What’s funny is that the best they can do is find these isolated incidents of abuse, then try to tie them to the Administration by saying “Rumsfeld authorized environmental manipulation.” It’s a non-sequitur which most intelligent people see right away. Simply because certain uncomfortable techniques were authorized (such as hot and cold, loud music, long periods of standing) doesn’t mean that beating prisoners to death was authorized. The numbers tell the tale. Out of tens of thousands of detainees, they can only find 44 deaths. And they don’t even say whether or not all of these deaths are attributable to U.S. guards. In case bitwize and his cohorts are ignorant of this fact, people who go to prison tend to be bad. Many are killers. As a result, people kill each other in prison fairly regularly. But reasonable thinking, not mouth-breathing hatred of Bush, drives this analysis, so why am I bothering?
What a hysterical loon.
First of all, the detainees are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention. Maybe you should go read it.
Secondly, the Red Cross regularly inspects Gitmo. Not sure about the camps in Iraq under US control. Probably not because they are scared to come, not because they aren’t welcome.
The fact is, no other nation on earth treats captured enemies as well as does the U.S.
Out of tens of thousands of detainees, they can only find 44 deaths.
PLEASE POST THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DEATHS BEFORE MURDERS OF DETAINEES IS CONSIDERED A WAR CRIME, OR CRIMES?
And where are these tens of thousands of detainees held? By Whom?
Under what authority? Who built the prison camps? What nation guards them? As detainees are they accorded rights under the Geneva Convention? What is the nations purpose in holding detainees around the world? Why is this information not released to congress and the americian public?
What type of info has been released about the detainees? Is it possibile these are in fact death camps? On the order of the death camps during world war two in Germany?
These matters need to be made public, by the people who authorized these actatives and the people in positions of power need to stand and make clear their positions and who authorized same.
Do you actually read any of the lame, Leftist gibberish you peddle here before you hit the submit button? Who here said they were, “in favor of death camps, torture, genocide, homicide and a dictator for the USA?” ?? Where are the death camps and who would that dictator be? Can’t be Bush, he’ll be done and gone in a few months.
What “unlimited powers” has Bush exhibited? Why hasn’t he used those powers to extend his presidency?
Then there’s your equally brainless, “...to torture cab drivers from Afghanstan? Is that our new policy?”. What evidence do you have that such a thing is “policy” at all? You watch a Leftist movie and it fits your anti-American thought process and BAM!, torture must be policy. You’re sick.
And your last statement was the capper, as devoid of intelligent thought as anything you’ve ever posted here, and you’ve posted a ton of ignorant screeds. Repulsive.
Torturing prisoners is also a violation of the international Convention Against Torture, to which we are a signatory, and the War Crimes Act, passed by Congress, as well as the US Army Field Manual. All of this should merit not only impeachment for Bush and Cheney but war crimes tribunals at The Hague for all the people mentioned in the thread title.
The US Army Field Manual applies to US military personnel, not other people. Whether it should apply to other government personnel is irrelevant. I personally have thought its a good idea to be consistent across the board. But the fact is that at this moment, it applies only to military personnel.
Please quit bringing up the International Convention Against Torture. You are well aware that the US never ratified that treaty. Its no more in effect than any other treaty the US never ratified such as the Kyoto Protocols. We’ve even had this particular exchange before.
The international treaties the US has ratified don’t define the lower limits of what is considered to be torture.
The law defines a war crime to include a “grave breach of the Geneva Conventions”, specifically noting that “grave breach” should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of “grave breach” in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: “… committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.”
Note the line “committed against persons or property protected by the Convention”
Here’s the Geneva Convention we’ve ratified. Show me that the people in question are persons or property protected by the Convention.
The BDS Leftists demand we stop “torturing” people at Gitmo. So, we release some of them. One of whom later goes to Iraq and takes part in a suicide bombing:
Torturing prisoners is also a violation of the international Convention Against Torture, to which we are a signatory, and the War Crimes Act, passed by Congress, as well as the US Army Field Manual. All of this should merit not only impeachment for Bush and Cheney but war crimes tribunals at The Hague for all the people mentioned in the thread title.
The US Army Field Manual applies to US military personnel, not other people.
That’s right. And some of the torturing we’re talking about has been done by US military personnel.
Please quit bringing up the International Convention Against Torture. You are well aware that the US never ratified that treaty. Its no more in effect than any other treaty the US never ratified such as the Kyoto Protocols. We’ve even had this particular exchange before.
Wrong, at least according to wikipedia: “The United States ratified the Convention, but lodged a declaration that “… nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[4] The reason for this is that the United States Government lacks constitutional authority to enter into any treaty that violates any civil rights or other provisions within the Constitution of the United States.[5] Torture is illegal within the United States and is illegal if practised by American military personnel anywhere at any time.[6][7] “Human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country’s birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."[8]
If you want to challenge this, please do.
The law defines a war crime to include a “grave breach of the Geneva Conventions”, specifically noting that “grave breach” should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of “grave breach” in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: “… committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.”
Note the line “committed against persons or property protected by the Convention”
Here’s the Geneva Convention we’ve ratified. Show me that the people in question are persons or property protected by the Convention.
As for the Geneva Conventions, I grant that the Third Convention applies only to duly certified combatants (i.e. those wearing uniforms or some other distinctive marking). But the Fourth Convention does apply. Here’s how wikipedia puts it:
The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of “unlawful combatants” by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, “There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[1]
In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians.
It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.” Jean Pictet (ed.) [2]
Please quit bringing up the International Convention Against Torture. You are well aware that the US never ratified that treaty. Its no more in effect than any other treaty the US never ratified such as the Kyoto Protocols. We’ve even had this particular exchange before.
Wrong, at least according to wikipedia...
You are right. I was confusing that convention with another UN document with a similar name.
I think I need a UN Declaration of “UN Declarations Will Each Have Names Unique Enough So That Bowman Doesn’t Have to Look Up Each One Each Time It Comes Up in Conversation”.
I think I need a UN Declaration of “UN Declarations Will Each Have Names Unique Enough So That Bowman Doesn’t Have to Look Up Each One Each Time It Comes Up in Conversation”.
:)
Where do I sign the petition? I could use some help, too! :-)
Wiki cannot be relied upon as an objective research tool, as they lean left. And even their own founder, Jimmy Wales, says they should never be used for reference.
You need only go as far the documentary “Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay” to understand the full evil of this administration. It’s profiling of those that “look different”, its imprisonment without charges and the abuse of detainees.
My view is that waterboarding is torture. But my view is also that we should not be restricted as to any form of torture against unlawful combatants who also torture, as long as it is not gratuitous and it is reasonably connected to protecting the country, our armed forces and our allies.
As to the charge that the names mentioned in the title of this thread are war criminals: it makes me question whether or not I have entered an alternate reality. That some Americans would spend their efforts going after those executing a war in our defense while defending the rights of those who seem barely recognizable as humans, is beyond my ability to understand.
As to the legality of these charges: my personal view is that any treaty that undermines our “common defense” as laid out in the preamble is unconstitutional on it’s face. Hence, I give little weight to the ICAT.
Congress has the authority to regulate the treatment of prisoners and has not specifically banned waterboarding (a bill was passed but was, rightfully, vetoed). The courts have not yet addressed this issue. I think that in the future, waterboarding will be banned by congress and signed by any of the three presidential candidates. The utter bone crushing stupidity of this makes my head hurt. Americans will probably die because of such stupidity.
For the time, I think legally, the administration is on reasonable ground. This whole debate is about partisan gotcha technicalities anyway. So the whole “waterboarding” isn’t torture argument works fine for me.
The only thing the Bush Administration is guilty of is protecting the country.
Though 9/11 was troubling, there is a deep sense of tragedy to think that our country would treat prisoners in this reprehensible manner.
(Laughter)
Basing your worldview of the war on terror on a stoner comedy movie is sad. Even sadder is that you think it’s a “documentary”.
As for 9/11 being “troubling”, tell that to the people standing in the broken windows on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center who had to decide between burning to death or jumping a thousand feet to die.
If that attack could have been prevented by making a bad guy think he was drowning, would you approve?
This is just left’s retreat. Its the same old crap over and over. Look at the thread that other idiot Impeachbush started with the “mission accomplished” nonsense.
There is nothing they can say about the current conduct of the war because we’re winning and its working. so they are in full retreat into these sad little stories that sustained them so well back in the early days of the insurgency.
Note for example that they said NOTHING about the recent promotions of Petreaus and Ordinero. Why? Because they cannot make a valid case against them and their last smear attempt backfired.
so we’ll be treated to these yawn inspiring left overs while the left consoles itself in defeat.
