Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:07 pm    Post subject: "Illegal" American prisons in foreign countries Reply with quote

George Bush admitted today that foreign countries are holding prisoners of war on behalf of the USA (and are likely torturing them - he didn't admit that part).

I can only hope that the methods employed to extract useful information go beyond naked twister (which rarely works as an interrogation technique). I'm sure Michael Ignatieff agrees with me.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No big deal... I think they did the right thing
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know, it almost seems like the only way to beat the enemy is to become what you hate. Shouldn't we in the West hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Just what does torture mean anyway? Does it include sleep deprivation, electro-shock, beatings, drugs, good cop/bad cop? Just what do people mean when they talk about torture? Obviously there is a difference between torture and more humane forms of coercing the information out of someone.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I don't know, it almost seems like the only way to beat the enemy is to become what you hate. Shouldn't we in the West hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Just what does torture mean anyway? Does it include sleep deprivation, electro-shock, beatings, drugs, good cop/bad cop? Just what do people mean when they talk about torture? Obviously there is a difference between torture and more humane forms of coercing the information out of someone.


The Fourth Geneva Convention, Part III, Section I, articles 31 and 32:

Quote:
Article 31
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

Article 32
The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
McGuire





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 369
Reputation: 20.2Reputation: 20.2
Location: Soviet Pictouwestistan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm angry that Bush spilled the beans & admitted their existence. They've been an invaluable tool in the war on terror.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen,

I guess those are good as working definitions, but I hope you realized that a lot of the people is US Custody are not 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions, due in part to their reluctance to visibly identify themselves as combatants.

Of course, the SCOTUS seems to feel differently...
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I don't know, it almost seems like the only way to beat the enemy is to become what you hate. Shouldn't we in the West hold ourselves to a higher standard?


I don't hate our enemy because they torture us. I hate them because they cut our heads off.

Seriously, war is war. And "holding ourselves to a higher standard" costs us lives. When our soldiers have to think twice about everything they do because the left will get their panties in a knot it risks their lives.

Quote:
Just what does torture mean anyway? Does it include sleep deprivation, electro-shock, beatings, drugs, good cop/bad cop? Just what do people mean when they talk about torture? Obviously there is a difference between torture and more humane forms of coercing the information out of someone.


All of the above. Fingernails aren't that important anyway.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Stephen,

I guess those are good as working definitions, but I hope you realized that a lot of the people is US Custody are not 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions, due in part to their reluctance to visibly identify themselves as combatants.

Of course, the SCOTUS seems to feel differently...


Consider the intent of the law. Was the law drafted because we have a special place in our heart for uniformed enemies? Or is the law intended to prevent atrocious acts (torture) committed agains human beings by governments?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geneva convention shouldnt be applied to the ragtag terrorists
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Geneva convention is all well and good if one signatory is fighting another. What about in cases like now when we are basically fighting savages? As someone mentioned, behaders dressed as civilians?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


Notice the last sentence - "if the latter accepts and applied the provisions thereof". In other words, a country is only bound by the conventions if their enemy "accepts and applies the provisions".

So the parties involved in the conflict that are signators are bound by the convention with respect to their "mutual relations". But they are not bound to it with regards to any party that does not accept and apply the provisions.

I discuss it here...

link
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Was the law drafted because we have a special place in our heart for uniformed enemies? Or is the law intended to prevent atrocious acts (torture) committed agains human beings by governments?


The answer is ... both, in a strange sort of way. IMO, the single most important concept to the conventions is the providing sanctuary to civilians. The wearing of the uniform provides sanctuary in that it allows the enemy to distinguish foe from noncom. The requirement to seperate facilities and operations from heavy concentrations of civilians is another form of sanctuary.

The GC also establish rules of engagement, and required treatment of POWs. This part is the 'carrot and stick' - your troops are guaranteed humane treatment (carrot) provided you abide by the conditions that protect your civilians. If you do not accept these conditions, then your troops are also unprotected (stick).

You ask that I consider the intent of the law. I would suggest that taking into account how clearly it differentiates between protected persons and illegal combatants, there is clear intent to not provide protections to violators.

Please keep in mind I'm not advocating purely sadisitic tortures. I just think there are many interrogation techniques and matters of procedure that can be ethically employed against the prisoners, but which would be made unusable by applying Geneva Conventions.

A far more eloquent essay on the matter can be found here (part 1) and here (part 2). Even if you disagree, I think you'll find them very though provoking.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To say there was illegal prisons shows Bush did not have a choice to keep it secert. The Left's media friends have done their best to damge the War effort and causing great mishaps in the homefront. It's damn shameful that folks like Seymore Hersh are exploiting this war for their own personal gain.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


"Illegal" American prisons in foreign countries

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB