What Interrogation Techniques are Acceptable?

Exactly. That's why I said:



Making up a new term in order to skirt around an old rule is a well known tactic of political gamesmanship. It has been used over and over, by people of all political stripes.

Making up a new term "enemy combatant", and then saying that they aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, or by the Constitution, or by any other declaration or document supported by civilized nations, then proceeding to treat prisoners in an uncivilized manner is simply not what our nation is about, or at least not what it should be about.

Why is this so difficult for you? Rob has spelled this out 20 times in this thread alone.

Under the Geneva Convention.... before we ever came up with a name for them at any point... they were not considered POWs. The term "enemy combatants" was irrelevant to the fact they were not considered POWs according to the Geneva Convention.

Therefore, they were not entitled to be given POW status, with, or without, us calling them "Enemy Combatants". Therefore, everything that we did was completely lawful under the Geneva Convention.

You can't claim we made up a term to call them, in order to not give them POW status that they were not entitled to to begin with.

That's like saying, I'm going to make up the term "Distant Digital Conversationalist" in order to prevent you from getting rights to my computer. That's stupid because you didn't have rights to my computer to begin with. Nor would you if I had called you something else.

Here's another hint. If they were considered POWs by the Geneva Convention, then wouldn't Obama (assuming he's following the GC himself) have called them that by now? But he hasn't... because they are not.
 
Werbung:
PLC1 said: Inventing a new name for the people in our custody, then ignoring the Geneva Convention, then debating how severely it's OK to torture them is simply not acceptable to a civilized society.

There's my answer. I know there are those who won't like it. Tough.

The one huge 700# gorilla in the room and so many people have over looked that one finite little significant thing that allowed the paper pushers to incarcerate those men for over 5 years. Call them WHAT???

And if all that held weight with the Supreme Court then they wouldn't have said you have to release them you have not provide adequate due process for them and it's been over 5 years...the JUDGE HAS RULED and G.W.B. was wrong!!!
 
Why is this so difficult for you? Rob has spelled this out 20 times in this thread alone.

Under the Geneva Convention.... before we ever came up with a name for them at any point... they were not considered POWs. The term "enemy combatants" was irrelevant to the fact they were not considered POWs according to the Geneva Convention.

Therefore, they were not entitled to be given POW status, with, or without, us calling them "Enemy Combatants". Therefore, everything that we did was completely lawful under the Geneva Convention.

You can't claim we made up a term to call them, in order to not give them POW status that they were not entitled to to begin with.

That's like saying, I'm going to make up the term "Distant Digital Conversationalist" in order to prevent you from getting rights to my computer. That's stupid because you didn't have rights to my computer to begin with. Nor would you if I had called you something else.

Here's another hint. If they were considered POWs by the Geneva Convention, then wouldn't Obama (assuming he's following the GC himself) have called them that by now? But he hasn't... because they are not.


In reality It doesn't matter what they're called. What you're trying to promote is exactly the same thing Richard Nixon said in the Frost interview...

Nixon quote: I'm saying if the President does it it's not illegal!

The fact that a new name is made up in an attempt to avoid being accountable under the law and to purposely circumvent long standing International rules against torture and being held indefinitely without a trial in itself damns the Bush administration.

They were the official armed enemy of our military campaign or they were just heinous criminals. Either way there were laws in place regarding detention practices allowed.

Your position on the matter correlates just as easily to if the Bush administration had named them cockroaches then the government in your opinion would have immediately had the right to gas them or stomp on them.

President Obama is bending over backward to not prosecute a former President & Vice President and highlight the shame they have brought to the United States of America. I and many, many other Americans would not have such patience.

But he's our President an I'll respect his desision on the matter. He sees it best to just close Gitmo, make it crystal clear to the world that any torture approved by the Bush administration has now by his order been ceased and preparations are being made for some type of a trial process for the detainees.

President Obama is a good man trying to keep a former President & Vice President from facing formal charges and embarrassing America even more.

Bash President Obama all you want but the fact is up till now he's kept the heat off President Bush when he could have easily let the country tear him a new one.


 
Well besides Democrats the majority of Independents and even a moderate number of Republicans believe in a woman's reproductive rights... so since that's the vast majority of Americans I guess then in your interpretation everyone not in lock step with you on this one issue is Hitler!:confused:

I'd love to see the holy roller crow show possibly half as much care for the all the poor & suffering families with children, children with severe birth defects, children in foster homes & orphanages and just people in general.

Instead of trying to dictate to women that they must follow some certain other persons religious dogma and do as they are told.

But I have no fear that American women are a whole lot smarter than to ever let that happen again!




Top Gun,

Your words conflict with the video you posted. You say most Americans are for aborting babies but Ashley Judd is complaining in her video that there are too few abortion doctors and clinics around the United States. If everyone is for it there should be hords and hords of abortionists and clinics that perform the abortions. They would not have to send Ashley Judd out to beg for support exc. if everyone was so into it.


Remember I did not bring up the Hitler topic, some lib in the forum did, I just said to him that hitler was more like his ilk than mine as he claimed.
 
I've already said what I'd be willing to do: Anything that is in line with the Geneva Convention.

Inventing a new name for the people in our custody, then ignoring the Geneva Convention, then debating how severely it's OK to torture them is simply not acceptable to a civilized society.

There's my answer. I know there are those who won't like it. Tough.

Does the Geneva Convention let you yell at them or deny them an asprin when they have a head ache? Is there limits on how many hours you can question them?

I dont know what is or is not written in the GC, I only know that everyone is more than willing to clearly name what they think we should not do but when it comes to what we can do everyone says its written in some book that I dont have and have never read.

Why is it so hard to say I am ok with questioning them but for no more than 4 hours a day, or I am ok with not letting them have an asprin if they have a head ache. or if you are ok with slapping them then just say it. I dont understand why when its something you are willing to do we have to find some book and read it to find out what you are ok with but you all seem to have plenty of time to go on and on at what you think we should not do.

I just find that strange
 
The one huge 700# gorilla in the room and so many people have over looked that one finite little significant thing that allowed the paper pushers to incarcerate those men for over 5 years. Call them WHAT???

And if all that held weight with the Supreme Court then they wouldn't have said you have to release them you have not provide adequate due process for them and it's been over 5 years...the JUDGE HAS RULED and G.W.B. was wrong!!!

What judge said that? I never saw any court judgment that indicated GWB was wrong. Only public opinion polls, and some foreign people I don't care about.
 
Exactly. That's why I said:

Making up a new term in order to skirt around an old rule is a well known tactic of political gamesmanship. It has been used over and over, by people of all political stripes.

Making up a new term "enemy combatant", and then saying that they aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, or by the Constitution, or by any other declaration or document supported by civilized nations, then proceeding to treat prisoners in an uncivilized manner is simply not what our nation is about, or at least not what it should be about.

This is simply not true. We did not make up some new term. Council on Foreign Relations argues:

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002).

This term has been in use since the 40's. Further, non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002).

Just because the Supreme Court came back to backtrack does not mean any laws were violated, or any treaties were violated. There was clear legal footing for every action that was taken, and the precedence established in every war the US has ever fought enabled this action to be taken.

You can claim we should not do these things, or that we never did, but that is completely bogus. Every action was taken in full accordance with the law and stood firmly on a long legal precedence.

Further, if we did call them POW's (as you want to do) then we could hold them until the end of hostilities if we wanted to, and that could be never. So maybe you are on to something, maybe that is the way to go.
 
The one huge 700# gorilla in the room and so many people have over looked that one finite little significant thing that allowed the paper pushers to incarcerate those men for over 5 years. Call them WHAT???

And if all that held weight with the Supreme Court then they wouldn't have said you have to release them you have not provide adequate due process for them and it's been over 5 years...the JUDGE HAS RULED and G.W.B. was wrong!!!

The Supreme Court did not rule we had to release anyone.... what are you talking about?
 
The Supreme Court did not rule we had to release anyone.... what are you talking about?

That's what I thought. It seems there has been so much politics played with this issue, and so much mis-information out there about it, no one anywhere seems to know what has gone on, by whom, when, or anything.
 
Does the Geneva Convention let you yell at them or deny them an asprin when they have a head ache? Is there limits on how many hours you can question them?

I dont know what is or is not written in the GC, I only know that everyone is more than willing to clearly name what they think we should not do but when it comes to what we can do everyone says its written in some book that I dont have and have never read.

Why is it so hard to say I am ok with questioning them but for no more than 4 hours a day, or I am ok with not letting them have an asprin if they have a head ache. or if you are ok with slapping them then just say it. I dont understand why when its something you are willing to do we have to find some book and read it to find out what you are ok with but you all seem to have plenty of time to go on and on at what you think we should not do.

I just find that strange

did a quick google search for Geneva Convention !!
Hope this helps.. LoL good luck reading and understanding it all!!
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
 
Sihouette Said: Remember I did not bring up the Hitler topic, some lib in the forum did, I just said to him that hitler was more like his ilk than mine as he claimed.

Continue to misquote the Hitler reference and continue to refer to me as a 'LIB' and I guess then in that regard and ILK you won't mind me referring to you as a 'deviant sexual pervert' and misquote your reference to 'AI' as the continual reason that all you like talking about is animal beastliness with humans...You are just a 'riot' and you do make me LMAO!!!!

BUT YOU ARE SOOO WRONG and you continue to repeat yourself with your stupidity!!!
 
Continue to misquote the Hitler reference and continue to refer to me as a 'LIB' and I guess then in that regard and ILK you won't mind me referring to you as a 'deviant sexual pervert' and misquote your reference to 'AI' as the continual reason that all you like talking about is animal beastliness with humans...You are just a 'riot' and you do make me LMAO!!!!

BUT YOU ARE SOOO WRONG and you continue to repeat yourself with your stupidity!!!

First off, I am not Sihouette. Second I have never talked about deviant sexual perverts. What exactly is it that I am SOOO WRONG about?
 
BigRob said: The Supreme Court did not rule we had to release anyone.... what are you talking about?

Appeals court rules Gitmo detainees are not ‘persons’
Raw Story
A Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not “persons” according to it’s interpretation of a statute involving religious freedom.

The ruling sprang from an appeal of Rasul v. Rumsfeld, which was thrown out in Jan. 2008. “The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the constitutional and international law claims, and reversed the district court’s decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applied to Guantanamo detainees, dismissing those claims as well,” the Center for Constitutional Rights said.

After the Supreme Court recognized, over objections from the Bush administration, that terror war prisoners have the right to habeas corpus petitions, it also directed the D.C. court of appeals to reexamine the case.

The suit, Rasul v. Rumsfeld, charges numerous Bush administration officials with “violations of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” CCR said.

“In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees,” says a release. “The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.”

“[The] Court reaffirmed its decision from last year that detainees are not ‘persons’ for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted in 1993 to protect against government actions that unreasonably interfere with religious practices,” the release continued. “Last year, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Court of Appeals panel who issued the decision today, referred to the Court’s holding that detainees are not ‘persons’ as ‘a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human.’”
The full press release from the Center for Constitutional Rights follows.

####

Court Of Appeals Rules Detainees Are Not “Persons” in Guantánamo Torture Suit
Court Agrees with Obama Administration that Detainees Still Have No Constitutional Right Not to Be Tortured

April 24, 2009 Washington, D.C. – In a suit brought by British men imprisoned for two years at Guantanamo, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today reaffirmed its previous ruling that Guantanamo detainees lack the fundamental constitutional right not to be tortured and are not “persons” under a U.S. statute protecting religious freedom.

Last summer, the Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider its previous decision in Rasul v. Rumsfeld, in light of the High Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized the constitutional right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. The plaintiffs urged the Court of Appeals to follow the clear logic of the Boumediene decision and to recognize both the constitutional rights of the detainees to humane and just treatment and the fact that, under any definition of the word, they are “persons” entitled to religious freedom and dignity as required by law.

http://waronyou.com/topics/appeals-court-rules-gitmo-detainees-are-not-persons/
******************************************

I've lost the other link for the ruling last year that prompted the courts ruling about the lack of due process for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the court order get this done or release them ASAP. But I'll find it!!!

This recent appeals hearing is more fuel for the fire of the reason that Bush Administration was SO SKIRTING AROUND THE ISSUE OF WHAT TO CALL THE P.O.W. AND WHAT NOT TO CALL THEM...Keeping them 'NO NAMED' was very, very logistical and in his favor and his group of henchmen knew it too!!!


Legal Affairs
5 Detainees Ordered Released From Guantanamo
November 21, 2008 · A federal judge in Washington has ordered the Bush administration to release five detainees from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men have been held there for seven years on evidence the judge finds insufficient. The ruling is the first by a trial judge since the Supreme Court declared in June that the Guantanamo prisoners have the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=4711397&startNum=16
 
First off, I am not Sihouette. Second I have never talked about deviant sexual perverts. What exactly is it that I am SOOO WRONG about?

Sorry about that Sihouette reference ...you most certainly are not!! See it bothers you when you get misquoted...hmm

But go back and reread my post when I referenced Hitler or stop dragging it around the board like a little child!!!!
 
Werbung:
did a quick google search for Geneva Convention !!
Hope this helps.. LoL good luck reading and understanding it all!!
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

Thank you for the link.

It totally silly that people won’t just say what they are willing to do but ok ill look at this.



First off I see no strip searches,

#1 says.
No humiliating and degrading treatment. Strip searches are both humiliating and degrading.


#2 says, the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. OK so that answers my aspirin head ache scenario.

OK it starts going down hill from there and I think I need to hire and attorney to explain it to me.


To be on the safe side I don’t think we should have prisoners if this is what you go by it’s very difficult to understand and not very well defined as to what your rights are as the person holding the prisoners

I think the 5 star hotel really is the safest bet to not have it come back in your face and have it said you violated the rules.

Now I understand why people won’t say what they are willing to do, because there is nothing you can do depending on who reads the document and defines its meaning.
 
Back
Top