Breaking News hundred of torture camps found right here in the U.S.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, the technique that I explained was considered questionable even in 1945.

So were do you stand on torture at all?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I suggest you read this.

And I was nice enough to give you a link.

I don't need to do any more research on the matter I've read the full amendment I was nice enough to start an entire thread on breaking down why the McCain amendment is a bad idea it's titled Bush to Support the McCain amendment 1977 and can be found in the todays news section let's have this conversation there so I don't have to repeat everything I've already said another twenty times.

 

[Inuyasha]

Sometimes atrocities are committed because there is no choice. Certainly the Malmedy massacre was an unforgivable act of depraved cruelty but did you know that everyone including us killed prisoners during WWII and in other wars. I have an uncle who has been not well since his service in North Africa. His tank unit ran across some one dozen or so Germans who surrendered but they were gunned down by these tankers. What could they do? They were in the middle of an advance. They couldn't send a detail back to take the prisoners. If they let them go they would have told the Germans where our tanks were and the US soldiers would have been killed. So what do you do? Is this a war crime? Not to me. If it him or me it's going to be him. That's that. But Malmedy was a different story. They could have taken the POWs to a camp even though the Germans were pressed. They had the means to put the US soldiers in a camp. They chose to execute them. That is a war crime and the punishment meted out was relatively nothing.

 

[Saboteur]

Sometimes atrocities are committed because there is no choice. Certainly the Malmedy massacre was an unforgivable act of depraved cruelty but did you know that everyone including us killed prisoners during WWII and in other wars. I have an uncle who has been not well since his service in North Africa. His tank unit ran across some one dozen or so Germans who surrendered but they were gunned down by these tankers. What could they do? They were in the middle of an advance. They couldn't send a detail back to take the prisoners. If they let them go they would have told the Germans where our tanks were and the US soldiers would have been killed. So what do you do? Is this a war crime? Not to me. If it him or me it's going to be him. That's that. But Malmedy was a different story. They could have taken the POWs to a camp even though the Germans were pressed. They had the means to put the US soldiers in a camp. They chose to execute them. That is a war crime and the punishment meted out was relatively nothing.

Oh yes, I know, my father was there on D-Day. You don't need to tell me about the wages of war.

And of course I understand circumstance, I merely brought up the Geneva Convention because it states that anyone taking up arms is a combatant and that if captured they are not really expected to give more than their name, rank and serial numer. Any further interogation is coersion as per that charter. Trajan doesn't want to acknowledge that or tell me his stance on torture. So the fact that I haven't read the full article on 1977 doesn't really matter since this isn't a new approach to the treatment of P.O.W.'s

 

[libertarian_knight]

Actually, the technique that I explained was considered questionable even in 1945.

So were do you stand on torture at all?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I suggest you read this.

And I was nice enough to give you a link.

I've always liked article 2 in that document. It says essentially, even if one party is a jerk, the signatories to the convention get to prove they are better people.

I mean seriously, if the US can't beat these goobers with both hands tied, both legs shackled, and our jaw wired shut, we should give up in shame. If Tiger woods can't beat me with a 60 stroke handicap over 18 holes, he should quit, becuase I suck at golf (I only swung a golf-club for a little bit, one day in my life).

A well timed flutter of our eyelashes at terrorist would blow them out of the solar system. We know we're stronger, that's not in question. It's about proving we a BETTER too.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I've always liked article 2 in that document. It says essentially, even if one party is a jerk, the signatories to the convention get to prove they are better people.

I mean seriously, if the US can't beat these goobers with both hands tied, both legs shackled, and our jaw wired shut, we should give up.

A well timed flutter of our eyelashes at terrorist would blow them out of the solar system. We know we're stronger, that's not in question. It's about proving we a BETTER too.

Since when is AlQaeda a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

The insurgency in Iraq (not the foriegn insurgents) are not considered to be enemy combatants either due to the definition found in article 4 section one sub-section 2 of the Geneva conventions definition of who is entitled to P.O.W. status, they are unlawful combatants and not subject to protection under the Geneva convention, nice try though.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Oh yes, I know, my father was there on D-Day. You don't need to tell me about the wages of war.

And of course I understand circumstance, I merely brought up the Geneva Convention because it states that anyone taking up arms is a combatant and that if captured they are not really expected to give more than their name, rank and serial numer. Any further interogation is coersion as per that charter. Trajan doesn't want to acknowledge that or tell me his stance on torture. So the fact that I haven't read the full article on 1977 doesn't really matter since this isn't a new approach to the treatment of P.O.W.'s

You've practically written more than the entire length of 1977.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Since when is AlQaeda a signatory to the Geneva Convention?

The insurgency in Iraq (not the foriegn insurgents) are not considered to be enemy combatants either due to the definition found in article 4 section one sub-section 2 of the Geneva conventions definition of who is entitled to P.O.W. status, they are unlawful combatants and not subject to protection under the Geneva convention, nice try though.

Why do you ask stupid questions? Al Queda is NOT. The US is. AS IS IRAQ.

There is a standard, the EVEN IF one of the parties to a conflict is NOT a signatory, the signatory is still bound by it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why do you ask stupid questions? Al Queda is NOT. The US is. AS IS IRAQ.

There is a standard, the EVEN IF one of the parties to a conflict is NOT a signatory, the signatory is still bound by it.

Actually we're not due to the fact that provisions were set in place in the third geneva convention to outline who is entitled to P.O.W. status in order to assure that the civilian populace would be protected from collateral damage due to enemy combatants hiding in their midst the insurgency are made up of unlawful combatants and there for not subject to protection under the Geneva Convention:

Geneva Convention
Article 4
1. 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:

A. 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.

B. 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:

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

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

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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.

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

A. 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.

B. 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.

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