Forums | MacLife

No one ever proclaimed that Hussein never possessed chemical weapons or a desire to obtain more devastating ones. 

resedit wrote:

Furthermore, when inspectors did get back in, they were not given anywhere near free access, Saddam certainly wanted the world to believe he had them, and he was seeking to start up the programs again.

Of course, the inspectors said something different and Bush was on the record as claiming that he didn't give a damn what the inspectors found or didn't find, what evidence was there or wasn't.  Immediately after 9/11 (within the week, I believe) his administration began pushing for any way to tie AQ and 9/11 to Iraq.  Also on the record.  As Bush was insisting that Iraq still had time to comply, he was also stating that nothing would change the course of action, including the UN.  All well documented.

As Colin Powell so eloquently stated prior to his UN speech, the intelligence was "bullsmurf."

We've covered this many times, however, and that's not what this thread is about.

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

resedit wrote:

And you would be convicted of rape, not torture.

Hmmm, well, tell that to the muslim weomen in yugoslavia who were raped. Culturally it ruined them. That qualifies as torture. under the definition.

So you are suggesting that whether or not something is torture can depend upon circumstances around the act, and not necessarily the act itself?

Interesting.

No, it was specifically used to as a method of torture. In fact, rape is a standard method of torture. Either with implements or with the use of human genitalia. Really res, don't you think that that rape could be used?

resedit wrote:

And yes, it works. If it didn't, the memos Chenney has asked to have released would have been released.
Obama won't release them because they would undermine his position.

Exactly how many times do you plan to demonstrate absolute blatant dishonesty on this particular subject?

I've demonstrated that your claim is baseless.  Several times.  You've disregarded those posts, and repeatedly made this claim.  It isn't true.

How can that be described as anything other than rank intellectual dishonesty?  Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that the facts matter to you, at all?

They don't.  If you don't like them, you simply ignore them.  Must be interesting, going through life that way.

About those mystery documents:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.

President Bush told a September 2006 news conference that one plot, to attack a Los Angeles office tower, was "derailed" in early 2002 — before the harsh CIA interrogation measures were approved, contrary to those who claim that waterboarding revealed it.

Last December, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't believe that intelligence gleaned from abusive interrogation techniques had disrupted any attacks on America.

The New York Times first reported the existence of Helgerson's report in November 2005, quoting unnamed officials as saying it had warned that use of the techniques might constitute torture. But details of its contents and its other conclusions have remained secret. A version of the report that the CIA turned over to the ACLU in May 2008 in response to a lawsuit consisted primarily of heavy black lines and notations of sections that had been redacted

The Bradbury memos that cite the inspector general's report reveal that officials at CIA headquarters insisted on the repeated waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner to undergo the technique, even after the interrogators on the scene sought to discontinue the technique.

"According to the IG Report, the CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have information," Bradbury wrote in his May 30, 2005, memo. "On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques.

Link.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-05-23 1:37 pm)

Jdude wrote:

Another example is those people who hang themselves on hooks for fun. See this link (NSFW). Hanging people involuntarily on hooks would undoubtedly be torture. But the woman in that picture was a volunteer. (I think, it came from an image search for "hanging on hooks").

Right.  I mentioned at the beginning of the thread how all sorts of people willingly submit to acts that would most certainly be considered "torture."

; )

resedit wrote:

He's the President, he wants to stop the methods - that's his prerogative.

I don't think there is any legal precedent  for the executive deciding the legality of torture (nor what defines it).

The methods do, however, work.

So did Mengele's.

sturner wrote:

Metacell wrote:

resedit wrote:

Prisoners of War are specifically protected by geneva convention.
They are only required to give their serial number, if I recall.

However, when you engage in combat outside of your uniform, you are no longer privileged to that protection.
That's the way it has been for a very long time.

I believe having committed acts of atrocity also nullify you of the Geneva POW protection.

Uniformed Iraqi Soldiers were kept in accordance with the Geneva convention, and were also released once Saddam's regime was toppled, in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Good gravy, I find you to be an utterly vile, sick human being.  Any excuse will do for you.

If a civilian is found engaging in combat, he is treated in a specific way. And tried by military courts-martial. That is covered under the Geneva conventions. We did not follow them.

Yes, I know, I've actually read it to verify.  But even if resedit was right it would still disgust me that arbitrary legal wrangling is justification for the kind of violations the Geneva Conventions were DESIGNED TO PUT US ABOVE AS AN ACT OF CIVILIZATION.

sturner wrote:

Metacell wrote:

resedit wrote:

Prisoners of War are specifically protected by geneva convention.
They are only required to give their serial number, if I recall.

However, when you engage in combat outside of your uniform, you are no longer privileged to that protection.
That's the way it has been for a very long time.

I believe having committed acts of atrocity also nullify you of the Geneva POW protection.

Uniformed Iraqi Soldiers were kept in accordance with the Geneva convention, and were also released once Saddam's regime was toppled, in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Good gravy, I find you to be an utterly vile, sick human being.  Any excuse will do for you.

If a civilian is found engaging in combat, he is treated in a specific way. And tried by military courts-martial. That is covered under the Geneva conventions. We did not follow them.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

What article specifically did we violate?

Also note that the vast majority of the guidelines that might apply to gitmo specify prisoner of war, define in section 1 article 4:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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.

B and D were not fulfilled by the terrorists at gitmo, therefore they are not POW's and everything geneva says about POW treatment DOES NOT APPLY

As for the treatment of non POW's - that's in the fourth convention that covers civilians.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Whoops - that doesn't apply to those at gitmo either.

resedit wrote:

As for the treatment of non POW's - that's in the fourth convention that covers civilians.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

Whoops - that doesn't apply to those at gitmo either.

Maybe you should have kept scrolling before you posted that.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.