Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
yes, but that is an individual right.

yes, if an individual is trying to kill people.

The people in jail were no longer a threat. It is no longer justifiable as individual self defense. (remember some never did anything) There is no process set up to officially weed out the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, to those trying to “kill 3000 people”.

Unless you are considering getting rounded up as proof that you are trying to kill thousands of people.

Uh, if you cared to read more in this section you?d learn I?m not a liberal.

Second, you are defining torture as permanent physical harm? So Mild electrocution, beatings, est. are okay? No amount of emotional psychological abuse is to far?

You would be okay with being water boarded?

If this is just logical interrogation, why doesn?t the military start training the police in these techniques to use on people who?ve never been tried or charged for anything? Interrogating suspects in violent crimes should obviously be done this way.

Or is there a reason punishment and depriving someone of basic human rights only occurs after publicly scrutinized convictions among a jury of peers?

wow - straw man arguments, adding words to statements, avoiding questions - this should be interesting.

OK- you did not answer question three - you went off on a tangential argument about “threat” and sorting prisoners. You assumed we did mass rounding up of random people - again delusional. We obviously were able to sort people captured in combat situations who were real threats from those who were not - you need some real facts.

[/quote]

Uh, yes, they did mass round-ups. That is the problem with fighting insurgents. They don?t wear uniforms. In fact of the people detain MOST were apparently innocent.

Also, self defense that you were arguing requires an immediate threat to apply, so the threat assessment is perfectly applicable to your logic.

Yes, you brought up equating people detained to trying to kill 300 people through your step by step questions. I noted that self defense doesn?t apply to an organization or group, only to an individual. If you aren?t relating trying to kill thousands of people to the detainees, then why did you ask the question about trying to kill thousands? You are saying your question doesn?t relate to your argument?

?No lasting harm has ever been done to any of these detainees under the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the US. They were developed for specifically this purpose.?

If that isn?t part of your argument, then why did you point it out in your argument? Once again you are providing evidence that isn?t part of your point?

Yeah, and I would rather eat a pile of my own feces than shoot myself in the face. That doesn?t make a pile of feces good to eat. In terms of right and wrong, they have no bearing on each other. That?s a huge logic flaw.

Then please provide me that information on exactly who this was done to and what the proof is of what they did and I?ll shut up. Otherwise, you are making up statistics. Besides, we don?t even do these things to convicted Americans.

My whole point is that rule of law should be upheld.

In an insurgency the military can?t tell the difference between an enemy and a citizen, that?s the freaking point. They don?t know for every single person.

According to who? There are apparently a lot of legal experts that say it violates the Geneva convention. The people that wrote the memos are not the final international authority.

42

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative, holding individual rights as the ultimate truth, and agree with torture for the “greater good”.

I, at this point, really think cheney, bush, and the legal advisers that okayed this need to be tried.

Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.

Waterboarding is not torture. Hell, it used to be a hazing technique. George Marshall (Head of JC of Staff in WWII) was waterboarded at Princeton.

Waterboarding is a fucking prank, for crissakes! Torture?? Jesus…

So you’d be okay if it was your boy or maybe your mom? Or if Cops did it?

wow - you are truly unbelievable. a sad attempt at moral equivalency -seriously?

Yes - if my mom or my son was a captured prisoner of war and a terrorist mastermind plotting to kill thousands of innocent people, I would agree to their being waterboarded to prevent it.

Again - you run off to comparing the interrogation of POW’s under the existing laws to the interrogation by our police under an entirely different set of laws with completely different scenarios involved in each - this is your idea of a logical argument?[/quote]

and again you equate every person rounded up to “a terrorist mastermind plotting to kill thousands of innocent people”

43

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
How can it be OK for us to train our own military by actually putting them through the same exact stuff we did at Gitmo, but it’s NOT ok for War prisoners who vow to kill us all?

We do this shit to our own people as part of special ops training.

If we had not used these techniques we would have been attacked again and would not know as much about the enemy.

This is WARTIME people.

Would you all rather have another attack instead?

I’m also convinced that another terror attack on us is the ONLY thing that will get the batshit left on board in actually PROTECTING this country with substantial policies instead of kissing enemy ass.[/quote]

I agree I am just not under the impression that they all vowed to kill us.

44

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Doing this stuff makes us no better than the people we’re fighting against.

On the flip side, I think if two people are fighting the same war by different rules it gives one an advantage. Would you like the other team to have the advantage?

Well, first, if we have to go against everything we believe to win, is it worth it?

Does the end justify the means? It’s a good question. I’m not even sure I can answer it.

On another note, I could argue that these people captured are not citizens of the U.S. and thus are not granted any of the rights we are given.

The other thing is that it isn’t necessarily an advantage. If we take the high road, international support is easier and insurgent recruiting is more difficult.

Fair enough.

To be honest, I’m still not exactly sure how I feel about all of this. I do know that I don’t think it should have ever been released to the public.

Actually, basic rights, like life, are guaranteed by our creator to all humans, according to founding fathers. To me these would extend to habeas corpus, cruel and unusual, est.

Citizenship would grant you the added US only rights, like voting, public services, est.

I just can no longer delude myself under the veil of ?struggling for freedom and human rights? while doing things like this.
[/quote]

Good to see another come aboard.

45

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Show me the part of the US constitution where it says your government can torture.

You can´t?

Arrest Bush and trial him.

Unless of course you believe that governments are above the law.

Wait, whut?

What part of my post didn’t you read? Apparently all of it.

I stated unequivocally that we do not torture - we interrogate. [/quote]

You’re either lying to yourself or to others. Waterboarding is unequivocally torture. What else would it be? You are temporarily drowning someone!

If the advocates of torture want to make an argument that we should be torturing captured enemies, fine, that’s reprehensible and deeply un-American, but it’s an argument you can make. It’s a stupid argument, given the huge negative strategic effects, as DoubleDuce pointed out, but it’s an argument.

But please don’t hide behind Orwellian euphemisms like “enhanced interrogations.” We tortured people, under the authority of the highest elected officials in the land and their disgusting legal cronies (see Yoo, John).

46

Personally, I can’t wait for the day when the doubleduces and gdollars37s of the world are running the republican party. Hell, that day I might even find myself pulling the “R” tab.

47

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, yes, they did mass round-ups. That is the problem with fighting insurgents. They don?t wear uniforms. In fact of the people detain MOST were apparently innocent.

Also, self defense that you were arguing requires an immediate threat to apply, so the threat assessment is perfectly applicable to your logic.

Yes, you brought up equating people detained to trying to kill 300 people through your step by step questions. I noted that self defense doesn?t apply to an organization or group, only to an individual. If you aren?t relating trying to kill thousands of people to the detainees, then why did you ask the question about trying to kill thousands? You are saying your question doesn?t relate to your argument?

No lasting harm has ever been done to any of these detainees under the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the US. They were developed for specifically this purpose.?

If that isn?t part of your argument, then why did you point it out in your argument? Once again you are providing evidence that isn?t part of your point?

Yeah, and I would rather eat a pile of my own feces than shoot myself in the face. That doesn?t make a pile of feces good to eat. In terms of right and wrong, they have no bearing on each other. That?s a huge logic flaw.

Then please provide me that information on exactly who this was done to and what the proof is of what they did and I?ll shut up. Otherwise, you are making up statistics. Besides, we don?t even do these things to convicted Americans.

My whole point is that rule of law should be upheld.

In an insurgency the military can?t tell the difference between an enemy and a citizen, that?s the freaking point. They don?t know for every single person.

According to who? There are apparently a lot of legal experts that say it violates the Geneva convention. The people that wrote the memos are not the final international authority.
[/quote]

OK - here we go again. The mass “roundups” - when attacked by an ambush, the military would neutralize the threat and then attempt to weed out the combatants from the non-combatants - a difficult procedure complicated by your accurate observation that they did not wear uniforms. In addition, informants would led them to suspected hide-outs and point out suspected insurgents - again an imperfect process to be sure.

HOWEVER, the only ones detained in Iraq were those with no verifiable proof that they were not part of the insurgency and the only ones transported to Gitmo were those who had been seriously suspected of being part of the insurgency. There were ROE’s for this entire process.

In the course of follow-on investigations it was unable to be proven that many had direct involvement with the insurgency (no physical evidence, suspect testimony, etc), but who had ties to members of it or were considered security risks because of skills, knowledge, contacts, etc. They were kept AS POW’S to prevent them from returning to the combat zone and becoming part of or an aid to the insurgency (a common war practice and again under applicable ROE’s). Several were released who’s guilt could not be proven at the time - only to be recaptured actually fighting against or setting IED’s to kill US troops.

My argument did not require an immediate threat - read it again.

Self-defense is only for immediate threats - Self-defense only applies to individuals? whut? Is there a point here? You’ve missed mine entirely.

My point was if it is alright to kill someone trying to kill you or trying to kill thousands of other people, how was it wrong to interrogate them using the specific un-harmful techniques used at Gitmo?

An unrelated analogy - eating feces or being shot - adds nothing to the discussion as there are no applicable laws governing the eating of feces - fail.

only 3 pow’s were ever waterboarded and they were undoubtedly quilty - even the liberal media know this. get your facts straight!

The dispute regarding the Geneva convention centers on how non-state combatants are to be treated since they are not a citizen of a signatory nation to the Geneva accords.

48

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

You’re either lying to yourself or to others. Waterboarding is unequivocally torture. What else would it be? You are temporarily drowning someone!

If the advocates of torture want to make an argument that we should be torturing captured enemies, fine, that’s reprehensible and deeply un-American, but it’s an argument you can make. It’s a stupid argument, given the huge negative strategic effects, as DoubleDuce pointed out, but it’s an argument.

But please don’t hide behind Orwellian euphemisms like “enhanced interrogations.” We tortured people, under the authority of the highest elected officials in the land and their disgusting legal cronies (see Yoo, John).[/quote]

It is the temporary sensation of drowning - not the act of drowning someone! It is so mild, it took over 100 uses to get him to give up any information. Would you rather be waterboarded or drowned? I’m going for the waterboard every time!

Waterboarding was the most extreme technique used and it was only used on three people! Actual proven terrorists.

The remaining techniques could hardly be considered torture - unless you are not a fan of Christina Aguilera. Sleep deprivation, yelling, slapping, seeing pictures of the families of the people killed by terrorism, etc - wow, I was treated worse in college. If fact, if a prisoner ever even got dehydrated - all interrogations had to cease for a minimum of 24 hours to protect the health of the prisoner.

Actual Real Torture would be electrical shock, mutilations, stabbing, drowning, bursting eardrums, poisons, clubbing, pulling out fingernails, crushing toes - etc. All acts which were never done in any circumstances.

You call it a euphemism, I call it a fact. Torture causes actual harm to the person on whom it is inflicted - see m earlier posts regarding Japanese torture of POW’s

49

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Uh, yes, they did mass round-ups. That is the problem with fighting insurgents. They don?t wear uniforms. In fact of the people detain MOST were apparently innocent.

Also, self defense that you were arguing requires an immediate threat to apply, so the threat assessment is perfectly applicable to your logic.

Yes, you brought up equating people detained to trying to kill 300 people through your step by step questions. I noted that self defense doesn?t apply to an organization or group, only to an individual. If you aren?t relating trying to kill thousands of people to the detainees, then why did you ask the question about trying to kill thousands? You are saying your question doesn?t relate to your argument?

No lasting harm has ever been done to any of these detainees under the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the US. They were developed for specifically this purpose.?

If that isn?t part of your argument, then why did you point it out in your argument? Once again you are providing evidence that isn?t part of your point?

Yeah, and I would rather eat a pile of my own feces than shoot myself in the face. That doesn?t make a pile of feces good to eat. In terms of right and wrong, they have no bearing on each other. That?s a huge logic flaw.

Then please provide me that information on exactly who this was done to and what the proof is of what they did and I?ll shut up. Otherwise, you are making up statistics. Besides, we don?t even do these things to convicted Americans.

My whole point is that rule of law should be upheld.

In an insurgency the military can?t tell the difference between an enemy and a citizen, that?s the freaking point. They don?t know for every single person.

According to who? There are apparently a lot of legal experts that say it violates the Geneva convention. The people that wrote the memos are not the final international authority.

OK - here we go again. The mass “roundups” - when attacked by an ambush, the military would neutralize the threat and then attempt to weed out the combatants from the non-combatants - a difficult procedure complicated by your accurate observation that they did not wear uniforms. In addition, informants would led them to suspected hide-outs and point out suspected insurgents - again an imperfect process to be sure.

HOWEVER, the only ones detained in Iraq were those with no verifiable proof that they were not part of the insurgency and the only ones transported to Gitmo were those who had been seriously suspected of being part of the insurgency. There were ROE’s for this entire process.

In the course of follow-on investigations it was unable to be proven that many had direct involvement with the insurgency (no physical evidence, suspect testimony, etc), but who had ties to members of it or were considered security risks because of skills, knowledge, contacts, etc. They were kept AS POW’S to prevent them from returning to the combat zone and becoming part of or an aid to the insurgency (a common war practice and again under applicable ROE’s). Several were released who’s guilt could not be proven at the time - only to be recaptured actually fighting against or setting IED’s to kill US troops.

My argument did not require an immediate threat - read it again.

Self-defense is only for immediate threats - Self-defense only applies to individuals? whut? Is there a point here? You’ve missed mine entirely.

My point was if it is alright to kill someone trying to kill you or trying to kill thousands of other people, how was it wrong to interrogate them using the specific un-harmful techniques used at Gitmo?

An unrelated analogy - eating feces or being shot - adds nothing to the discussion as there are no applicable laws governing the eating of feces - fail.

only 3 pow’s were ever waterboarded and they were undoubtedly quilty - even the liberal media know this. get your facts straight!

The dispute regarding the Geneva convention centers on how non-state combatants are to be treated since they are not a citizen of a signatory nation to the Geneva accords.[/quote]

So you admit that many were detained wrongfully?

Yes, you tried to prove waterboarding was okay because of actions entirely unrelated. I was merely point out the flaw in your logic with the feces statement.

Last, the supreme court ruled that the conventions apply.

50

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

You’re either lying to yourself or to others. Waterboarding is unequivocally torture. What else would it be? You are temporarily drowning someone!

If the advocates of torture want to make an argument that we should be torturing captured enemies, fine, that’s reprehensible and deeply un-American, but it’s an argument you can make. It’s a stupid argument, given the huge negative strategic effects, as DoubleDuce pointed out, but it’s an argument.

But please don’t hide behind Orwellian euphemisms like “enhanced interrogations.” We tortured people, under the authority of the highest elected officials in the land and their disgusting legal cronies (see Yoo, John).

It is the temporary sensation of drowning - not the act of drowning someone! It is so mild, it took over 100 uses to get him to give up any information. Would you rather be waterboarded or drowned? I’m going for the waterboard every time!

Waterboarding was the most extreme technique used and it was only used on three people! Actual proven terrorists.

The remaining techniques could hardly be considered torture - unless you are not a fan of Christina Aguilera. Sleep deprivation, yelling, slapping, seeing pictures of the families of the people killed by terrorism, etc - wow, I was treated worse in college. If fact, if a prisoner ever even got dehydrated - all interrogations had to cease for a minimum of 24 hours to protect the health of the prisoner.

Actual Real Torture would be electrical shock, mutilations, stabbing, drowning, bursting eardrums, poisons, clubbing, pulling out fingernails, crushing toes - etc. All acts which were never done in any circumstances.

You call it a euphemism, I call it a fact. Torture causes actual harm to the person on whom it is inflicted - see m earlier posts regarding Japanese torture of POW’s[/quote]

(you once again equate tortue to some permanant physical harm, something you said was strawman earlier)

So I guess that you’d be okay with using these techniques on threats to national security identified by the government?

Go read the DHS report.

51

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Torture causes actual harm to the person on whom it is inflicted [/quote]

Wait…you don’t think waterboarding “causes actual harm”?

52

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

So you admit that many were detained wrongfully?

Yes, you tried to prove waterboarding was okay because of actions entirely unrelated. I was merely point out the flaw in your logic with the feces statement.

Last, the supreme court ruled that the conventions apply.

[/quote]

No - i did not admit that many were detained wrongfully - i stated that it could not be conclusively proven in a legal setting that they were directly involved in the insurgency - but necessity of combat dictated that they be held as pow’s.

You didn’t prove anything - you introduced an unrelated analogy that proved nothing.

And we have obeyed by the dictates of the Geneva convention in dealing with enemy combatants. so?

53

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

(you once again equate tortue to some permanant physical harm, something you said was strawman earlier)

So I guess that you’d be okay with using these techniques on threats to national security identified by the government?

Go read the DHS report.[/quote]

Again - i have never said “permanent” physical harm - you said that. I said physical harm

Again with the moral equivalency argument - do we really have to run around that tree again?

54

[quote]lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Torture causes actual harm to the person on whom it is inflicted

Wait…you don’t think waterboarding “causes actual harm”?[/quote]

No - been though it myself. No harm - even our military personnel are routinely waterboarded during training.

AND only 3 terrorists out of 800 detainees were ever waterboarded!

The vast majority of detainees (the “innocent” ones) never even had any enhanced interrogation techniques used on them - they have simply been detained as they and their connections and activities were investigated.

55

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

So you admit that many were detained wrongfully?

Yes, you tried to prove waterboarding was okay because of actions entirely unrelated. I was merely point out the flaw in your logic with the feces statement.

Last, the supreme court ruled that the conventions apply.

No - i did not admit that many were detained wrongfully - i stated that it could not be conclusively proven in a legal setting that they were directly involved in the insurgency - but necessity of combat dictated that they be held as pow’s.

You didn’t prove anything - you introduced an unrelated analogy that proved nothing.

And we have obeyed by the dictates of the Geneva convention in dealing with enemy combatants. so?[/quote]

No, you introduced an unrelated analogy. I purposely introduced an unrelated one to show that it doesn’t relate to the argument.

In article 3 of the geneva convention:
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

Read C carefully and tell me it wasn’t violated.

56

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

No, you introduced an unrelated analogy. I purposely introduced an unrelated one to show that it doesn’t relate to the argument.

In article 3 of the geneva convention:
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

Read C carefully and tell me it wasn’t violated. [/quote]

I did not introduce an analogy - i made a correlation.

OK - it was not violated. Now, you tell me which innocent detainees (first paragraph - persons taking no active part) were humiliated and degraded.

57

As for POWs if you are indeed considering them that, read the convention?

?Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. ?

?No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.?
As for discipline and punishment a trial is required:
?A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defense provided for in Article 105. ?
?The disciplinary punishments applicable to prisoners of war are the following:

  1. A fine which shall not exceed 50 per cent of the advances of pay and working pay which the prisoner of war would otherwise receive under the provisions of Articles 60 and 62 during a period of not more than thirty days.
  2. Discontinuance of privileges granted over and above the treatment provided for by the present Convention.
  3. Fatigue duties not exceeding two hours daily.
  4. Confinement. ?

?No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.
No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defense and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel. ?

It’s fine if you don’t agree with the convention, but don’t pretend like we are obeying it.

58

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

No, you introduced an unrelated analogy. I purposely introduced an unrelated one to show that it doesn’t relate to the argument.

In article 3 of the geneva convention:
"1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

Read C carefully and tell me it wasn’t violated.

I did not introduce an analogy - i made a correlation.

OK - it was not violated. Now, you tell me which innocent detainees (first paragraph - persons taking no active part) were humiliated and degraded.[/quote]

Wait, those records aren’t public. So we don’t know who they are doing what to. I’m not okay with that.

59

I did not introduce an analogy - i made a correlation.

[/quote]

yes, you made an analogy and now want to play semantics about it rather than admit it was flawed logic.

60

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As for POWs if you are indeed considering them that, read the convention?

?Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. ?

?No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.?
As for discipline and punishment a trial is required:
?A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defense provided for in Article 105. ?
?The disciplinary punishments applicable to prisoners of war are the following:

  1. A fine which shall not exceed 50 per cent of the advances of pay and working pay which the prisoner of war would otherwise receive under the provisions of Articles 60 and 62 during a period of not more than thirty days.
  2. Discontinuance of privileges granted over and above the treatment provided for by the present Convention.
  3. Fatigue duties not exceeding two hours daily.
  4. Confinement. ?

?No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.
No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defense and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel. ?

It’s fine if you don’t agree with the convention, but don’t pretend like we are obeying it.[/quote]

Will you make up your mind - are we considering them innocent kidnapped victims, civilian detainees of a signatory party, prisoners of war representing the armed forces of a signatory party or what? You keep jumping all over the place with all sorts of tangential arguments.

I completely agree with the Geneva conventions and hold that we have not violated any applicable article. You need to decide which articles you believe apply and what status you would actually confer upon the detainees.