Investigate 911 and the New World Order

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
  • 143
    Replies
  • 3K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list
Minor Axis

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Fox Mulder said:
Way to narrow it down for us Minor!!!!

Interrogator: "So how far can I go Major Minor?"

Major Minor: "Well, don't be a wuss, but don't turn him into a vegetable either."

Every interrogation at Gitmo would have fit into that definition.
Click to expand...

It's not my fault you can't spot a generalized statement and try to turn it into something it's not. If your so wise, you can define for us what specifically is and is not acceptable when it comes to mental torture.
 
S

siasl

Member
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Minor Axis said:
It's not my fault you can't spot a generalized statement and try to turn it into something it's not. If your so wise, you can define for us what specifically is and is not acceptable when it comes to mental torture.
Click to expand...

well, again....i question -particularly if the primary defense for using "torture" is getting important information quickly- why it's "good" to use mental torture, and "bad" to use physical torture?

is it that mental torture doesn't bleed, and so is easier to justify from an ethical pov?
 
S

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
siasl said:
is it that mental torture doesn't bleed, and so is easier to justify from an ethical pov?
Click to expand...

It doesn't leave a mark like when you whack them in the pee-pee.:D

If you turn them into a babbling idiot you can always claim that he was like that when he arrived. ;)
 
Wookiegirl

Wookiegirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,255
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
AND

anguish = excruciating or acute distress, suffering, or pain
extreme = utmost or exceedingly great in degree
:willy_nilly:
 
Minor Axis

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
You guys know there is a law in the U.S. that specifically outlaws torture as defined by the Geneva Convention, making it a jail-able offense? And you all do know that methods of torture were discussed in the White House right? And the Bush Administration was trying to argue why enemy combatants did not deserve Geneva Convention protections. I guarantee you that the law has been broken by government officials under the Bush Administration, most likely condoned at the highest levels, even if that approval is just-don't-tell-me-about-it and most likely the perps will get off scott free.

Something to be proud of and something some of you seem to support. :thumbdown:

Under U.S. Law Torture is Always Illegal

U.S. Law Prohibits Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Many High Bush Officials Broke Laws Against Torture.

And speaking of good judgement, McCain, the tortured POW voted against the Waterboard Ban.

From Wikipedia: Torture and the U.S.:
Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:
"torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
 
dt3

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Minor Axis said:
You guys know there is a law in the U.S. that specifically outlaws torture as defined by the Geneva Convention, making it a jail-able offense? And you all do know that methods of torture were discussed in the White House right? And the Bush Administration was trying to argue why enemy combatants did not deserve Geneva Convention protections. I guarantee you that the law has been broken by government officials under the Bush Administration, most likely condoned at the highest levels, even if that approval is just-don't-tell-me-about-it and most likely the perps will get off scott free.

Something to be proud of and something some of you seem to support. :thumbdown:

Under U.S. Law Torture is Always Illegal

U.S. Law Prohibits Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Many High Bush Officials Broke Laws Against Torture.

And speaking of good judgement, McCain, the tortured POW voted against the Waterboard Ban.

From Wikipedia: Torture and the U.S.:
Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:
"torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
"severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
Click to expand...
:clap Bravo, Minor. You successfully defined torture. However, you failed to define "enemy combatant". Here's the exact text from the third Geneva Convention:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 4[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Do any Al Qaeda or other insurgent groups meet any of those categories? No, they do not. Therefore they are unlawful combatants and the Geneva Conventions DO NOT apply to them. Here's the text relating to that:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Click to expand...

Now, would you say Al Qaeda and other groups have treated their prisoners according to the Geneva Convention? The answer is obviously no, as public beheading is rather forbidden by the Convention. Therefore we are NOT required to obey the Geneva Convention with their prisoners.

Now, if you want to argue that we are morally obligated to treat them well, that's fine. That's a personal opinion. But you can't say we are legally obligated to do so, as the text I've posted proves.

If you want to read the whole thing, from the UN's webpage, here's the link: Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
 
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top