Is our president afraid that because we violated the Geneva Convention's rules on torture, he is a war criminal?

Is that why he's trying to arm-twist Congress into passing torture legislation? Even if legislation is passed, it wouldn't exonerate this administration from war crimes that have already been committed.

9/16/2006 3:12:33 AM

You can't just disagree with the president? It has to always be some fucking sinister plot?

He wants to pass this legislation because he believes allowing some methods of "torture" into interogation techniques would help save lives. To me, it depends on the methods. Outright torture is wrong and we should not engage in unless we are absolutely positive the suspect holds information that will save many lives if it is known (like Jack Bauer in 24) but not under normal circumstances. Some of the things that get labeled as "torture" though, really are not, they're just working your criminals for information.

Whether or not you agree with that should be the issue. If you don't, call your congressmen and ask them to vote against the recharacterization. If you do, call your congressmen and ask them to vote for the recharacterization. But shut the fuck up about your stupid war crimes bullshit. This is fucking retarded,

Also, wouldn't it be nice if the people we're not torturing would be so kind as to abide by the Geneva conventions too? Not that that means we should be able to break them, but I'm sick and tired of people like you vilifying the American side of this war when far worse crimes are going on on their side, but you never make threads about the lack of humanity there.

9/16/2006 7:53:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3QsL2hbXI

Quote :

"Turley agreed with Olbermann that Bush's primary motive might be in "covering his own backside." Turley noted that the 14 high level detainees recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay are due to be interviewed by the Red Cross, and that "most people believe that they will reveal that they were subject to water boarding - held under water until you think that you are going to drown - that is undeniably torture under the international standard." "I think that the Administration senses that there is a lot of trouble coming down the mountain," said Turley. See the video from Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" show on MSNBC:"

9/16/2006 10:47:16 PM

Quote :

"Is our president afraid that because we violated the Geneva Convention's rules on torture, he is a war criminal?"

We haven't violated the Gevena Convention. Those motherfuckers aren't legitimate combatants under such protection.

I'm not saying that we should practice torture, and I'm not saying that we should lock people up without charging them, but I am saying that nobody is going down for war crimes.

9/16/2006 11:11:03 PM

Quote :

"Those motherfuckers aren't legitimate combatants under such protection."

What does that mean, they are fake comabants? They dont exist?

9/16/2006 11:21:37 PM

Quote :

"under such protection."

9/16/2006 11:34:57 PM

^^are you that fucking retarded, or just that much of a troll, or more likely, both?

Quote :

"that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I); that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

qualifications of protected persons.

these guys are not lawful combatants. they rank, AT BEST, with spies and mercenaries.

again, i'm not saying that we should say "to hell with them, we can do whatever we want with them!" i'm just saying that they are not legally due much (if any?) protection, and nobody is going down as a war criminal.

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 11:37 PM. Reason : ^^]

9/16/2006 11:36:30 PM

are you are you not making a point then saying it is meaningless? are you not saying that you believe these people should be treated worse then 'normal/lawful' enemies?

the legal shit doesnt matter to fucking anyone. people care about how we treat them. either you think shouldnt or should be tortured any worse then our past enemies, or you believe this is a different situation. which is it?

9/16/2006 11:41:52 PM

Quote :

" the legal shit doesnt matter to fucking anyone"

it matters to someone who might be charged with war crimes. and in this case...no one will be charged with a war crime...

...ya know...since that is what this thread is about

9/16/2006 11:48:24 PM

no shit

9/16/2006 11:49:41 PM

^^^no, read the thread. the thread is about whether or not President Bush is potentially a war criminal (which is a ridiculous proposition), and therefore could be being influenced in his decisions due to CYA factor.

i'm addressing that by explaining why it's an completely silly idea.


second, i'm ok with not treating treating these guys like lawful combatants in some respects, but i'm not on board with torture (unless you count weak-sauce stuff like sleep deprivation as "torture"), and i'm not on board with detaining them indefinitely without bringing charges.

third, the legal shit absolutely does matter. to state otherwise is absurd.

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ^there's definitely someone who's making a point, then saying it's meaningless...and it's not me]

9/16/2006 11:50:56 PM

Quote :

"the thread is about whether or not President Bush is potentially a war criminal (which is a ridiculous proposition"

yes of course, the man could be impeached, but there is no way that our government would ever be able to indict him as a war criminal.

and the legal shit that i was specifically reffering to that does not matter, was the classification of combatants for the purpose of treatment. i would only support torture in the one in a million case where you actually catch someone who has knowledge about a specific attack thats going to happen in the next few hours.

9/16/2006 11:56:52 PM

yeah, that's more or less my position on torture: reserved for one-in-a-million cases.

i'd still argue that the classification does matter. there are priveliges afforded to lawful combatants under international law that I'm totally fine with not extending to these dickheads, but I'm not ok with torture, and I'm definitely not ok with not charging them. If someone is really a shithead terrorist or enemy guerilla/insurgent (as i'm sure the overwhelming majority of detainees are), then fine. They should be dealt with as such. I just hate the idea of somebody stuck in a cell who shouldn't be there.



and I'd also contend that the case for impeaching the President is very flimsy, at best.

9/17/2006 12:04:26 AM

ha, well its about as good as it was for clinton. the case really doesnt matter, it matters how much pressure the opposition party will get from its base. and that will be a lot.

Quote :

"there are priveliges afforded to lawful combatants under international law that I'm totally fine with not extending to these dickheads"

i am still waiting for a reason. all terrorists who have made any kind of impact have had tons of support of nation-states, they are as good as normal mercenaries.

we've paid and supported both bin laden and hussein at one time. are we a sponsor of terror or are they just mercenaries?

9/17/2006 12:11:37 AM

my seething hatred for them isn't because they don't wear uniforms, carry arms openly, or have a distinct chain of command. in these regards, they ARE roughly equivalent to mercs.

it's because of the fucked up things they do that I harbor a special sort of ill will towards them.


if you want, i'll get into specific POW rights that they shouldn't be afforded, but i've gotta go do something else right now

9/17/2006 12:21:46 AM

Quote :

" it's because of the fucked up things they do that I harbor a special sort of ill will towards them. "

killing civilians?

Quote :

" if you want, i'll get into specific POW rights that they shouldn't be afforded, but i've gotta go do something else right now"

no i dont care about that. i am wonder what specific qualities make them different in the important way; the weapons, that they hide, which specific methods?

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 12:25 AM. Reason : sgdfg]

9/17/2006 12:24:07 AM

Quote :

" We haven't violated the Gevena Convention."

The US Supreme Court said we did in the Hamdan case.

9/17/2006 12:39:33 AM

^^i don't care that they hide or that they use any particular weapons. i hate that they target civilians, use civilians as shields, kidnap/torture/brutally execute people, stand in the way of peace (if they want to oppose, that's fine, but not by killing civilians by the hundreds in terror attacks).

9/17/2006 1:03:23 AM

Quote :

"i hate that they target civilians, use civilians as shields, kidnap/torture/brutally execute people"

such is the nature of war. i am fairly sure hiroshima was a city with a lot of civilians. we kidnap. we torture, we execute (we execute our own people, "legally"). they are the wrong side of this fight, they are wrong. but as far as methods go, they dont do anything we wouldnt do, sponsor, have done or would do, to beat our enemies.

9/17/2006 1:10:10 AM

It doesn't matter what we think of them

They must be tried in military courts or civilian courts (Hamdan). Either way there are standards as to how we can treat prisoners.

But it's pretty damn sad that we're so eager to see just how badly we're allowed to treat our prisoners. Six years ago I never would have imagined America being here.

9/17/2006 1:48:06 AM

boo hoo. we incovenienced some terrorists. serves them right. what they were going to do to us is infinately worse than what we're doing to them!

oh wait, i see who made this thread. why did i even bother posting?

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 8:44 AM. Reason : .]

9/17/2006 8:44:28 AM

^while i don't believe that they are due all of the protections of legitimate combatants, their shittiness does NOT give us a blank check.

9/17/2006 2:28:53 PM

Fuck due process, they're brown.

9/17/2006 3:28:26 PM

Quote :

"Those motherfuckers aren't legitimate combatants under such protection."

Well then they are protected under the law model of justice. But since they were apprehended using a war model of justice that just gets confusing

you want them to be legitmate combatants, because if they arent then your hands are more tied when capturing or killing them

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2006 3:35:34 PM

Canadian Was Falsely Accused, Panel Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800883_pf.html

Quote :

" ... Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found. O'Connor concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat. ... "

U.S. war prisons legal vacuum for 14,000
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/in_american_hands

Quote :

" ... Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were "mistakes," U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross ... "

Government is too incompetent to give them a blank slate to torture people. It seems that a significant amount of people are being detained or tortured that aren't guilty of anything. Combine this with that FBI guy saying that most of the leads they were fed from the Echelon/TIA programs were bogus, and it really makes the intelligence system look very corrupt or decrepit.

9/19/2006 1:36:54 PM

if 9-11 had been prevented by torturing a terror suspect would you have supported his torture?

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ? anyone]

9/19/2006 1:39:08 PM

Yes.

Does that justify officially allowing torture? No.

If your dad were accidentally pegged as a terrorist, and tortured, would you support torture?

If one of our soldiers were tortured and it resulted in some sortie being thwarted and the loss of our soldiers lives, is that torture justified?

9/19/2006 1:41:22 PM

I didn't say I supported torture, I was asking a question of everyone



if my dad was suspected,I wouldn't want it to happen,but yeah.. I guess he's gonna get it either way, government doesn't play

and our soldiers aren't tortured over there, they are beheaded and executed

[Edited on September 19, 2006 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/19/2006 1:44:22 PM

We also didn't prevent 9/11 by torturing someone, but I answered the question anyway.

9/19/2006 1:46:49 PM

I know, we didn't torture anyone, nor did we prevent it

9/19/2006 1:48:22 PM

Thank God Duke brought some common sense to this thread.

9/19/2006 1:52:28 PM

Canadian Was Falsely Accused, Panel Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800883_pf.html

Quote :

" ... Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found. O'Connor concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat. ... "

U.S. war prisons legal vacuum for 14,000
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/in_american_hands

Quote :

" ... Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were "mistakes," U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross ... "

Quote :

"Government is too incompetent to give them a blank slate to torture people. It seems that a significant amount of people are being detained or tortured that aren't guilty of anything. Combine this with that FBI guy saying that most of the leads they were fed from the Echelon/TIA programs were bogus, and it really makes the intelligence system look very corrupt or decrepit."

Quote :

"PPart IV : Execution of the convention #Section I : General provisions ARTICLE 147 Grave breaches to which the preceding relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

http://tinyurl.com/ed3xp

If you do not oppose and condemn President Bush and the administration for violating the Geneva Conventions on torture, you are complicit in crimes against humanity and are supporting a brutal war criminal.

9/20/2006 9:44:35 PM

If you do not post on TWW about it, then you are complicit!!!

9/20/2006 9:45:30 PM

^^ You mean if I'm not with you, I'm against you?

That sounds familiar....

9/20/2006 9:48:10 PM

Does anyone here deny that we tortured people?

9/20/2006 10:20:26 PM

just freedom tickling.

9/20/2006 10:21:35 PM

I have no problem with using some forms of torture on people that are without a doubt terrorists.

9/20/2006 11:01:42 PM

I have no problem killing babies.

9/20/2006 11:42:00 PM

Pro-Torture Nazi Appeasement Legislation Passes

Quote :

"H. R. 6054 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW. Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e): `(e)(1) Except as provided for in this subsection, and notwithstanding any other law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action, including an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, against the United States or its agents, brought by or on behalf of any alien detained by the United States as an unlawful enemy combatant, relating to any aspect of the alien's detention, transfer, treatment, or conditions of confinement. SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL. (b) Protection of Personnel- Section 1004 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd-1) shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that-- (1) relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in such section; (2) is grounded in section 2441(c)(3) of title 18, United States Code; and (3) relates to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005. SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY. This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including-- (1) to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001; and (2) to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. "

http://tinyurl.com/nb7pl

I wonder how many people we tortured between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.

Bush and the GOP are admitting to the commission of war crimes.

9/21/2006 12:16:06 AM

Quote :

"I have no problem with using some forms of torture on people that are without a doubt terrorists. "

Very few people do. But the problem is that there are verifiable reports rolling in that they've already screwed up in detaining and torturing innocent people. It REALLY makes us look bad, and incites the terrorists even more.

9/21/2006 1:32:08 AM

torturing people who are without a doubt terrorists is just as retarded as some muslims saying that all americans are guilty when he runs into a building with a bomb on his chest.

neither are solving any problems other than pissing the fuck out of the other side.

9/21/2006 1:34:44 AM

Can we impeach congress yet?

Quote :

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bush or not, the people who are fucking up the country are the ones writing and passing the laws.

9/21/2006 8:39:37 AM

lol

all these democrats are concerned with is winning back some seats so they can impeach a president instead of trying to make this country a better place

9/21/2006 8:47:06 AM

Quote :

"But it's pretty damn sad that we're so eager to see just how badly we're allowed to treat our prisoners. Six years ago I never would have imagined America being here."

Your right, 6 years ago we went about torturing people in secret CIA prisons without a word being spoken. Now we think we deserve more right to disclosure.

I assure you, secret CIA prisons and water torture are not unique to the Bush administration.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 8:53 AM. Reason : typo]

9/21/2006 8:53:11 AM

^anyone that thinks otherwise is a freakin idiot.

9/21/2006 1:43:42 PM

The Bush admin has to be doing something differently though, in the way they're using them.

At the very least, they're the ones announcing to the world that we want to be able to torture people.

9/21/2006 1:53:39 PM

Quote :

"I assure you, secret CIA prisons and water torture are not unique to the Bush administration."

Why should I believe your assurances?

9/21/2006 1:57:36 PM

Because they're true. The press just hadn't made such a big deal about it yet.

But you're right, I don't personally hold undeniable proof. You and salisburyboy win!

9/21/2006 2:00:22 PM

EVERYTHING is more out in the open nowadays...the media has gotten much much bigger over the last couple decades...did Kennedy get the media scrutiny for sleeping around that Clinton did? Hell no...because a lot more stuff was kept in the dark...did Roosevelt get the scrutiny by the media for expecting D-Day that Bush gets for not expecting Iraq's rebuilding to go smoothly? Hell no

People are naive as shit if they think any of these things going on are anything new

9/21/2006 2:02:47 PM

I think this goes beyond the press.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/20/shelton-objects/

Some Joint Cheifs and McCain are voicing their opposition. And some in the CIA were refusing to run the prisons without clarification, for fear of legal problems:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21175608.htm

9/21/2006 2:04:29 PM