US Senate Votes To Ban Torture

[rightwinger]

The only Senator who really understands

McCain (R-AZ), Yea

Too bad other Republicans won't listen to him




.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You evade. Answer the question.

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.

 

[g5000]

Once again, for the willfully blind:

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"

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What difference should it make if those techniques are not considered torture by our country?

Shouldn't US citizens be subject to them?

 

[g5000]

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.

You evade. Answer the question.

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.

Actually, I did.

Try again.

 

[martybegan]

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.

And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!

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.

 

[g5000]

Another thing you are forgetting, marty. 20 percent of the detainees were innocent. There were not "unlawful combatants".

 

[martybegan]

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?

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.

 

[Seawytch]

Torture works...look at all the confessed witches.

Salem Witchcraft Trials List of Dead and Death Warrant

 

[g5000]

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.

And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!

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.

Ahhhhh, the old "what law did they break" blind spot.

They were given retroactive amnesty by the Bush Administration, dipshit.

 

[martybegan]

Another thing you are forgetting, marty. 20 percent of the detainees were innocent. There were not "unlawful combatants".

Were they the ones interrogated with vigor?

 

[martybegan]

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.

And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!

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.

Ahhhhh, the old "what law did they break" blind spot.

They were given retroactive amnesty by the Bush Administration, dipshit.

If you are right and these apply that shouldn't matter. Please show me all those prosecutions that resulted from your love of bad people.

 

[g5000]

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?

You have just betrayed to the world your profound ignorance of our Constitution and our laws and our history.

 

[martybegan]

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?

You would have to strip them of the Citizenship (which eliminates the concern for constitutional protections), and taking up arms against your own country certainly qualifies for that. If they did it under a national army, all they would be guilty of is that wee thing called treason. But if they do it as part of a group of unlawful combatants, fuck them.

 

[g5000]

Cowards. These torture fetishists are some of the biggest cowards walking the Earth. 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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[Pogo]

The only Senator who really understands

McCain (R-AZ), Yea

Too bad other Republicans won't listen to him

John McCain.. hmm, maybe he has some sort of, I dunno, experience that would have informed that decision... just can't think what it might be though...

Unless it was maybe listing the offensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as "actionable information" to North Vietnam or sump'm.

Nah, that's crazy. that would never happen. We know it wouldn't, because "torture works".

 

[Pogo]

>> 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.

Doesn't matter "who it involves" or who it doesn't --- the point is WE -- the same country that committed these war crimes in Iraq -- prosecuted others, including our own personnel, for doing the same thing.

An action is either a crime, or it isn't a crime. You can't change definitions like shirts. The point is a hypocrisy of definitions. If it's wrong for a US soldier to waterboard Vietnamese, if it's also wrong for a Japanese soldier to waterboard Americans, if it's additionally wrong for Sheriff Humpy to pull over out-of-state license plates and waterboard them ---- then it's wrong. PERIOD.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Interesting background -- Sheriff Humpy was discovered and nailed when one of his random harassment stops that he took back to waterboard turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. Oopsie.

Apparently the FBI doesn't think it's kosher either.

 

[Claudette]

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.

LMAO Buddy.

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.

LMAO Buddy.

I'm a realist and your a coward who doesn't have the balls to do what needs to be done. A coward who hides behind that moral highroad and the good guy bullshit all the while calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a Natzi.

LMAO asshole.

 

[g5000]

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.

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.

As for unlawful combatants, as I have proven to you THREE TIMES, they are protected by the Geneva Conventions from torture.