Independent panel concludes Bush engaged in torture

[buckeye45_73]

Torture is illegal nationally and internationally.

Those authorize it and who do it in war time are war criminals.

Bush et al are war criminals.

That is why the senior foreign policies don't travel very much, certainly aware of western Europe, Oregon, and Massachusetts as not good places for them to go.

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

Can you read or are you high, which rules do the terrorists follow to allow them those protections...

You do realize the convention was made by legitimate countries(mostly western ones) that set up rules for warfare....follow me so far

Then they said you had to treat people fairly, so again if we have a Brit, German, French, Russian, prisoner than we dont do that much mean stuff to them, but if you are a ......spy.....terrorist....or of a country that doesnt play by the rules.....we dont give you nice treatment when our people are beheaded and tortured (and I dont mean waterboarding) on a daily basis.

 

[Yurt]

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

Can you read or are you high, which rules do the terrorists follow to allow them those protections...

You do realize the convention was made by legitimate countries(mostly western ones) that set up rules for warfare....follow me so far

Then they said you had to treat people fairly, so again if we have a Brit, German, French, Russian, prisoner than we dont do that much mean stuff to them, but if you are a ......spy.....terrorist....or of a country that doesnt play by the rules.....we dont give you nice treatment when our people are beheaded and tortured (and I dont mean waterboarding) on a daily basis.

see post 220 before smarting off

 

[L.K.Eder]

Do I have to kick your ass in every thread.....God you'd think you'd get tired of getting a beatdown..

I just posted the rules on that. I'm not a big fan of international law, but you are......and I posted them.....

The terrorists DO NOT QUALIFY........so therefore the law does not apply to them.

AND even if it did, waterboarding and dog walking are not torture......so go pretend to be a republican on a democratic site where people are stupid enough to believe you.(and yeah I'm hitting that ass evertime, I love to mock fakers)....

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

Can you read or are you high, which rules do the terrorists follow to allow them those protections...

You do realize the convention was made by legitimate countries(mostly western ones) that set up rules for warfare....follow me so far

Then they said you had to treat people fairly, so again if we have a Brit, German, French, Russian, prisoner than we dont do that much mean stuff to them, but if you are a ......spy.....terrorist....or of a country that doesnt play by the rules.....we dont give you nice treatment when our people are beheaded and tortured (and I dont mean waterboarding) on a daily basis.

go away, emo-kid.

 

[Yurt]

rightwinger's title is false

"The nation's highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture," the report said, though it did not name names.

no names were mentioned, thus, the report did not say bush

rightwinger lied

bump for rightwinger who has ignored this about a dozen times now

why is that? does he have no defense and thus admits his title is false?

 

[kaz]

geneva convention does indeed apply to terrorists

Agreed, the terrorists who wear uniforms, carry their arms in the open, are engaged in military operations on a field of combat and so forth as explicitly stated in the Geneva Convention. Wait, ones who do that aren't terrorists...

You can make up a statement, that doesn't make it so.

it applies to those not wearing uniforms as well.

read up on it. look under guerrilla warfare.

Does it? Where? BTW, as I correctly stated, "Civilian" means a "non-combat" role. Here is the Third Geneva convention you're referring to. You still have to carry arms in the open and be identifiable, amigo. Maybe you can point to the specific part:



Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of 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 (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.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 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.
4.1.6 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.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

 

[L.K.Eder]

rightwinger's title is false

"The nation's highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture," the report said, though it did not name names.

no names were mentioned, thus, the report did not say bush

rightwinger lied

bump for rightwinger who has ignored this about a dozen times now

why is that? does he have no defense and thus admits his title is false?

seriously, you yurt on this?

 

[Yurt]

rightwinger's title is false

"The nation's highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture," the report said, though it did not name names.

no names were mentioned, thus, the report did not say bush

rightwinger lied

bump for rightwinger who has ignored this about a dozen times now

why is that? does he have no defense and thus admits his title is false?

seriously, you yurt on this?

are you saying his thread title is accurate when his own link says they mentioned no names?

don't put your horse in his corral LK. don't be a ravi.

 

[Yurt]

Agreed, the terrorists who wear uniforms, carry their arms in the open, are engaged in military operations on a field of combat and so forth as explicitly stated in the Geneva Convention. Wait, ones who do that aren't terrorists...

You can make up a statement, that doesn't make it so.

it applies to those not wearing uniforms as well.

read up on it. look under guerrilla warfare.

Does it? Where? BTW, as I correctly stated, "Civilian" means a "non-combat" role. Here is the Third Geneva convention you're referring to. You still have to carry arms in the open and be identifiable, amigo. Maybe you can point to the specific part:



Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of 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 (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.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 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.
4.1.6 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.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

9 These Articles remove some restrictions imposed by the
G PW and no longer require that combatants wear distinctive clothing as had
been the case under Article 4 of the GPW.

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=iclr

 

[buckeye45_73]

These Articles remove some restrictions imposed by the G PW and no longer require that combatants wear distinctive clothing as had been the case under Article 4 of the GPW.

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=iclr

Well that being the case, what is the point of these laws...you can break em and nothing happens...nice....liberals set up rules, they get broken and all they want to do is make more rules......does that make sense??????

Oh here it is

Articles 43 and 44 clarify the military status of members of guerrilla forces. Combatant and prisoner of war status is granted to members of dissident forces when under the command of a central authority. Such combatants cannot conceal their allegiance; they must be recognizable as combatants while preparing for or during an attack.

Uh if you havent noticed, terrorists dont do that......the DO conceal and are not recognizable.....hence they blow up civilians..

Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited.[5] A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime

Historically, international law of armed conflict addressed traditional declarations of war between nations...but wait there's more!


Now this is where it gets good
These negotiations resulted in Article 3, common to all four of the basic treaties of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Common Article 3 applies to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. It provides limited protections to victims, including:

• Persons taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely (including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention).
• The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

I wonder what that means, what if you DO take parts in hostilities....hmmmmmmm a stunning ommission dont you think?

Again the bold would describe terrorists...man keep on posting, how's that ass kicking?

 

[Yurt]

the only ass you kicked buckeye, is yours

 

[L.K.Eder]

bump for rightwinger who has ignored this about a dozen times now

why is that? does he have no defense and thus admits his title is false?

seriously, you yurt on this?

are you saying his thread title is accurate when his own link says they mentioned no names?

don't put your horse in his corral LK. don't be a ravi.

you want to demonstrate your yurtity by stating repeatedly that the title is not correct because bush did not personally engage in torture?

be my guest.

otoh, watching a speech by bush was torture, meted out by bush personally. i never got close enough to through my shoes at him, though.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i wonder if you guys recognize the double circular reasoning needed to "justify" the "non-torturing" of "enemy combatants".

 

[petro]

I could care less about the supposed rights of an enemy who hides behind civilians, beheads those captured, puts the videos on the net, and is too cowardly to face our troops in combat as they know they would get their asses handed to them. Waterboard the fuck out of them!!!

 

[Yurt]

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

poor buckeye

 

[L.K.Eder]

I could care less about the supposed rights of an enemy who hides behind civilians, beheads those captured, puts the videos on the net, and is too cowardly to face our troops in combat as they know they would get their asses handed to them. Waterboard the fuck out of them!!!

^great american retard

 

[Yurt]

seriously, you yurt on this?

are you saying his thread title is accurate when his own link says they mentioned no names?

don't put your horse in his corral LK. don't be a ravi.

you want to demonstrate your yurtity by stating repeatedly that the title is not correct because bush did not personally engage in torture?

be my guest.

otoh, watching a speech by bush was torture, meted out by bush personally. i never got close enough to through my shoes at him, though.

"yurtity"? wow...you have sunk to a new low. i almost feel bad for you, but you do bring it on yourself with such displays of stupidity.

tell me...RW cited the report as proof of his OP...cite in the report where it says GWB engaged in torture. if you can do that, i will create a thread of your choosing. if not, will you allow me to do the same?

 

[Yurt]

I could care less about the supposed rights of an enemy who hides behind civilians, beheads those captured, puts the videos on the net, and is too cowardly to face our troops in combat as they know they would get their asses handed to them. Waterboard the fuck out of them!!!

^great american retard

yes, yes you are

 

[L.K.Eder]

are you saying his thread title is accurate when his own link says they mentioned no names?

don't put your horse in his corral LK. don't be a ravi.

you want to demonstrate your yurtity by stating repeatedly that the title is not correct because bush did not personally engage in torture?

be my guest.

otoh, watching a speech by bush was torture, meted out by bush personally. i never got close enough to through my shoes at him, though.

"yurtity"? wow...you have sunk to a new low. i almost feel bad for you, but you do bring it on yourself with such displays of stupidity.

tell me...RW cited the report as proof of his OP...cite in the report where it says GWB engaged in torture. if you can do that, i will create a thread of your choosing. if not, will you allow me to do the same?

as i am not reyurted, i can interpret the thread title as a panel concluding that the bush administration engaged in torture. i fail to see the lie. you can start any thread you like, you don't need my permission.

 

[t_polkow]

Gee. What a surprise that the Constitution Project would come to that conclusion:

"...the Constitution Project, an organization that calls for the United States to abandon most of the aggressive, post-9/11 anti-terrorism and anti-crime measures it has undertaken — on grounds that such measures are misguided “government proposals that [have] jeopardized civil liberties.” Specifically, the Constitution Project:

opposes President Bush’s decision to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
opposes “the use of profiling” in law-enforcement and intelligence work alike
holds that state and local law-enforcement agencies should be uninvolved in pursuing suspected terrorists
opposes government efforts to “conduct surveillance of religious and political organizations”
opposes “increased federal and state wiretap authority and increased video surveillance”
calls for the creation of a commission “to investigate the abuse of people held at detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay”....."

Joseph Onek - Discover the Networks


Personally, I have little doubt that we did torture people in the name of "freedom," but I'd prefer such an indictment come from a truly impartial investigation rather than from a group which has an axe to grind and an agenda to advance, wouldn't you?

Bottom line? This is a junk "investigation," the conclusions of which were pre-determined.

It should have been set to the world court in the Hague for investigation and prosecution

 

[Yurt]

you want to demonstrate your yurtity by stating repeatedly that the title is not correct because bush did not personally engage in torture?

be my guest.

otoh, watching a speech by bush was torture, meted out by bush personally. i never got close enough to through my shoes at him, though.

"yurtity"? wow...you have sunk to a new low. i almost feel bad for you, but you do bring it on yourself with such displays of stupidity.

tell me...RW cited the report as proof of his OP...cite in the report where it says GWB engaged in torture. if you can do that, i will create a thread of your choosing. if not, will you allow me to do the same?

as i am not reyurted, i can interpret the thread title as a panel concluding that the bush administration engaged in torture. i fail to see the lie. you can start any thread you like, you don't need my permission.

reyurted... rep for that

so you can't actually cite anywhere in the article where it says bush engaged in torture. you licker, are full of shit.