Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is splitting hairs but I'll play. How long were the detainees at Gitmo waterboarded for. Links or facts to back up the time limits and how the time limits were followed please.
20 to 40 seconds from what I've heard. I can't post a link because I didn't read about it, I heard it.
And why is the U.S. never given the benefit of doubt, but terrorists always are?
Sometimes people forget that the terrorists are the bad guys here!
It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages
No uniform, no protection LEGALLY. In fact, no uniform means they can be tried as a spy and LEGALLY shot by firing squad. (possible outcome now that the detainees have to be put on trial or released)
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) Article 46.-Spies 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy. 2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces. 3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage. 4. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that fighters out of uniform can be tried as spies, Ex Parte Quirin and thereby shot by firing squad (per the previously linked laws of war)
In order to be covered legally from waterboarding, the "terrorists" would need to follow the Rules of War, which they have not, and because they have not, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thereby no war crimes actually took place.
All of that is obsolete and is replaced by the 4th Geneva convention which states:
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.)
All of that is obsolete and is replaced by the 4th Geneva convention which states:
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.)
The Fourth Convention was published August 12th, 1949, the Protocols, which I linked you to, were created as PART OF the Fourth Convention and adopted June 8, 1977...
The Republican Party spent a lot of time and resources trying to impeach Pres. Clinton for lying about sex. However, now the GOP believes investigating war crimes of the Bush administration is a "waste of time". Go figure!
The Fourth Convention was published August 12th, 1949, the Protocols, which I linked you to, were created as PART OF the Fourth Convention and adopted June 8, 1977...
Doesn't this make reference to "being shot on sight" . Show me where not wearing a uniform justifies torture.
The Fourth Convention was published August 12th, 1949, the Protocols, which I linked you to, were created as PART OF the Fourth Convention and adopted June 8, 1977...
1984 trumps your 1977.
The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Quote:
[edit] Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.
So we jump from the US Supreme Court, to the Geneva Convention, to the Law of War, to now the United Nations Convention against Torture. Yes the US signed the agreement, with the following addendum..
"The United States declares, pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that it recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It is the understanding of the United States that, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, such communications shall be accepted and processed only if they come from a State Party which has made a similar declaration."
The law does not apply, terrorists have made no similar declaration..
In addition, again, the Supreme Court has ruled that these prisoners need to go on trial in the USA, and in order for the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction, they would have to be criminal prisoners, not war prisoners, and thereby again, no international laws would apply.
if you truly believe that statement, then obama needs to be prosecuted for his past drug use, fdr for keeping the USA in a depression and getting the USA into WWII, lincoln for not following the Constitution, wilson for his outright socialist activities and a whole slew of other things done by each and every president.
Actually the constitution allows for suspension of habeas corpus during a time of war.
US Constitution
Article 1, section 9
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Lincoln was well within his right to suspend habeas corpus. So was Bush.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
