Should anybody be charged with a crime for torture?

[Excaliber]

CDC

...information that may prevent that from happening to aggressive methods of interrogation.

The definition of aggressive methods remains undefined, therefore, no reasonable answer is possible.

[stuartb]

It is only a crime if you are a legal U.S. citizen in the U.S. and not a terrorist. Otherwise the bill of rights doesn't apply and you are an ununiformed soldier i.e. spy and all is far game.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by stuartb

It is only a crime if you are a legal U.S. citizen in the U.S. and not a terrorist. Otherwise the bill of rights doesn't apply and you are an ununiformed soldier i.e. spy and all is far game.

That is not true. The Geneva Conventions specifically define this as well as uniformed soldiers.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Steve

[Excaliber]

Good point VRM. While we (the USA) are arrogant enough to believe WE can find the right and proper limits on any given law or rule of war we have no assurance an enemy will adhere to OUR limits. Thus, the rules of war must apply to all countries and diplomats must be free from prosecution. As distasteful as that is on occasion. Obama has correctly "set the tone" for world leadership in that regard, in my opinion.

I lived in Washington DC for eight years and the stuff diplomats got away with really made me angry! OUR laws are just and proper (or so it is said). But if we violate the rules of diplomats here in this country what can we say when OUR diplomat is faced with a crime in a foreign country? What might amount to a light jail sentence HERE could be execution THERE. While WE can carry out waterboarding in the proper manner (something I question) can we be assured a foreign country will follow the same guidelines?

[Dan40]

Neither pirates nor terrorists are afforded Geneva Convention protections. The GC covers members of "Armed Forces" and non-combatant civilians members of those "Armed Forces"

[bomelia]

I just wanted to chime in and say hi before this one gets closed.

I voted #1. Though I am not sure what the Clintons have to do with it.

IS playing Celine Dion Christmas songs torture?

I think Michael Jackson songs or Boy George songs could qualify as torture. Anybody ever get that stupid line stuck in their head? "Karma karma karma chameleon..." (phoenetically correct). Thats torture. Makes me want to hit my head repeatedly with a rubber mallet.

Actually, I hope Obama and the NOW democratic Congress do indeed prosecute the Bush administration. Including Bush. I am dead serious.

And Steve... use the ignore list! Are you nuts?

Mike

[Jamo]

Why the Clintons you ask?

Because.

You are welcome.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by VRM

CdC - get off my thread - you are going to get us both booted.

Hehehe...I'm loving this sheet.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

CDC


The definition of aggressive methods remains undefined, therefore, no reasonable answer is possible.

True, so the nobama team should just drop this entire idea as it's based on something that remains undefined - therefore, it would not be reasonable to push for a show trial.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

CdC - get off my thread - you are going to get us both booted.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

Besides, I'm clearly on the winning side of the poll - WOOHOO!

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Dan40

Neither pirates nor terrorists are afforded Geneva Convention protections. The GC covers members of "Armed Forces" and non-combatant civilians members of those "Armed Forces"

Dan, actually they are. Read the bit above in purple that I already posted. There is other language in the GC that will allow people to be charged with a crime (pirates) after capture. They are also entitled to a tribunal to determine their status. The Bush administration decided that terrorists could be held indefinitely - they were ruled against a few years later. And until their status is determined they are entitled to the GC protections.

Steve

[392cobra]

"Only the lawyers should be prosecuted. "

I want to vote in the Poll and make the correct choice.

Gotta question though....
Is it all lawyers or would there be some picking & choosing ?

[Ronbo]

Don't feel bad about fire bombing Germany...

Don't feel bad about nuking and flame throwing the Japs...

Don't feel bad about waterboarding the towel heads...

Following "rules of war" would mean us still answering to England's current King. All wars eventually move to gurrilla-style tactics and rules for uniformed armies are lost.

We've certainly got our share of damaged people coming back from this. What does piss me off is where was all this concern when the Army thru our soldiers under the bus, Bush should have had the balls to intercede on their behalf.

Not to mention the members of the media that should have been lined up in front of a firing squad for endangering our soldiers by leaking the stuff about Abu Ghraib. You know the towel heads would be enraged, not by what was done to the prisioners, but because we had women doing it.

US law applies to US citizens, the world (namely the UN) can kiss my azz... Attack a US citizen, lose a city.

[acindrich]

It's funny to see all the arguing back and forth about rights and wrongs of torture. I keep asking myself what is the root cause behind the torture? In today's world, I keep ending at the same point - oil. I wish all the energy used fighting and arguing could be channeled into solving what is arguably the single biggest root cause of conflict. Make the US energy independent. It would be great to walk away from the Middle East and the Jihadists and leave them alone to fight each other.

[stengun]

Howdy,

Being a left-wing nut job, I'm all for torture! Well, just as long as it Republicans and lawyers. Especially Republican lawyers!

Seriously. If a person/enemy/ terrorist/whomever has info and you know they have info, make them talk however/whatever you have to do to make them talk.

At the same time, why waterboard someone 183 times? Doesn't make any sense to me.

If they are a enemy combatant/terrorist, torture them. Get the info from them. Have a trial. If convicted, execute them. If not convicted, turn them loose. Don't hold them for years and years without a trial.

No need to torture them repeatedly. All info that they have is very time sensitive. Anything that they know will be useless within a few days.

At the same time, do you really think that a suicide bomber is going to talk? If he/she is a hard core zealot and is willing to give their life for the "Cause", I willing to bet that they will never tell you anything usefull. What do you think?

Waterboarding. It might not be physical torture, but it sure is psychological torture. That's why it works so good.

Paul

[Excaliber]

Well it turns out the "183 times" was the exact count of how many times he had water poured on his face. The actual number of times he was subjected to waterboarding did not (so claimed anyway) exceed the number of times allowed within time frames governing 24 hours, or a week, or a month. You could have water poured over your head numerous times (also clearly defined as to how often and how long) during any given waterboarding session.

But I think that's splitting hairs, being waterboarded (having water poured over your head while upside down) 183 times is a lot no matter how you count it.

I wouldn't count on our enemies keeping track of the number of times or sessions, just drown the phucker if he don't talk, done!

[bomelia]

It is amusing to watch what the liberals and Obama suporters have to say on this subject.

Mike

[Excaliber]

Equally amusing to see the riech wing nut comments.

[427 S/O]

I repeat.........

....For you others who simply live in denial of facts, that's your problem....

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Equally amusing to see the riech wing nut comments.

I do not find it funny at all that you would compare Conservatives to Nazis. Your sense of humor is lacking.

Mike