Impeaching Bush?

[All Else Failed]

I still have a hard time calling embarrassment torture.

Call me crazy, but if somebody gave me the choice of nuts in a vice, or make me take embarrassing pictures with my friends.... .... I'll be the guy in the pink tutu.

If I were captured by Al Queada, and I got the treatment of the men in Abu Ghraib... I would thank God every day that I was so fortunate.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]PART II[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 12[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 13[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 14[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.[/FONT]








[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]SECTION I[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 17[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.[/FONT]











[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What happened to them goes beyond embarrassment. In their culture, for a naked man to touch another naked man is one of the highest insults and degrading acts he could ever take part in. This can easily lead to mental harm.
[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]You would thank god for being fortunate? You do know that some of them died during torture sessions, right?
[/FONT]

 

[IntruderLS1]

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Okay, which of these particular prisoners are members of the convention?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]What happened to them goes beyond embarrassment. In their culture, for a naked man to touch another naked man is one of the highest insults and degrading acts he could ever take part in. This can easily lead to mental harm.

[/FONT]

Spoken from a lack of understanding of their culture.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]You would thank god for being fortunate? You do know that some of them died during torture sessions, right? [/FONT]

Yes. I would consider myself fortunate. I cannot think of any deaths off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll link me to a respectable site for my own information.

 

[All Else Failed]

Okay, which of these particular prisoners are members of the convention?

[/font]

Spoken from a lack of understanding of their culture.



Yes. I would consider myself fortunate. I cannot think of any deaths off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll link me to a respectable site for my own information.

All prisoners picked up on the battlefield are subject to the convention.



Uh, no....I've known several Muslims personally for years and discussed their religion and culture many times, and two naked men being in close proximity to each other is a massive taboo.




Human Rights First | Us Law & Security | One Year After the Abu Ghraib Torture Photos


Deaths in Custody: 108 People Have Died in U.S. Custody, U.S. Government Acknowledges

• The U.S. government has acknowledged 28 confirmed or suspected homicides of detainees in U.S. custody. Only one of these homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib.[1]
  
• At least 45 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004.[2]
  
• 63 of the 108 detainee deaths occurred at locations other than Abu Ghraib.[3]

 

[IntruderLS1]

All prisoners picked up on the battlefield are subject to the convention.

That's like saying everybody standing on American soil falls under the protection of the Constitution. The Convention you're talking about is designed to protect uniformed soldiers. Why does that part always get left out of these conversations?? These guys do not represent a government, and therefore CAN NOT be considered to fall under signatory rights.

Uh, no....I've known several Muslims personally for years and discussed their religion and culture many times, and two naked men being in close proximity to each other is a massive taboo.

Hmmm... That's very interesting. I've lived in Muslim countries. I disagree with your friends take on the matter.

Human Rights First | Us Law & Security | One Year After the Abu Ghraib Torture Photos


Deaths in Custody: 108 People Have Died in U.S. Custody, U.S. Government Acknowledges

• The U.S. government has acknowledged 28 confirmed or suspected homicides of detainees in U.S. custody. Only one of these homicides occurred at Abu Ghraib.[1]
  
• At least 45 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004.[2]
  
• 63 of the 108 detainee deaths occurred at locations other than Abu Ghraib.[3]

I will look at these because I said I would. I'm curious how they died. Who's taking odds on natural causes, internal conflicts (between bad guys), suicide, and attempted escape through armed guards?

 

[All Else Failed]

That's like saying everybody standing on American soil falls under the protection of the Constitution. The Convention you're talking about is designed to protect uniformed soldiers. Why does that part always get left out of these conversations?? These guys do not represent a government, and therefore CAN NOT be considered to fall under signatory rights.



Hmmm... That's very interesting. I've lived in Muslim countries. I disagree with your friends take on the matter.




I will look at these because I said I would. I'm curious how they died. Who's taking odds on natural causes, internal conflicts (between bad guys), suicide, and attempted escape through armed guards?

They are enemy combatants. The don't need a uniform. Anyone captured or anyone who gives up or surrenders comes under the protections of the Geneva convention. I have no idea why you are even talking about the constitution.

 

[IntruderLS1]

They are enemy combatants. The don't need a uniform. Anyone captured or anyone who gives up or surrenders comes under the protections of the Geneva convention. I have no idea why you are even talking about the constitution.

How to say this differently....

You feel that every citizen of Earth falls under an agreement made between countries XY&Z designed to protect their uniformed soldiers and non-violent native civilian populations?

I cannot see a difference in this logic and applying it to say.. The Warsaw pact, or the Constitution of the United States. Documents and treaties only affect the individuals that fall under them. Rogue individuals who have not declared war, who do not wear uniforms, who target primarily civilians, etc... are not soldiers, and do not fall under the protections of the convention.

To me this is a simple idea, and try as I might, I don't understand how it's not. :confused

 

[All Else Failed]

How to say this differently....

You feel that every citizen of Earth falls under an agreement made between countries XY&Z designed to protect their uniformed soldiers and non-violent native civilian populations?

I cannot see a difference in this logic and applying it to say.. The Warsaw pact, or the Constitution of the United States. Documents and treaties only affect the individuals that fall under them. Rogue individuals who have not declared war, who do not wear uniforms, who target primarily civilians, etc... are not soldiers, and do not fall under the protections of the convention.

To me this is a simple idea, and try as I might, I don't understand how it's not. :confused

If you have a foreign enemy that you are engaging, they are a combatant. If they give up, they are a combatant that has surrendered, and under the Geneva convention that protects all combatants that surrender or are captured on the battlefield, they are candidates to be treated as such, POW's.


They also get Habeas corpus rights.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Which signature on the Geneva convention do these people fall under?

 

[All Else Failed]

Which signature on the Geneva convention do these people fall under?

I'm pretty sure its obvious that anyone who surrenders on the battlefield are to be treated under Geneva rights.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I'm pretty sure its obvious that anyone who surrenders on the battlefield are to be treated under Geneva rights.

I believe you, but do you see my point?

 

[All Else Failed]

I must have read over it.







Also:


Appendix 1: Common Article 3
Common Article 3 reads, in its entirety:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
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.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.







I'm going to bed. Night.

 

[NightWarrior]

The Geneva convention only applies to those where the declaration of War has been made upon. We have not declared War upon anyone, technically, unless you believe Bush's speech about the loosely based term "War on Terror".

 

[dt3]

Hmmm... That's very interesting. I've lived in Muslim countries. I disagree with your friends take on the matter.

I agree with Intruder here. I lived there for a year and met a ton of Iraqis. Maybe your friends were Muslim-Americans and have a different take on things from not growing up over there?

Either way, from my experience, sex with men is very common in their culture and they're very open about it.

 

[dt3]

Violation of prohibitions are covered by Article 5, which states:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.


CBC News Indepth: Iraq

 

[Tim]

It's interesting watching you guys argue about whether or not the Geneva convention applies. I think you have all lost sight of the bigger picture.

There is a reason that the US was one of the signatory countries of the Geneva convention. It wasn't for the sole purpose of protecting our soldiers or captured citizens. It was adopted by our country because we DO believe in basic human rights. We are a nation of laws, values and morals and we want to show the world that we are NOT a bunch of barbarians.

Sure, as you say, you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. I understand that, I am not so naive to believe that we need to treat EVERY detainee like a visiting diplomat. There are times when unspeakable actions are needed for immediate information. My problem is when we break dozens of eggs to make a 3 egg omelet. It really gives us a bad image that is more detrimental to our security than any amount of information that we could extract from these guys. You also have to remember, the information we are getting from these guys has nothing to do with our security here at home. It has everything to do with the insurgents and their attacks on our troops in Iraq. So it would be unfair to say that these acts of torture are "justified" because it is keeping us safe from the next "big attack" here in the states.

I guess all I'm saying is; stand back and ask yourself. Do you condone the torturing of many with the hope of finding a few that may have good intel? Whether they fall under the Geneva convention or not, they are still humans that should be treated with some resemblance of humanity. Detainee does not equal terrorist, and to treat them all as though they would behead you if given the chance does nothing more than show the bigotry and hatred.

 

[dt3]

It's interesting watching you guys argue about whether or not the Geneva convention applies. I think you have all lost sight of the bigger picture.

There is a reason that the US was one of the signatory countries of the Geneva convention. It wasn't for the sole purpose of protecting our soldiers or captured citizens. It was adopted by our country because we DO believe in basic human rights. We are a nation of laws, values and morals and we want to show the world that we are NOT a bunch of barbarians.

Sure, as you say, you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. I understand that, I am not so naive to believe that we need to treat EVERY detainee like a visiting diplomat. There are times when unspeakable actions are needed for immediate information. My problem is when we break dozens of eggs to make a 3 egg omelet. It really gives us a bad image that is more detrimental to our security than any amount of information that we could extract from these guys. You also have to remember, the information we are getting from these guys has nothing to do with our security here at home. It has everything to do with the insurgents and their attacks on our troops in Iraq. So it would be unfair to say that these acts of torture are "justified" because it is keeping us safe from the next "big attack" here in the states.

I guess all I'm saying is; stand back and ask yourself. Do you condone the torturing of many with the hope of finding a few that may have good intel? Whether they fall under the Geneva convention or not, they are still humans that should be treated with some resemblance of humanity. Detainee does not equal terrorist, and to treat them all as though they would behead you if given the chance does nothing more than show the bigotry and hatred.

I can see where you're coming from Tim, but I still disagree to an extent.

It may be unfair to say it's not stopping attacks on the US (though it could possibly do that), but even if it's "only" saving troops in Iraq, then I'm alright with it.

Detainee doesn't equal terrorist, you're right. But I'm sure the vast majority of these guys were detained as a result of direct combat with our troops or through intel that proves they were part of a larger terror network. I don't think we're over there just kicking down doors Gestapo style and disappearing people. I agree that, simply through the law of averages, some of them are bound to be innocent. But I feel that we do the best we can to prevent that. I guess what I'm trying to say is we have a reason for detaining the people we detain, and even if they don't know anything, they shouldn't have been doing whatever it was that made us detain them. So if those eggs get broke to make the omelet, then I can justify it to myself.

I also agree that it severely hurts our image, both to other countries and the young middle eastern men who may use that to hate America and become terrorists themselves. However, I can justify it to myself because no other alternative has been presented that I think would work.

We can't afford NOT find out if they have vital information, in my opinion. How would you feel if it turned out we had a person in custody who knew about 9/11, and we had him months beforehand but didn't have the testicular fortitude to try to extract that info? What if that one person was rounded up in a raid with 50 others who didn't know anything at all. Could you condone torturing those 50 to save the 3000 that died in NYC? I can.

I think it's horrible that our country tortures these people, but I feel we do it out of necessity. To me, the government's greatest responsibility is to protect it's citizens (either civilians here or our troops on the ground in foreign countries). I feel our government is doing everything in it's power to keep us safe.

 

[All Else Failed]

The Geneva convention applies to all prisoners of war, but even if that was not the case, we should extend such rights to prisoners of the battlefield. Why not? It would only show our resolve to people who do not abide by such rules.


But i'm guessing all of my words are falling on deaf ears.

I can see where you're coming from Tim, but I still disagree to an extent.

It may be unfair to say it's not stopping attacks on the US (though it could possibly do that), but even if it's "only" saving troops in Iraq, then I'm alright with it.

Detainee doesn't equal terrorist, you're right. But I'm sure the vast majority of these guys were detained as a result of direct combat with our troops or through intel that proves they were part of a larger terror network. I don't think we're over there just kicking down doors Gestapo style and disappearing people. I agree that, simply through the law of averages, some of them are bound to be innocent. But I feel that we do the best we can to prevent that. I guess what I'm trying to say is we have a reason for detaining the people we detain, and even if they don't know anything, they shouldn't have been doing whatever it was that made us detain them. So if those eggs get broke to make the omelet, then I can justify it to myself.

I also agree that it severely hurts our image, both to other countries and the young middle eastern men who may use that to hate America and become terrorists themselves. However, I can justify it to myself because no other alternative has been presented that I think would work.

We can't afford NOT find out if they have vital information, in my opinion. How would you feel if it turned out we had a person in custody who knew about 9/11, and we had him months beforehand but didn't have the testicular fortitude to try to extract that info? What if that one person was rounded up in a raid with 50 others who didn't know anything at all. Could you condone torturing those 50 to save the 3000 that died in NYC? I can.

I think it's horrible that our country tortures these people, but I feel we do it out of necessity. To me, the government's greatest responsibility is to protect it's citizens (either civilians here or our troops on the ground in foreign countries). I feel our government is doing everything in it's power to keep us safe.

Nope. If a real terrorist is seen getting into a black car of a certain make, the word will go out to stop and detain all people they can find in the same make of the car and send them off to prisons. That could be literally HUNDREDS of innocent people. Plus, the majority of people in those prisons were "captured" by local warlords who have grudges against certain people that aren't even terrorists, yet they say they are to get them taken off their hands.

Again, torture is not a efficient way to gather info.

 

[dt3]

The Geneva convention applies to all prisoners of war, but even if that was not the case, we should extend such rights to prisoners of the battlefield. Why not? It would only show our resolve to people who do not abide by such rules.


But i'm guessing all of my words are falling on deaf ears.



Nope. If a real terrorist is seen getting into a black car of a certain make, the word will go out to stop and detain all people they can find in the same make of the car and send them off to prisons. That could be literally HUNDREDS of innocent people. Plus, the majority of people in those prisons were "captured" by local warlords who have grudges against certain people that aren't even terrorists, yet they say they are to get them taken off their hands.

Again, torture is not a efficient way to gather info.

First, I'd like to say that I read all your posts before I dismiss them out of hand.


I may have found where our fundamental difference lies. Do you think that it's vital for us to try to figure out what terrorist's are planning?

 

[icecuban]

I still have a hard time calling embarrassment torture.

Call me crazy, but if somebody gave me the choice of nuts in a vice, or make me take embarrassing pictures with my friends.... .... I'll be the guy in the pink tutu.

If I were captured by Al Queada, and I got the treatment of the men in Abu Ghraib... I would thank God every day that I was so fortunate.

, kind of funny, but really, if u have not seen the "ghosts of abu ghraib" documentary, i highly suggest you watch it, it isnt like taking a bunch of pictures with your friends in tutu's at some frat house. even the soldiers said that of all the places in iraq, this was the bowels of hell. im not saying you dont know about the place, a lot of people do after all the press, but it is wonderfully put together, and gives u a sense of what it would be like, to be there.

i especially like the part, when they talk about when the news broke, and one of the pictures was of a guy who was standing on a box, with a hood over his head, and electric wires attached to his fingers. one of the spokesman for the white house was saying that this whole thing was likened to a "frat boys on the night shift" having fun with prisoners, and an isolated event. but as one guy says, if you look at the picture of the cloaked guy on the box with wires, and you had knowledge on torture methods, you'd know this was a method used and made in brazil during extreme acts of torture, ones that involve really fucking up your brain forever (again, to people who probably have no information). but anyways, the origional stance by our countries leaders said that they had nothing to do with it, and that it was just some idiots doing stupid stuff, what a bunch of liars. it took a bunch of people doing their homework just to make any truth come to light

again, watch the video, its on dvd now, it really gives u a new perspective on how it really is in that prison, and other prisons like it, and u get to see REAL iraqi people who were tortured there, and lost loved ones for no reason, but that they were iraqi. and how they would have their wives and daughters molested in front of them as a form of torture. does that sound like a night in a tutu to you? would u take that over a beheading, watching your loved ones fucked unmercifully in front of you? i dont think anyone, ever, would be able to handle that better then other things.

 

[Tim]

Detainee doesn't equal terrorist, you're right. But I'm sure the vast majority of these guys were detained as a result of direct combat with our troops or through intel that proves they were part of a larger terror network. I don't think we're over there just kicking down doors Gestapo style and disappearing people.

This is where I see the biggest problem. The vast majority of the inmates are innocent. I know this because we have released large quantities of them without any sort of charge.

The prison has been used as a detention facility, holding more than 7,000 people at its peak in early 2004...
According to the International Red Cross, close to 90% of the people being held are not guilty of the allegations and many were picked-up almost at random by US patrols on sweeps...
source.

The military also runs two other prisons for detainees suspected of insurgent activity, with a total of 14,589 inmates in all four facilities, . Colonel Curry said. One is Fort Suse, north of the capital, and the other is Camp Bucca, the largest prison, in southern Iraq.
source.

And that above figure was from March 2006, 16 months ago. That number doesn't even reflect the total that were detained and released. That's just the number of inmates on that date. That is a very large number of people.

What if that one person was rounded up in a raid with 50 others who didn't know anything at all. Could you condone torturing those 50 to save the 3000 that died in NYC? I can.

This is the dangerous road that we are traveling. Condoning torture to foil future plots that may or may not happen. One of the prices we pay for our freedom is having to live by the rule of law. This makes us less safe and we will always be faced with the possibility of another attack. Why? Because we live in a free society where the government can't keep it's citizens in line with total domination and fear. You cannot remove all threats to us while keeping the freedoms protected by the constitution. I except the fact that we are less safe because we can't just report our neighbor of suspicious activity and have the government come pick him up and torture information out of him. To say it's ok to torture those 50 to prevent an attack that didn't even happen yet (like the 9/11 attack) would be the same as saying it's ok to test cancer drugs on people even though it may kill them, because it may say the lives of thousands. We don't do this, not because we don't care for the thousands that will die from cancer, but because we don't live by the motto "it's okay to sacrifice a few to save the lives of many" There is a reason that we live with these rules, and I don't find comfort in pushing the lines further and further back.