Is Cheney Crazy?

[Liability]

That's only because you're shedding paperview.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

To those like you, perhaps it is absolutely meaningless rhetoric. To OURS who depend on it being followed:

Geneva Conventions Treaty

Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. It isn't limited to uniformed combatants. It includes every human being in the world. You people that would turn this country into some kind of fascist banana republic need to just come clean and denounce freedom and morality.

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to non-uniformed combatants. They also do not apply to nations that have not signed onto them. The conventions are intented as an incentive for BOTH SIDES to follow them, not just one of them which the liberals assume.

I'm calling your BULL....Lonestar

you are SIMPLY INCORRECT about the Geneva convention and it being for ONLY when both parties have signed it...YOU OBVIOUSLY have not read it. And you are wrong.

The Geneva convention addresses and describes how a signing country should handle the treatment of people out of uniform and countries that have not signed, as well as procedures and agreements for those who have signed it.

Care

We are talking about terrorist right? And whether or not the Geneva Convention applies to them. And you quoted from the 3rd Convention which covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield. The problem with that is the conventions outlaw any attack directed solely or mainly at civilians, which is what al-Qaeda specialises in. And to gain POW status, combatants have to follow the conventions. One idea would be that an international terrorist ignoring such rules of war might be liable to detention without having the full protection of POW status. However, the detainees held by the U.S. were and are treated in accordance with the "principles" of the Third Convention and other humanitarian law.

This is a breakdown on the four conventions, which were signed in 1949, with two additional protocols in 1977.

The First Convention was a follow-up to the 1864 agreement and protects sick and wounded soldiers.

The Second Convention extends protection to those fighting at sea.

The Third Convention covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield.

The Fourth Convention was new in 1949 and, drawing on the experience of civilian suffering in World War II, stated that civilians must not be deliberately targeted.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hey, moron, pay attention:

Jesus didn't die from torture. He died from being executed.

The execution was barbaric and tortuous.

But the death was from being deliberately PUT to death.

Freakin' dumbass Snowbacks.

Unbelievable. Now the spinmeisters are even rewriting The Bible.

whats really unbelievable is a fucking moron like YOU can compare what Jesus went through
so now waterboarding is equal to being nailed to the cross until death

After three nails were hammered into Jesus, how long do you think it took him to die? They weren't giving him water or food. Not torture?

Hard as you torture lovers try to justify the act, we still will never know how many "terrorists" were waterboarded and did, in fact die, now will we... Could it be that's why the videotapes were destroyed?

 

[MaggieMae]

Hey, moron, pay attention:

Jesus didn't die from torture. He died from being executed.

The execution was barbaric and tortuous.

But the death was from being deliberately PUT to death.

Freakin' dumbass Snowbacks.

Unbelievable. Now the spinmeisters are even rewriting The Bible.

You're a dumbass.

Dictionary: cru·ci·fy (krū'sə-fī')

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionarytr.v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies.
To put (a person) to death by nailing or binding to a cross.
To mortify or subdue (the flesh).
To treat cruelly; torment: crucified the awkward child with teasing.
To criticize harshly; pillory: The media crucified the politician for breaking a campaign pledge.

Jesus was crucified, put to death by being nailed to a cross. That is execution, not torture you stupid fuck!!

So I guess those nails didn't hurt at all.

 

[Ringel05]

Medical Definition of Torture

Torture: An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Survivors of torture often suffer from physical and psychological symptoms and disabilities. There may be specific forms of physical injury including broken bones, neurological damage, and musculoskeletal problems. Torture may results in psychological symptoms of depression (most common), post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions together with feelings of powerlessness, fear, guilt and shame

And that's just from results of reading these forums.

 

[Liability]

"I don’t know of anybody who died from torture."
-- Rush, claiming Jesus was just a myth, Link

Hey, moron, pay attention:

Jesus didn't die from torture. He died from being executed.

The execution was barbaric and tortuous.

But the death was from being deliberately PUT to death.

Freakin' dumbass Snowbacks.

Unbelievable. Now the spinmeisters are even rewriting The Bible.

You are being the spinmeister with your intentionally selective reading. What part of "The execution was barbaric and tortuous" did you find it most urgent to ignore?

The crucifixion, nonetheless, was not a tool to extract information. It was a barbarous form of execution. And YOUR spin is far too plodding and obvious to work.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to non-uniformed combatants. They also do not apply to nations that have not signed onto them. The conventions are intented as an incentive for BOTH SIDES to follow them, not just one of them which the liberals assume.

I'm calling your BULL....Lonestar

you are SIMPLY INCORRECT about the Geneva convention and it being for ONLY when both parties have signed it...YOU OBVIOUSLY have not read it. And you are wrong.

The Geneva convention addresses and describes how a signing country should handle the treatment of people out of uniform and countries that have not signed, as well as procedures and agreements for those who have signed it.

Care

We are talking about terrorist right? And whether or not the Geneva Convention applies to them. And you quoted from the 3rd Convention which covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield. The problem with that is the conventions outlaw any attack directed solely or mainly at civilians, which is what al-Qaeda specialises in. And to gain POW status, combatants have to follow the conventions. One idea would be that an international terrorist ignoring such rules of war might be liable to detention without having the full protection of POW status. However, the detainees held by the U.S. were and are treated in accordance with the "principles" of the Third Convention and other humanitarian law.

This is a breakdown on the four conventions, which were signed in 1949, with two additional protocols in 1977.

The First Convention was a follow-up to the 1864 agreement and protects sick and wounded soldiers.

The Second Convention extends protection to those fighting at sea.

The Third Convention covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield.

The Fourth Convention was new in 1949 and, drawing on the experience of civilian suffering in World War II, stated that civilians must not be deliberately targeted.

There was a North Vietnamese adviser like minded to you who found holes in the letter of the Geneva Conventions to justify torturing American POW's. Talk to John McCain.

Evil people find justification to do evil things.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm calling your BULL....Lonestar

you are SIMPLY INCORRECT about the Geneva convention and it being for ONLY when both parties have signed it...YOU OBVIOUSLY have not read it. And you are wrong.

The Geneva convention addresses and describes how a signing country should handle the treatment of people out of uniform and countries that have not signed, as well as procedures and agreements for those who have signed it.

Care

We are talking about terrorist right? And whether or not the Geneva Convention applies to them. And you quoted from the 3rd Convention which covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield. The problem with that is the conventions outlaw any attack directed solely or mainly at civilians, which is what al-Qaeda specialises in. And to gain POW status, combatants have to follow the conventions. One idea would be that an international terrorist ignoring such rules of war might be liable to detention without having the full protection of POW status. However, the detainees held by the U.S. were and are treated in accordance with the "principles" of the Third Convention and other humanitarian law.

This is a breakdown on the four conventions, which were signed in 1949, with two additional protocols in 1977.

The First Convention was a follow-up to the 1864 agreement and protects sick and wounded soldiers.

The Second Convention extends protection to those fighting at sea.

The Third Convention covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield.

The Fourth Convention was new in 1949 and, drawing on the experience of civilian suffering in World War II, stated that civilians must not be deliberately targeted.

There was a North Vietnamese adviser like minded to you who found holes in the letter of the Geneva Conventions to justify torturing American POW's. Talk to John McCain.

Evil people find justification to do evil things.

are you saying the North Vietnamese ever gave a shit about the GC's?


LOL
thats a good one

 

[nodoginnafight]

are you saying the North Vietnamese ever gave a shit about the GC's?

Are you saying you want the U.S. to be just like North Vietnam??????????

 

[Liability]

are you saying the North Vietnamese ever gave a shit about the GC's?

Are you saying you want the U.S. to be just like North Vietnam??????????

What a moronic rejoinder!

No, idiot. He is saying that the comparison to N. Vietnamese Governmental officials was bogus from jump.

Had the bastards in N. Vietnam had ANY concern for the Geneva Accords, they would NEVER have so badly mistreated a legal uniformed combatant.

Furthermore, you simpleton, there is not one shred of credible evidence that any U.S. officals EVER had any "policy" to treat ANY of the captured NON-UNIFORMED enemy combatants in any way even marginally comparable to the treatment accored to Lt. McCain in Viet Nam.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What a moronic rejoinder!

in that it exactly mirrors yours - I'd have to agree

 

[nodoginnafight]

torture is fine IF you want the U.S. to be just another rogue nation.
Personally, I have a better vision for the U.S.

 

[Liability]

What a moronic rejoinder!

in that it exactly mirrors yours - I'd have to agree

Except, you ignorant imbecile, you wern't responding to anything I had said.

Do try to buy a clue.

By the way, your username is a deliberate lie.

You will find you will never have much credibility here when your every word follows the lie that is your handle.

 

[Liability]

torture is fine IF you want the U.S. to be just another rogue nation.
Personally, I have a better vision for the U.S.

Torture is not fine whether or not we wish to be like any of the rogue nations.

Thankfully, we don't engage in torture.

We have -- in very limited cases -- used waterboarding, however. Not the same thing.

 

[ElmerMudd]

We are talking about terrorist right? And whether or not the Geneva Convention applies to them. And you quoted from the 3rd Convention which covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield. The problem with that is the conventions outlaw any attack directed solely or mainly at civilians, which is what al-Qaeda specialises in. And to gain POW status, combatants have to follow the conventions. One idea would be that an international terrorist ignoring such rules of war might be liable to detention without having the full protection of POW status. However, the detainees held by the U.S. were and are treated in accordance with the "principles" of the Third Convention and other humanitarian law.

This is a breakdown on the four conventions, which were signed in 1949, with two additional protocols in 1977.

The First Convention was a follow-up to the 1864 agreement and protects sick and wounded soldiers.

The Second Convention extends protection to those fighting at sea.

The Third Convention covers prisoners of war and says they must be protected from harm and not prosecuted for lawful actions on the battlefield.

The Fourth Convention was new in 1949 and, drawing on the experience of civilian suffering in World War II, stated that civilians must not be deliberately targeted.

There was a North Vietnamese adviser like minded to you who found holes in the letter of the Geneva Conventions to justify torturing American POW's. Talk to John McCain.

Evil people find justification to do evil things.

are you saying the North Vietnamese ever gave a shit about the GC's?


LOL
thats a good one

Cheney acted like he did but he cared about the Geneva Conventions about as much as North Viet Nam.

 

[nodoginnafight]

wow - now there's real rant for ya - lose the argument on merits and so you start attacking a screen name - lol - be sure to let me know how that works out for ya.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Thankfully, we don't engage in torture.

One more thing we can thank president Obama for .... unfortunately - we did under the Bush administration.

 

[Liability]

Thankfully, we don't engage in torture.

One more thing we can thank president Obama for .... unfortunately - we did under the Bush administration.

False.

We did not engage in gtorture under President Bush or his Administration, either.

As you knew before you just deliberately lied.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I know we DID engage in torture - I'd accuse you of lying but that requires deliberation - something you don't appear to be capable of.
Later punk - you've earned your way onto my ignore list - I don't trifle with those of your ilk

 

[Liability]

I know we DID engage in torture - I'd accuse you of lying but that requires deliberation - something you don't appear to be capable of.
Later punk - you've earned your way onto my ignore list - I don't trifle with those of your ilk

No. We did NOT engage in "torture," you lying bitch. We engaged in some (very limited) waterboarding which is STILL not the same thing as torture no matter how often you make the lying claim!

I couldn't care less if I end up on the ignore list of a pussy like you, by the way. You lying cowards always run like that. Adios, ya sissy.