It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Originally posted by jjkenobi
This smells like a witch hunt to me - as in Democrats only interested in going after Republicans.
Uh huh. Business as usual. However we're talking about war crimes here, not a case of someone lying about a BJ.
Originally posted by MysterE
Was waterboarding illegal at the time of use?
Originally posted by Highground
WELL. That depends on what the treaty says. The treaty protects lawful combatants. Who we captured were not lawful combatants, by definition. This is most likely what they lawyers were going on when they said it was legal.
I'm kinda sick of the McCarthyist policies the left is taking up now. Aren't THEY supposed to be "above" that?
there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Uh, another believer in either "revisionist history", or not paying attention to the facts.
For the whatever the number is time, Clinton was not impeached over fooling around with Monica. It was over his perjury - lying under oath.
While we're on the subject of Clinton lies, try this one on for size:
Clinton lied, and the 9/11 victims died
Originally posted by Intelearthling
We've all got a choice here in the matter.
Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.
Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.
It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.
If I had it my way, waterboarding would be the mildest thing I could do to these bastard son-of-bitches!
Originally posted by grover
reply to post by MysterE
No it was not. We never had a law passed or a supreme court ruling making it legal nor did we ever withdraw from the Geneva convention which declares it torture... therefore since we were signatures of that treaty then it was the law of the land and still is.
All we had were some hot shot legal stuffed shirts saying that it was OK but that does not change the law which was the Geneva convention treaty.
Once a treaty is ratified by congress and signed by the president it is defacto the law of the land regardless of what some lawyer says... and that doesn't change just because a different party is in power.
IF bush minor had formally withdrawn from the Geneva convention treaty then that would have been an entirely different beast but he did not.
Originally posted by Highground
WELL. That depends on what the treaty says. The treaty protects lawful combatants. Who we captured were not lawful combatants, by definition. This is most likely what they lawyers were going on when they said it was legal.
I'm kinda sick of the McCarthyist policies the left is taking up now. Aren't THEY supposed to be "above" that?
Originally posted by centurion1211
If not already, this will soon describe obama, as well. Forcing business executives to resign? Where is that listed as a presidential power?
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Kernel Korn
Originally posted by jjkenobi
This smells like a witch hunt to me - as in Democrats only interested in going after Republicans.
Uh huh. Business as usual. However we're talking about war crimes here, not a case of someone lying about a BJ.
Uh, another believer in either "revisionist history", or not paying attention to the facts.
For the whatever the number is time, Clinton was not impeached over fooling around with Monica. It was over his perjury - lying under oath.
While we're on the subject of Clinton lies, try this one on for size:
Clinton lied, and the 9/11 victims died
Originally posted by Grimstad
It’s not a political issue, it’s a legal one. Just like Clintons lie.
It in no way compares to McCarthy. That was a purely political issue designed to discredit people based on their alleged affiliations and I believe no one was ever charged with any crimes, only with allegedly being “communists”. A word I see being used a lot lately.
If they were in fact, NOT lawful combatants then they would be subject to the laws of those who incarcerate them, i.e. UCMJ. Unless of course you take the approach that they were actually on American soil (Gitmo) in which case they would be entitled to the same rights we extend to anyone else. Even under the Patriot Act they only lose habeas corpus.
[edit on 30-4-2009 by Grimstad]
Originally posted by MysterE
Was waterboarding illegal at the time of use?
Originally posted by jjkenobi
This smells like a witch hunt to me - as in Democrats only interested in going after Republicans. If anyone were truly interested in justice then EVERYONE who knew or was briefed about the interrogation techniques and did not stop them should be hauled into court. Would include members of the previous administration, a portion of the current administration who held office then, and half of congress now. Great let's do it.
Oh that's right, opinion polls that don't agree with your opinion are either skewed or don't matter.
Originally posted by centurion1211
If not already, this will soon describe obama, as well. Forcing business executives to resign? Where is that listed as a presidential power?
Originally posted by Intelearthling
We've all got a choice here in the matter.
Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.
Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.
It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.
If I had it my way, waterboarding would be the mildest thing I could do to these bastard son-of-bitches!
link
PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.
link
The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."
link
Some perennially high-profile retired CIA officers like Bob Baer, Frank Anderson, and Vincent Cannistraro recently spoke out to Knight Ridder about their opposition to torture on practical grounds (Cannistraro said that detainees will "say virtually anything to end their torment"). But over the past 18 months, several lesser-known former officers have been trying, publicly and privately, to convince both the agency and the public that torture and other unduly coercive questioning tactics are morally wrong as well.
Originally posted by Intelearthling
Waterboard these bastard terrorists; save you childrens' lives.
Use no enhanced interrogation methods; attend your childrens' funeral.
It's clearcut as black and white. There are no areas of grey.
Originally posted by jd140
Why are we so interested in prosecuting those who gave the greenlight for torture now?
The US and other Countries have been practicing torture in every War since the Geneva Convention.
Does it make it right? Not really, but why are we now choosing to enforce the law?