Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Geneva rules forbade not only torture but also, in equally categorical terms, the use of "violence," "cruel treatment" or "humiliating and degrading treatment" against a detainee "at any time and in any place whatsoever."
"The CIA guys said, 'We're going to have some real difficulties getting actionable intelligence from detainees'" if interrogators confined themselves to treatment allowed by the Geneva Conventions.
In a radio interview last fall, Cheney said, "We don't torture." What he did not acknowledge, according to Alberto J. Mora, who served then as the Bush-appointed Navy general counsel, was that the new legal framework was designed specifically to avoid a ban on cruelty. In international law, Mora said, cruelty is defined as "the imposition of severe physical or mental pain or suffering." He added: "Torture is an extreme version of cruelty."
The Justice Department delivered a classified opinion on Aug. 1, 2002, stating that the U.S. law against torture "prohibits only the worst forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" and therefore permits many others.
The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody.....
...How much suffering could U.S. personnel inflict on an enemy to make him talk? Cheney's lawyer feared that future prosecutors, with motives "difficult to predict," might bring criminal charges against interrogators or Bush administration officials.
the opinion also narrowed the definition of "torture" to mean only suffering "equivalent in intensity" to the pain of "organ failure ..... or even death."
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
# 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
# 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
The Geneva Conventions also make clear, that in order to receive these protections, the prisoners of war MUST:
How does this apply to terrorists?
This comes up alot, and I figured we could have a little discussion about it.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html
....... Hamdi, the American, had languished in a Navy brig for two and a half years with out a hearing or a lawyer. Shafiq Rasul, a British citizen at Guantanamo Bay, had been held even longer. Olson could make Cheney's argument that courts had no jurisdiction, but he wanted to "show them that you at least have some system of due process in place" to ensure against wrongful detention, according to a senior Justice Department official who closely followed the debates.
Addington, the vice president's counsel fought and won again. He argued that any declaration of binding rules would restrict the freedom of future presidents and open the door to further lawsuits.
On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in the Hamdi case that detainees must have a lawyer and an opportunity to challenge their status as enemy combatants before a "neutral decision maker." The Rasul decision, the same day, held 6 to 3 that Guantanamo Bay is not beyond the reach of federal law.
On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ...... ruling 5 to 3 that the president had no lawful power to try alleged terrorists in military commissions
For 'lawful combatants', you forgot that.
......And not only did it find that Geneva's Common Article 3 protects "unlawful enemy combatants," but it also said that those protections -- including humane treatment and the right to a trial by "a regularly constituted court" -- were enforceable by federal judges in the United States.
The new Army field manual, published with the directive, said that interrogators were forbidden to employ a long list of techniques that had been used against suspected terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001 -- including stripping, hooding, inflicting pain and forcing the performance of sex acts.
The final measure confined only the Defense Department to the list of interrogation techniques specified in a new Army field manual. No techniques were specified for CIA officers, who were forbidden only in general terms to employ "cruel" or "inhuman" methods. Crucially, the new law said those words would be interpreted in light of U.S. constitutional law.......
The new law withstood its first Supreme Court challenge on April 2. It exempts CIA case officers and other government employees from prosecution for past war crimes or torture.
The Geneva Conventions also make clear, that in order to receive these protections, the prisoners of war MUST:
How does this apply to terrorists?
The Geneva Conventions also make clear, that in order to receive these protections, the prisoners of war MUST:
How does this apply to terrorists?
....we shot 'em in the back....
Does this mean we can retrospectively indict America's sniping Minutemen and most of Waspingtons Continental Army of terrorism?
I mean if the Kikes will tolerate no sunset clause on their right to prosecute suspected Holocausters, or on their perpetual deed to Palestine and surrounds - supposedly given to them by their goat-herder's God that they kept imprisoned in a steamer trunk (...think about it!) - why can't I bring a charge of retrospective terrorism against these back-shootin,' dry gulching, cowardly \!/'s??
