Captured Taliban leader singing like a canary

[Jay Canuck]

you don't understand - I thought it might be too difficult for you.

try reading it once more and tell me what about "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture" that you don't understand?

 

[Nonelitist]

you don't understand - I thought it might be too difficult for you.

try reading it once more and tell me what about "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of torture" that you don't understand?

Oh.. ya I did misunderstand you. I thought you were saying what the Geneva Convention says about who deserves Geneva Convention protection.

Now I understand, you are quoting a dead President from 20 years ago that said that.

Ya... he did say that.

But unlawful combatants are still not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Now we both understand eachother.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Oh I see you know better than former POTUS Reagan.......wow! - you should run for POTUS with your pro torture platform.

 

[Nonelitist]

Oh I see you know better than former POTUS Reagan.......wow! - you should run for POTUS with your pro torture platform.

Never said I agreed with torture.

I simply stated that non uniformed combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion since I don't really make the rules.

So it doesn't really matter what you and I think now does it?

Is that simple enough for you to understand now?

 

[Jay Canuck]

and I didn't bring up what the Geneva conventions says or doesn't say I brought up what the former POTUS said and signed and you seem to be trying to argue with.

no exceptions means no exceptions.

 

[Nonelitist]

and I didn't bring up what the Geneva conventions says or doesn't say I brought up what the former POTUS said and signed and you seem to be trying to argue with.

no exceptions means no exceptions.

Oh ok.. then ya.. that President said that. I am not sure why that matters.

Did you know that the Supreme Court allowed Japanese people in the United States to be rounded up and imprisoned?

Supreme court said that. Did you know that?

 

[DiamondDave]

and I didn't bring up what the Geneva conventions says or doesn't say I brought up what the former POTUS said and signed and you seem to be trying to argue with.

no exceptions means no exceptions.

But then again.. things we ensured in military training would be construed as torture... and just because someone may find something harsh, does not inherently make it torture...

There are indeed exceptions to wishy-washy UN new world order bullshit.. and I'll give you a hint, the UN is not inherently the world governing body... I would suggest reading the charter

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Report: Captured Taliban No. 2 'Singing Like a Male Canary' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

These captures are reallymaking an impact on the Taliban leadership and ability to communicate.

How is this possible? The left keeps telling us that torture doesnt work. They must have just asked him really nice.

The intelligence is being gathered by Pakistani authorities. If it were us doing it, the fucker would have lawyered by now. Wise up!

 

[Jay Canuck]

and I didn't bring up what the Geneva conventions says or doesn't say I brought up what the former POTUS said and signed and you seem to be trying to argue with.

no exceptions means no exceptions.

Oh ok.. then ya.. that President said that. I am not sure why that matters.

Did you know that the Supreme Court allowed Japanese people in the United States to be rounded up and imprisoned?

Supreme court said that. Did you know that?

WW2......before Reagan.

 

[Nonelitist]

and I didn't bring up what the Geneva conventions says or doesn't say I brought up what the former POTUS said and signed and you seem to be trying to argue with.

no exceptions means no exceptions.

Oh ok.. then ya.. that President said that. I am not sure why that matters.

Did you know that the Supreme Court allowed Japanese people in the United States to be rounded up and imprisoned?

Supreme court said that. Did you know that?

WW2......before Reagan.

Ok...

Reagan.... before war on terror

Whats your point?

 

[beowolfe]

Non uniformed, unlawful combatants are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Reasons why Terrorists are not covered under Geneva Convention:

- No uniforms
- Don't fight for a nation recognized by the United Nations
- Don't fight under a recognized command structure.
- Don't have a fixed, recognizable sign that identifies them from a distance
- Don't conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Therefore, these fighters are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention.

Are you telling us you support your government torturing people as long as they don't fit the above criteria?

 

[Nonelitist]

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

Reasons why Terrorists are not covered under Geneva Convention:

- No uniforms
- Don't fight for a nation recognized by the United Nations
- Don't fight under a recognized command structure.
- Don't have a fixed, recognizable sign that identifies them from a distance
- Don't conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Therefore, these fighters are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention.

Are you telling us you support your government torturing people as long as they don't fit the above criteria?

No... I am saying that people that do the following are not covered by the Geneva Convention:

- No uniforms
- Don't fight for a nation recognized by the United Nations
- Don't fight under a recognized command structure.
- Don't have a fixed, recognizable sign that identifies them from a distance
- Don't conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war


In fact, people that are found to be fighting that aren't uniformed can be considered spies and executed.


Again, the Geneva Convention doesn't cover non uniformed combatants.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Oh ok.. then ya.. that President said that. I am not sure why that matters.

Did you know that the Supreme Court allowed Japanese people in the United States to be rounded up and imprisoned?

Supreme court said that. Did you know that?

WW2......before Reagan.

Ok...

Reagan.... before war on terror
Whats your point?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.


what is your point? - you brought up a situation before Reagan signed on.

 

[Nonelitist]

WW2......before Reagan.

Ok...

Reagan.... before war on terror
Whats your point?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.


what is your point? - you brought up a situation before Reagan signed on.

Non uniformed combatants do not have Geneva Convention protection.

 

[Ragnar]

The intelligence is being gathered by Pakistani authorities. If it were us doing it, the fucker would have lawyered by now. Wise up!

Too subtle friend, lol. And a little to much fact bringing for this particular "conversation". But a good point in any case. Maybe we should had over everyone we happen to capture right to the Paki's. (beats them going to Holder anyway)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc]YouTube - The Dark Knight- Joker Interrogation Scene Spoof[/ame]

 

[Nonelitist]

WW2......before Reagan.

Ok...

Reagan.... before war on terror
Whats your point?

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.


what is your point? - you brought up a situation before Reagan signed on.

Point - Non uniformed combatants can be treated how the country capturing them determines, up to and including execution. They don't have any protections. They violate the rules of war and so are not covered by anything that protects those that do abide by the laws of warfare.

Understand now?

 

[Jay Canuck]

The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [5] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".[87]
The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners. Common Article 3 applies in "wars not of an international character" (i.e., civil wars) in a signatory to the Geneva Conventions—in this case the civil war in signatory Afghanistan. It is likely that the Bush administration may now be forced to try detainees held as part of the "war on terror" either by court martial (as U.S. troops and prisoners of war are) or by civilian federal court. However, Bush has indicated that he may seek an Act of Congress authorizing military commissions.
On January 31, 2005, Washington federal judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) held to confirm the status of the prisoners in Guantánamo as "enemy combatants" was "unconstitutional", and that they were entitled to the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. The Combatant Status Reviews were completed in March 2005. Thirty-eight of the detainees were found not to be combatants. On March 29, 2005, the dossier of Murat Kurnaz was accidentally declassified. Kurnaz was one of the 500-plus detainees the reviews had determined was an "enemy combatant". Critics found that his dossier contained over a hundred pages of reports of investigations which had found no ties to terrorists or terrorism whatsoever. It contained one memo that said Kurnaz had a tie to a suicide bomber. Judge Green said this memo "fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record."

 

[JimH52]

War on terror is another "extraordinary circumstance." THERE YOU GO!

Do we really need another thread on torture....NO!

 

[Nonelitist]

The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [5] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".[87]
The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners. Common Article 3 applies in "wars not of an international character" (i.e., civil wars) in a signatory to the Geneva Conventions—in this case the civil war in signatory Afghanistan. It is likely that the Bush administration may now be forced to try detainees held as part of the "war on terror" either by court martial (as U.S. troops and prisoners of war are) or by civilian federal court. However, Bush has indicated that he may seek an Act of Congress authorizing military commissions.
On January 31, 2005, Washington federal judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) held to confirm the status of the prisoners in Guantánamo as "enemy combatants" was "unconstitutional", and that they were entitled to the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. The Combatant Status Reviews were completed in March 2005. Thirty-eight of the detainees were found not to be combatants. On March 29, 2005, the dossier of Murat Kurnaz was accidentally declassified. Kurnaz was one of the 500-plus detainees the reviews had determined was an "enemy combatant". Critics found that his dossier contained over a hundred pages of reports of investigations which had found no ties to terrorists or terrorism whatsoever. It contained one memo that said Kurnaz had a tie to a suicide bomber. Judge Green said this memo "fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record."

The Geneva Convention doesn't cover non uniformed combatants.

 

[Jay Canuck]

the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror.