It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush's Fight with Congress over Torture Defines Our Character

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:16 AM
This is about covering their ass. It will exempt them retroactively from any form of punishment for the laws they've already broken.

This is lowering ourselves to the level of the enemy. Making their own use of torture and beheading justifiable in their eyes. I won't condone it EVER being used on our troops and that is just what this does.

Whatever happened to the Christian values of doing unto others as you would have them do unto yo? Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us?

The administration of neocons want to make their laws GLOBAL (as in GLOBALization). I don't see the rest of the world standing still for this outlaw behavior where one superpower dictates the rules to the rest of them. There is no moral virture in this.

The 'enemy' is forcing us to see the enemy within us all and these bills do a fine job of proving that to the world. And it's a sickening, disgusting way to try to gain an upper hand..

[edit on 18-9-2006 by psyopswatcher]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:53 AM
Whenever I hear words like Torture, Detention Camp and Justification of it I look at this picture

Never Forget

And someone wants to legalise this crap.

Ps. There are many far more graphic pictures, but this one realy hurts my soul.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by yanchek]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:36 AM
Wow this is one biased forum. First of all bush isn't changing anything in the Geneva convention he is asking congress to clarify it. Every country has interpreted the Geneva Convention in their own way and america should do the same. And he is not violating the geneva conventions even if he was torturing people. The Convention states that you can not torture a man in uniform fighting under a flag of a country. Radicals do not fight under a flag they fight a crazy holy war so they can blow up a school bus and go receive 12 virgins or whatever they believe.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM
Here is Article 3 & 4 of the Geneva Convention:

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.

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:

(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.

(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: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(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.

(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.

(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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

My questions are:

1. Are the insurgents wearing military uniforms?
2. Are the insurgents part of a particular nation?
3. Do you think the insurgents meet the description of combatants in Article 3 & why?
4: Do you believ that any US/allied troops would be treated under the Geneva Convention if captured by insurgents?

[edit on 18-9-2006 by ferretman2]

[edit on 18-9-2006 by ferretman2]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:24 AM

Originally posted by spinstopshere
Wow this is one biased forum. First of all bush isn't changing anything in the Geneva convention he is asking congress to clarify it.

That is the problem. . . clarification base on personal definitions of what or should be allow with unrestricted powers.

The fact that US holds secret detention camps in other Nations is a red flag as to what extend the torture can go on and if any of the people found none guilty of anything will be allow to leave the secret detention camps or survive to tell their stories.

Now is that justify to kill the Innocent among the guilty.

Is that what the American people wants our nations leaders to do, Is that the reason that we the people elected a government to do in our names?.

Think about it.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:42 AM

Actually the Geneva Convention article 3 is not limited to prisoners of war but also to all detainees .

Common Article 3 — found in each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — prohibits torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other parts of the Geneva agreements, it covers all detainees, whether they are unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war

That is the reason Bush wants to fix it.

An unlawful combatant is a fighter who does not play by the accepted rules of war, and therefore does not qualify for the Convention's protections.

But is not as simple as that.

Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria.

But Bush already has stated that they do not.

Then is the Taliban considered prisoners of war? Well when it comes to the Taliban they actually can fall in the categories that recognize a fighter.

The problem is that even if they do not qualify as prisoners of war they still qualify for humane treatment .

That is the problem with Bush redefinition of the Geneva Convention it wants to take the meaning of What Humane treatment and replace with its own interpretation.

Yes is very complicated because it can have repercussions world wide.

See article 118 of the Geneva Convention requires that prisoners of war be "repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."

But keeping the Definition of enemy combatants will ensure that these people will never see the light of the day or more sinister they can die with nobody to account for the way they did under US secret treatments and torture.

Sounds very scary right? Can we say Nazi concentration camps in secrecy all over again? But this time is not going to be Jews to torture but now will be Muslin.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:11 PM
Under article 4 section 2, members of Al-queda do not meet the requirements.

I personally don't view, loud music, denial of sleep or cold temperatures (as long as it is not below freezing) as torture.

If you compare the torture American POW's receive during Vietam, there is no compasion. We are not electrocuting people, pulling out fingernails, submerging them is bodily wastes, putting bamboo shoots under their nails or removing body parts. (All forms which I do not agree with)

What actions should interrogators be allowed to garner information? (maybe this should acutally be a post)

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by ferretman2
What actions should interrogators be allowed to garner information? (maybe this should actually be a post)

While I agree with you on this one If we were to know what will go on behind secret detention campsdoors.

The problem is that we will never know, we will never be told to what extend the torture will be administered and we will never know if the Innocent will be caught with the guilty and more so when these detainees will never be able to be in a Court to prove their Innocent.

They can easily die and be bury in unmarked tombs to never be known again.

That troubles me a lot, because we are all human after all and perhaps because we do not agree with what one side of the world is fight for it doesn't mean that no justify in their lands.

After all we are in foreign lands taking prisoners, prisoners that actually belong in those foeregin lands.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:32 PM
This will be the first step into justifying torture for the police force as well. If torture is accepted here, it will most certainly be accepted for those held in police custody in the future, through the same justification that "Torture is needed to save lives."

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:10 PM
Under the original article this thread was an area for comments, one person there, the second comment down said the following.

Original Article

The core of the matter is that the Bush administration is trying to canonize the elimination of civil rights. By denying these prisoners the same rights that are guaranteed American citizens in the Bill of Rights, the US denies the very principles for which they allege our troops are fighting to bring to the rest of the world. By trying to re-define torture according to W's standards (as opposed to those agreed upon by the rest of the world), W will be legitimizing the activities (tortures) that have already been committed at Gitmo, and the other "black" sites heretofore denied to exist. Yes, it is vital for W to have the wording changed; lacking that makes him and his underlings war criminals subject to prosecution.

I couldn't have put this into words as well as she did.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:19 PM
Why should non-americans get the protection under the American Bill of Rights?

Britian is free, yet they have a different set of laws. Actually the britons have less rights than America.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:35 PM
I do believe the Bill of Rights was written for all US citizens and for all non citizens that may end up under the jurisdiction of the US. These were the ideas our forefathers felt was the way ALL people should be treated, no where in the Bill of Rights does it say "only US citizens". It does say "The right of the people", "No person shall be held ...", and "the accused".

There is not one single bit of evidence in the Bill of Rights that I have found that would lead me to believe these rights are only for US citizens.

Bill of Rights

Allowing torture would put the US on the same level of Saddam. Remember how you felt about Saddam when you heard the stories of the people that were tortured under Saddam's rule. Well, this is the same way other countries will perceive the US if torture is "legalized". With disgust.

Doesn't matter who is getting tortured, torture is torture, it is wrong and illegal. Not to mention the danger our troops might end up in if they were ever captured.

[edit on 18/9/06 by Keyhole]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:18 PM
not the fun lake sport...

but this waterboarding is an art of submerging a person under water forcefully (as if by a board holding them down)
they fight and struggle to get back to the surface, but to no avail...

if they are lucky, they get allowed air before they suck water and die...
if the interogator gets angry, or lazy, the person dies, and is usually revived...

yeah... sounds just like what i want my countries marines and army POW's to deal with... sounds like a party...

It is a obviously illegal technique for interrogations, and it is being done by our government, and by companies like TITAN that are being contracted to torture for us...

Titan is a defense contractor that BTW, has been quite profitable with this war...
Buy my question is this...
Why didn't they just hire these captured terrorists to work at their company, likeMakram Chams- friend of ATTA the friend of 9-11 terrorist Atta... instead of torturing them at Abu Gharib...

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:44 PM
I have family working for TITAN and L3 Communications, but haven't heard any of them torturing individuals. Though, they work as linguistics and go where ever the military goes, I doubt they have experienced any attrocities on humans.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by DJMessiah]

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:05 PM
If it's okay to torture foreign "terrorists" of the radical Islamic persuasion, is it okay to torture domestic "eco-terrorists" of the environmental extremist persuasion? The FBI lists eco-terrorism as the #1 domestic terrorist threat, so are there any differences that apply?

What do you do with a torture subject that doesn't break? How far does our CIA "professional" interrogator go? While I've always been of the opinion that the only people you can get to commit torture are those that enjoy committing torture -- you know, the "professional" torturers -- let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Good, upstanding, God-fearing, churchgoing, Republican-voting pillars of the community employed by the CIA to torture people would certainly feel a "professional" affront if some stupid terrorist towel-head didn't break under their best-practice "professional" techniques. Dammit, Americans are the best in the whole world at everything they undertake; nobody tortures like an American torturer. So... how far do you think they'd go to achieve their desired results? If the guy doesn't break, how about torturing his wife before his very eyes? How about his children? How far?

How far?


posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:40 PM
Torture is as evil a business as there is. It degrades everyone involved with it - on both sides.

"Do whatever it takes to win"? How about "The ends justify the means"? There's another good old saw... one that has proven its absurdity over and over.

The argument about a suspect knowing about a ticking bomb somewhere is an empty one. Assuming there was such a situation, anybody who knew about the bomb would have been trained in resisting torture, at least long enough for the bomb to go off. So, no good there.

What if the suspect is completely innocent? Now, since you have engaged in torture, you have gone from no terrorist (in that person) to at least one. And if he/she has family, probably more than one. Negative effect.

And to excuse it on the grounds that "Well, they do it!" is a miserable approach. It makes us no better than the people we are fighting. Complete loss of moral ground.

And finally, torture is a coward's act. How brave does somebody have to be to beat the crap out of somebody who is all tied up? Or have 5 guys beat on one? Real courage, there. That aspect alone is a disgrace to American service personnel, who have shown courage many many times.

There is no excuse for it. Not only is it ineffective, it is a corruption of the American way of life.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:38 PM
More Republicans are balking.


Ah, and as for the Geneva Convention speculation in this thread (is it/isn't it).....

An administration official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity surrounding the negotiations, said the new language only addresses a dispute over the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which set the standard for treatment of prisoners taken during hostilities.

But the meat of it is this.

Neither side has been able to muster definitively the 60 votes necessary to prevent a Senate filibuster of their proposal. This uncertainty - along with hope that the White House and Warner would reach an agreement to stave off a Republican showdown on the Senate floor- has kept the bill from being voted on.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:09 PM
The 9/11 executors are all death, and for the master minder he is a no show or at least after 5 years he has proven to only be resurrected when is needed to keep the nation on the scare alert.

The bill has more hidden agendas that because the so call secrecy involving the present administration we will never know.

It is a reason why even Republicans are oppose to it and we should listen to the warnings.

Also nobody is questioning the unrestricted spying by the present administration on American citizens.

How come nobody is complaining about that one.

"This legislation, once finished, will provide not only a way to bring the mastermind of 9/11 to justice, but also provide clarity to our men and women in the intelligence community who are interrogating these high-value detainees who helped provide information that allowed us to disrupt and prevent additional terrorist plots against America," the White House's Perino

Justice for who.

The only reason the present administration wants this bill is to step more on American rights with unrestricted spying and to use it for political propaganda.

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by nephyx
The people we are torturing could be people who know information on future terror attacks aimed at innocent americans. If you were sitting on a potential threat wouldnt you want the government to do everything in their power to find out where the threat is and how to disable it?

Try not to become so far leftist that you turn this country into a bunch of pansies. If Muslims can broadcast beheadings on the internet and still be praised by the nation of Islam I dont see why we dont give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our prisoners of war.

could be??? then again, they could also just be some poor afghani kid who was taken from his home at gunpoint, given a gun and told if he didn't do as they said, they'd go back and killl the rest of his family....could be, but then again might not be.... they are not doing all they can to prevent another attack!!! the border is still just as pourous and the collander that I drain my spaghetti in. nothing's been done that I know of to ensure security at our ports, our subways, our trains, our food supply, our chemical plants, our water supply.....and the list goes on and on... they haven't done jack with homeland security. but if it involves messing with the citizens rights, tapping their personal phone calls, penning them up for demonstrating, throwing them out of public meetings for the clothes they have on, and well, torturing them for knowledge they many have...oh ya, they're all for those things....

and I do give our troops the benefit of a doubt....I doubt very much if most of them would be willing to waterboard anyone!!! the search for quality torturers must be rather slim pickings...maybe they should try looking in our prison system for their quality torturers?
how about you all who are justifying such treatment, you willing to be those torturers? I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't last a month at the job before the screams of the tortures kept you awake night after night and you no longer could look yourself in the mirror...of course I am talking about real torture here, not the pansie-ansie type we got a glimpse of from the picture of abu garib....that was just a testament to the world of how morally decayed the US was....
one thing is for sure, a true COMPASSIONATE conservative wouldn't be able to handle being a real torturer, not without having the effects I described above. it takes a reallly sick, sadistic person to be able to torture someone to the point where they are willing to cede their will to another.

and as far as weather or not these prisoners fall under the geneva convention, and how should we interpret that treaty....well there is laws on the books that make it illegal for any american citizen to torture anyone anywhere in the can bicker about what the word "torture" is all you want...but I got a feeling most of america would consider water boarding to be torture...I would. although I don't consider sawing off a person's head as fitting the word too well... the motive for torture is convincing a person to do something your want or to tell you something you want to know. severed heads don't talk or do much of anything.

hey I know, drunk drivers here in the US kill over 5 times more people in the US a year than the number killed on 9/11...can we torture everyone we catch driving drunk?

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:29 PM
i see a lot of people responding to this thread blindly without even looking at where it came from....

The site where this was taken from is obviously trying to spread political propaganda..and I have also noticed that even though "several times have the Geneva Convention's chapter on who are prisoners of war have been provided in the forums," yet despite this, several people still want to claim it is not legal to call or treat Muslim extremists as "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war"....

The Geneva Convention explains that a "prisoner of war" is a person who always wear a military uniform or some other identifying mark to distinguish them with civilians, a prisoner of war always have their weapons on plain site, and always abide by the rules of war which does not include using civilians as shields, or giving bombs to kids or deranged individuals dressed as civilians and telling them to go towards coalition forces...

Deny ignorance people...

A lot of people are trying to claim "the president is trying to change the Geneva Convention and the laws" yet few people appear to even have read what the Geneva Convention says about "who are prisoners of war"....and unfortunately it includes some people in the military which I can only think have as a motive a political agenda.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in