out, We Are Not At War; WANAW.

Mr. Bush doesn't agree with that, he says we are at war...which , the fuck, is it.

Way to go Shanno...way to take something that isn't anything close to what we are talking about to make a invalid point. That was a heat of the moment thing, personally I believe that wasn't excessive due to the circumstances. That incident relates in no way to the topic of organized secret torture prisons run without oversight...please feel free to join back in the discussion whenever you see fit.

Akipt - Bush calims we are at war, are the guys at Gitmo not prisoners of that supposed war? If they are not, what are they?

But, like I said in my post, Gitmo really is off the subject. We are talking about torture.

Do you, or do you not, want our government to run secret camps to toture prisioners?

YES or fucking NO.

...and another thing Shanno....

It's really not about protecting terrorist, as much as you want it to be...

It's about checks and balances, it's about whether you value human life or not. You obviously don't care if we start doing the same kinds of things the terrorists are doing as long as it might save lives. I understand, I don't agree, but respect your train of thought and anger.

I believe that the more we sacrifice our freedom, let our government do morally reprehensible things in secret, strip away our rights, they we have already lost what we hold most dear. I don't believe the government should ever be given the power to do things like this in secret because it can lead to some very disturbing outcomes once you go down that path. This administration has already shown disdain for the laws and ideals this country was founded on and I do not trust it (or any for that matter) to do these things without abuse. The same would apply no matter who administration it was, Bush, Clinton...whomever.

Akipt - Bush calims we are at war, are the guys at Gitmo not prisoners of that supposed war? If they are not, what are they?



Actually they are illegal enemy combatants.
It isn't a war till Congress says it's a War.
Otherwise its a "use of military force".
Vietnam wasn't a war either, it was a "Police action."

You seem pretty riled up about the rights of people that don't have any.
I said it before; our government can't strip away the rights of people that never had those rights to begin with.
Now, if you are referring to the people in this country that have been accused of dealing with Al Quaida, then you are correct. These people should not be tortured, and should have a speedy trial.
If they are found guilty, then thier citizenship shoulds be stripped.
THEN the torture can begin.

As for distasteful things that governments do in private, do you really think that if you exposed everything the government was doing in secret, undercover operations, that anything could get accomplished?
Do you think we chould announce on a bullhorn "We are watching, and have been watching you for quite some time. Please don't mind us. Continue with your illegal activities!!!!"
I agree if the Government does something wrong, it should be held accountable. What I don't agree with is every move sctutinized to the Nth degree, so that any action is impossible.

I disagree Aliwon.. what I posted has to do with the subject of torture camps.. I was asked if I accept it, and I said yes.. then I asked the question of who decides what is acceptable. I am saying that what people "think" is acceptable is totally dependant on thier opinion. Like my example... LTC West was given a $5,000 fine and "helped" to retire for preventing the deaths of American soldiers. All of this because someone decided that the metholds of intimidation he used was excessive.

Now, you have soldiers accused of killing "innocent" Iraqi's that are possibly going to be put to death if convicted. But do you hear any outcry from the "anti-deathpenalty" advocates out there? Hell no.. there is such hatred with the current administration, that they love it when something like this happens.. anything to discredit Bush. I am sure Rumsfeld ordered those troops to go in and murder those people. The hipocracy is disgusting. Rendition did not start in this adminstration, but if you listen to the media, it never happened until after 9/11.

Back to the original point.. Bleat Bleat Bleat.. I think what bothers me most Aliwon is you act like this sort of thing has not happened throughout history. This is a new phenom that is going to lead us into a dark age. Just like it did not lead us to destruction during WWII, it will not now. Some of the things done at that time would be concidered barbaric today.

I only asked for this discussion be grounded properly in reality. The Geneva Conventions explicitily denies any protections to terrorists, so basing any argument on the Geneva Conventions in giving them any sort of protections is irresponsible and quite stupid.


Who are the terrorists? I have yet to hear of a single person we are holding captive in any of our military prisons being convicted of anything, let alone committing acts of terrorism. If they are captured in a war zone, attacking our troops or members of the coalition, are they not then enemy combatants; i.e. prisoners of war?

As a matter of fact, I am still waiting to hear who has been charged with committing acts of terror among those we are holding in our military prisons.

It seems to me to be quite irresponsible and stupid to lump all our prisoners under one label. It is quite irresponsible and stupid to not understand that the Geneva Conventions are designed to ensure a certain level of civility is maintained even amid conflicts; a level of civility that defines and in some ways separates the West from the extremists in the Mideast.

Wow, so many incorrect assesments I don't know where to start...

Sixee:

So, according to Mr. Bush we aren't at war when it's convenient and are at war when it's convenient...got it.

You seem pretty riled up about the rights of people that don't have any.

Do you believe that all humans deserve some basic human rights? And is it wise to let our government pick up people and decide that they have no rights as human beings at their discretion, with no one to watch what their doing?

Ok new justice system. If your an American citizen, our government can give you a speedy trial, strip you of citizenship, and torture the fuck out of you...yeah, I want live in that country.

As for distasteful things that governments do in private, do you really think that if you exposed everything the government was doing in secret, undercover operations, that anything could get accomplished?

I'm saying with no oversight whatsover it's extremely dangerous and stupid.....this kind of power WILL be abused. Oversight does not mean in needs to publically disclosed.

I agree if the Government does something wrong, it should be held accountable.

..and there's the crux. Torturing people at it's own descretion, with no oversight is WRONG and dangerous.

What I don't agree with is every move sctutinized to the Nth degree, so that any action is impossible.

I agree as well...this administration has well earned it's scrutiny however....and any administration needs to be scrutinized to some degree...checks and balanaces my friend.

Shanno..

I think most would agree that a field commander interogating a prisoner and firing a gun off to scare him into talking in the heat of battle IS much different from organized secret camps made up of undisclosed prisoners of undisclosed origin being run with absolutely no checks in place. I agree what he did should not have been prosecuted and because of the circumstances, I don't think he was out of line.

I think what bothers me most Aliwon is you act like this sort of thing has not happened throughout history. This is a new phenom that is going to lead us into a dark age. Just like it did not lead us to destruction during WWII, it will not now. Some of the things done at that time would be concidered barbaric today.

What bothers me is that you can't see that giving a government full rights to torture people at will with no one watching them is okay. Beyond that, it bothers me that you would use the same methods of our enemies, terror, to get the ends you desire. We are fighting a war on terror, right, yet it's okay if we use those methods. It bothers me that you are willing to continually repeat mistakes and horrors done in the past and it's okay because it's been done in the past. And your willing to let our government do these things anytime they want to anyone...because without oversight,they can.

Eventually it will lead to them designating whomever they want a terrorist, stripping their rights, and imprisoning them whenever it's in their best interests to do so. I see an administration ignoring the constitution with illegal taps, signing statements that make them above the law, and stripping other rights, in charge of secret camps where they torture people...this bothers me.

there is such hatred with the current administration, that they love it when something like this happens.. anything to discredit Bush.

Gee, pretty much exactly how the hardline Republicans were dealing with Clinton; how interesting. Were you raising the same outcry then? Were you complaining about over 100 million tax payer dollars being spent trying to find something, anything, with which to discredit Clinton? There was a lot of hatred for that president as well. It is just a different party in power now.


The office of the president is a lightning rods for attacks, and if the person occupying the office gives sufficient grounds, the attacks will be more pronounced and fervent. This administration has done more damage to the stature of the United States on the world stage than any in history; it is no surprise that the boorish buffoon occupying the office at present has no qualms about engaging in questionable if not illegal methods to get what he wants, as he has been raised as a spoiled rich kid.

And yes Shanno, I have seen the hatred on the face of an enemy. The hatred was not directed at who I was, but at why I was in his country and fighting to impose my ways on him. Much the same now, with all these insurgents who would not necessarily otherwise be engaged in hostility but who feel it their duty due to their religious teachings and the fact that we are occupying holy lands.

We could end this war much sooner by adopting our enemy's brutal behavior, but it would only leave us more open to retaliation down the road. I believe that maintaining some semblance of civility will better serve us in the long run, hence the adherence to the Conventions.

So, according to Mr. Bush we aren't at war when it's convenient and are at war when it's convenient...got it.

Actually it was people on this board that claimed WANAW. Bush seems to think we are, but Congress hasn't declaired this a War. He just seems to think he can pull his sabre out of it's sheath and yell "CHARRRRGE" and that makes it a War.


Do you believe that all humans deserve some basic human rights? And is it wise to let our government pick up people and decide that they have no rights as human beings at their discretion, with no one to watch what their doing?

I do believe that humans need a basic human rights. However, as many are quick to point out here, we can't force our Democracy on others. If you try, you get resistance. If you believe that our Constitusion forms the framework for "basic human rights" , the terrorists will use that against us. That has all ready been shown to be true.

Ok new justice system. If your an American citizen, our government can give you a speedy trial, strip you of citizenship, and torture the fuck out of you...yeah, I want live in that country.

So you think that if you are found guilty of treason, you should still be afforded the same rights as any other American? Why not give felons convicted of federal crimes the right to vote and carry firearms again? Don't you think that something should be done to people that conspire against this country to give them pause and think, "Hey, maybe the price is too high to do this."



I'm saying with no oversight whatsover it's extremely dangerous and stupid.....this kind of power WILL be abused. Oversight does not mean in needs to publically disclosed.

I agree that checks and balances are necessary. So who gets to oversee? More beaurocrats? Isn't that like trying to put a fire out with a flamethrower?

Gee, pretty much exactly how the hardline Republicans were dealing with Clinton; how interesting. Were you raising the same outcry then?


And yes, I was not happy that the Republicans spent all that time and effort trying to discredit Clinton, when the focus should have been on responding to Osama Bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States.

So you think that if you are found guilty of treason, you should still be afforded the same rights as any other American? Why not give felons convicted of federal crimes the right to vote and carry firearms again? Don't you think that something should be done to people that conspire against this country to give them pause and think, "Hey, maybe the price is too high to do this."

My fault...not real clear what I meant. What I meant was, we could end up with our government deciding that politcal rivals or "liberal" activists are treasonous and strip them of their rights.....if we continue down this path.

I agree that checks and balances are necessary. So who gets to oversee? More beaurocrats? Isn't that like trying to put a fire out with a flamethrower?

ROFL, yeah kinda, but at least their are multiple eyes looking at what's being done and a lower likelyhood for abuse of the power.

Nice post Sixee!!

My fault...not real clear what I meant. What I meant was, we could end up with our government deciding that politcal rivals or "liberal" activists are treasonous and strip them of their rights.....if we continue down this path.

But they are treasonous. ;)
I get what you mean now.
Same goes the other way, though. If the pendulum swings back the Liberal's way, Conservatives could find themselves in a sticky wicket.


ROFL, yeah kinda, but at least their are multiple eyes looking at what's being done and a lower likelyhood for abuse of the power.

That's true, but I think less government is more better. Maybe make the oversight somehow the responsibility of the public? Not sure how to address that 1.


Nice post Sixee!!

Thanks. When I first wake up, I tend to have moments of brilliance. By the afternoon, it wears off....