[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not going to lose one second of sleep because some murderous scum bag is being put in an uncomfortable position in order to make him talk.
[/quote]
What happened to “innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt”?
The people you unlawfully imprison(understatement) are not being given fair trials; therefore, technically, they are innocent.
Can you seriously believe that its alright to torture someone when they MIGHT be guilty/innocent?
Fahd
the terriosts cut the soildiers heads of with butcher knifes, and your calling this torture.
OMG the guy is naked.its such bad torture.
give me a break here.
[quote]JMac10 wrote:
the terriosts cut the soildiers heads of with butcher knifes, and your calling this torture.
OMG the guy is naked.its such bad torture.
give me a break here.
[/quote]
Good to see you reading the article.
Fahd
Torture is imflammatory.
In college we called this hazing.
Save the term torture for when it really applies, otherwise you weaken the meaning.
Mistreatment and torture are not synonyms.
Here’s an interesting article from today’s NYT that provides more background on the legal distinctions involved, particularly with the definition of torture:
As an aside, someone apparently leaked the classified report that is the source of the information in this story.
[quote]fahd wrote:
JMac10 wrote:
the terriosts cut the soildiers heads of with butcher knifes, and your calling this torture.
OMG the guy is naked.its such bad torture.
give me a break here.
Good to see you reading the article.
Fahd[/quote]
sorry, i just looked at the picture.
i just read the article.
i still dont think its torture, they do worse things to us.
Here’s one definition of torture, from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
[quote]fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not going to lose one second of sleep because some murderous scum bag is being put in an uncomfortable position in order to make him talk.
What happened to “innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt”?
…[/quote]
That has never applied to enemy combatants in a time of war.
Perhaps we should not be allowed to kill the terrorists, just to arrest them (after getting a warrant of course).
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That has never applied to enemy combatants in a time of war.
Perhaps we should not be allowed to kill the terrorists, just to arrest them (after getting a warrant of course).[/quote]
What happened to the Geneva Conventions’ “prohibition on cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees”?
Fahd
I think we can sit here and split hairs about the true definition of the word ‘torture’ until we’re blue in the face. The pointis:
We’re supposed to be better than they are.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That has never applied to enemy combatants in a time of war.
Perhaps we should not be allowed to kill the terrorists, just to arrest them (after getting a warrant of course).
What happened to the Geneva Conventions’ “prohibition on cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees”?
Fahd
[/quote]
Its been awhile since Ive delved into the Geneva Convention, however I believe it only applies to combatants fighting in the military of a recognized government. Terrorist are not subject to any right granted by the Geneva Convention.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That has never applied to enemy combatants in a time of war.
Perhaps we should not be allowed to kill the terrorists, just to arrest them (after getting a warrant of course).
What happened to the Geneva Conventions’ “prohibition on cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees”?
Fahd
[/quote]
As has been pointed out before the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to people that did not sign them. That is the whole point to get people to sign them.
If the terrorists would sign and abide by the Geneva Convention it would apply. Since the terrorists don’t, the US follows it’s own laws.
[quote]fahd wrote:
What happened to the Geneva Conventions’ “prohibition on cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees”?
Fahd
[/quote]
The Geneva Conventions don’t apply to those who don’t follow its rules. Currently, all court challenges to the administration’s contention that such people as the Taliban fighters aren’t covered by the Geneva Conventions have come down in favor of the Administration. The USSC just granted cert yesterday to an appeal from the DC Circuit on that issue.
[quote]Vyapada wrote:
Here’s one definition of torture, from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html[/quote]
The US signed this as well, but with the Senate specifically finding the part concerning “Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” was too vague to be applicable, and specifically ratifying only w/r/t the prohibition of torture.
I believe Professor Yoo touched on this above, and said that the lawyers in the various departments had concluded that the sanctioned practices did not rise to the level of torture.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated 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] 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 fall outside the law.”
Thus, if the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, this would still grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war.
[quote]fahd wrote:
The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated 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] 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 fall outside the law.”
Thus, if the detainees are not classified as prisoners of war, this would still grant them the rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), as opposed to the more common Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which deals exclusively with prisoners of war. [/quote]
Civilians non-combatants are covered. However, non-uniformed combatants are not covered.
And at the risk of sounding trite, that is something that is necessarily determined by those who are the combatants, first and foremost. As I explained in another thread, you cannot have full hearings on the threshold question in each case – if a soldier arrests (instead of shoots) someone for pointing a gun at him who is dressed as a civilian, that determination necessarily carries a lot of weight.
[quote]CS wrote:
Fahd-
why do you have such a hard on for dissing america? i have seen like three threads started by you where you basically dissed something american. why is this?[/quote]
Fahd is just a mixed up kid. He’s confused about his ancestry and is basically a square peg trying to fit into a round hole (pun intended…think about it). He probably is either afraid to visit China (or where ever his ancestors are from) or not allowed in the country. He probably hates the US because we won’t let him come here. And he’s in a country where he’s a distinct minority - he’s not European and not Middle Eastern - and his social skills don’t permit him to advance in society.
[quote]fahd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA170042001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\CHINA
Fahd, if you are really worried about ending torture, perhaps you can start with the land of your ancestry.
I would love the discuss that as well. However, as most people here live in the US, there won’t be much interest,[/quote]
Hey, I’m interested! I’ll bet alot of folks are interested. Why do you make the ASSumption that there won’t be much interest? Once again, you are creating your own fantasy world of false beliefs.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
I think we can sit here and split hairs about the true definition of the word ‘torture’ until we’re blue in the face. The pointis:
We’re supposed to be better than they are.
[/quote]
That’s what I’ve been saying, but not too many of you folks seem to agree. I can link to Afghan taxi-drivers getting killed at Bagram, Baathist generals dying within a couple hours of being picked up, and arms and legs being broken with baseball bats, but no one seems to care. I really hope Congress doesn’t feel the same way.
[quote]thebigdogbarks wrote:
Fahd is just a mixed up kid. He’s confused about his ancestry and is basically a square peg trying to fit into a round hole (pun intended…think about it). He probably is either afraid to visit China (or where ever his ancestors are from) or not allowed in the country. He probably hates the US because we won’t let him come here. And he’s in a country where he’s a distinct minority - he’s not European and not Middle Eastern - and his social skills don’t permit him to advance in society. [/quote]
From your style of writing, I can see that you are either insecure, bored, or both.
In fact, can see that you are very insecure. Other real T-mans here, such as Rainjack, Zap, Prof. X, ZEB etc, have no need to resort to lame personal attacks like this. You don’t know me at all nor do I know you.
This is normal, however, for a physically and mentally smaller man, as he see threats everywhere and that his survival system is constantly turned on as everything to him are possible predators.
On every thread I posted, you have to chime to and add a post about my life: first you called me raghead, goat molester, and then you accuse me of running an anti-US-university thread even as the more intelligent readers realised that it was a satire piece from the beginning (read other comments for a change).
You amuse me at first, but then it gets repetitive and boring - same shit, different words. I urge you to find better use of your time then bother an eighteen-year-old college student in Wales over the Internet.
Fahd