Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You evade. Answer the question.If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?
A blowtorch is actually far more effective, but I digress.
Because burning really does cause permanent damage,
So does death. You forget an innocent detainee was tortured to death.
Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?
What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?
What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners
Was he an unlawful combatant?
Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not
Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?
Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.
and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.
Again the issue is your human rights not your combatant status
Does the US have a right to complain if Venezuela, Columbia or South Africa uses these same techniques on US citizens to obtain a confession?
After all, we are claiming they are not torture
It depends on if they were unlawful combatants, and said countries were doing it to get information or for "ha ha's, or to make a point.
Actually, I did.You evade. Answer the question.If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?
A blowtorch is actually far more effective, but I digress.
Because burning really does cause permanent damage,
So does death. You forget an innocent detainee was tortured to death.
Define "innocent". I notice you didn't link anything to back that claim up.
And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not
Exactly.
There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.
No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
The problem is that the unlawful combatants in question are not part of any "state" that has declared war, so these parts don't apply anyway.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Apparently so. Read it again.
. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"
Was he an unlawful combatant?
Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not
Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?
Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.
and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.
Again the issue is your human rights not your combatant status
Does the US have a right to complain if Venezuela, Columbia or South Africa uses these same techniques on US citizens to obtain a confession?
After all, we are claiming they are not torture
It depends on if they were unlawful combatants, and said countries were doing it to get information or for "ha ha's, or to make a point.
What difference should it make if those techniques are not considered torture by our country?
Shouldn't US citizens be subject to them?
Ahhhhh, the old "what law did they break" blind spot.And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!Exactly.
There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.
No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
The problem is that the unlawful combatants in question are not part of any "state" that has declared war, so these parts don't apply anyway.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Apparently so. Read it again.
. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"
So where are all those prosecutions that must be occurring if your view of this is the right one?
Oh wait, they aren't happening, because your interpretation is bullshit.
Another thing you are forgetting, marty. 20 percent of the detainees were innocent. There were not "unlawful combatants".
Ahhhhh, the old "what law did they break" blind spot.And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
The problem is that the unlawful combatants in question are not part of any "state" that has declared war, so these parts don't apply anyway.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Apparently so. Read it again.
. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"
So where are all those prosecutions that must be occurring if your view of this is the right one?
Oh wait, they aren't happening, because your interpretation is bullshit.
They were given retroactive amnesty by the Bush Administration, dipshit.
Spoken like a true nazi. What the ever loving fuck do you think the Constitution is for, you utterly stupid fuck?Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not
Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?
Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.
and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.
Again the issue is your human rights not your combatant status
Does the US have a right to complain if Venezuela, Columbia or South Africa uses these same techniques on US citizens to obtain a confession?
After all, we are claiming they are not torture
It depends on if they were unlawful combatants, and said countries were doing it to get information or for "ha ha's, or to make a point.
What difference should it make if those techniques are not considered torture by our country?
Shouldn't US citizens be subject to them?
if you belong to an organization that goes outside the rules of war, you should be stripped of US citizenship and left to the dogs.
Spoken like a true nazi. What the ever loving fuck do you think the Constitution is for, you utterly stupid fuck?Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.
and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.
Again the issue is your human rights not your combatant status
Does the US have a right to complain if Venezuela, Columbia or South Africa uses these same techniques on US citizens to obtain a confession?
After all, we are claiming they are not torture
It depends on if they were unlawful combatants, and said countries were doing it to get information or for "ha ha's, or to make a point.
What difference should it make if those techniques are not considered torture by our country?
Shouldn't US citizens be subject to them?
if you belong to an organization that goes outside the rules of war, you should be stripped of US citizenship and left to the dogs.
Cowards. These torture fetishists are cowards. They tremble in fear of the Muslim terrorist bogeyman. They are so frightened, they are willing to throw out our Constitution and our humanity to feel safer.
The only Senator who really understands
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Too bad other Republicans won't listen to him
>> In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
... On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. << -- Waterboarding: A Tortured History
it would be all well and good if the recent cases involved soldiers, which they do not. One of the downsides of being an unlawful combatant is you don't get the protections given to soldiers under the rules of war.
and the last one was done by law enforcement on civilian prisoners, again, not the same thing.
Spoken like I would expect a nazi to speak.Just another reason we shouldn't be playing by the rules. We should be playing by their rules which is No rules.
Doubt they would like that at all.
Spoken like I would expect a nazi to speak.Just another reason we shouldn't be playing by the rules. We should be playing by their rules which is No rules.
Doubt they would like that at all.
The question was about citizens and you were willing to torture them, too. You were willing to shred the Constitution to feed your torture fetish.Cowards. These torture fetishists are cowards. They tremble in fear of the Muslim terrorist bogeyman. They are so frightened, they are willing to throw out our Constitution and our humanity to feel safer.
Unlawful combatants are not protected by out constitution.
