Torture, the gift that keeps on giving...

[Shattered]

Wait.. I wanna know what happens after we "take them to court"...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dear Bully,

I normally refrain from repeating myself, however, you have left little choice in the matter. I used to think that people were being smartass when they said you were a hit and run poster. I am now the wiser.

All your replies were intended to incite and in fact satisfied your liberal rant for the hour.

Here again, is part of my post, which refutes your "theory" that we have even a "moral' obligation to this, for as clearly spelled out, there are exceptions to this rule of deporting to countries known to commit torture, thus, your entire premise if flawed and without merit.




*****waits for shoe from the lib******* hope your aim is better that the guy in portland.....

<blockquote>having been <b>convicted</b> of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the United States;</blockquote>

The key concept here is "...having been convicted of a particularly serious crime...". There may be evidence that the individuals who have been subjected to extraordinary rendition have committed a crime, but none has been presented to show that they have been convicted, and they must have been convicted in order to be subject to extraordinary rendition. Your argument falls apart at this point.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Thats almost funny Bully. Since when has the left ever cared about the Rule of Law?

More than you ever have, apparently.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Wait.. I wanna know what happens after we "take them to court"...

They are tried in a court of law, and if the evidence is sufficient to find them guilty of the crime of which they are accused, they will be punished. That's how courts work dearie.

 

[Yurt]

<blockquote>having been <b>convicted</b> of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the United States;</blockquote>

The key concept here is "...having been convicted of a particularly serious crime...". There may be evidence that the individuals who have been subjected to extraordinary rendition have committed a crime, but none has been presented to show that they have been convicted, and they must have been convicted in order to be subject to extraordinary rendition. Your argument falls apart at this point.

My dear sir, before one opens one's mouth, one should read the FULL text and not cherry pick one word. Notice what is missing from your deduction of what the implementation of the article requires, there is no AND, rather ALL items are an OR.

If you insist on not answering the question, then I will assume that you are full of .... That you have no basis for you presumptions and that you fail to accept reality. Further, you will begin to lose all credibility with me (you have lost it with most members here, and I am beginning to see why).

So, read the "full" text, slowly, then visualize what is being said. Now go back and read it a second time to make sure that you understand what you are replying too. I only ask you to do this, because this is the third time Bully, that I have had to painstakenly point things out to you.

So, I await more "key" concepts from and yearn to hear how my argument is falling apart....

From my earlier post:

) assisted in Nazi persecution or engaged in genocide;
(2) ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the
persecution of an individual because of the individual’s race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion; There is no conviction here Bully

(3) having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, is a
danger to the community of the United States;
(4) is strongly suspected to have committed a serious
nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to arrival;
No conviction here Bully
[B]

or[/B]

(5) is believed, on the basis of serious grounds, to be a danger to
the security of the United States.36 Aliens who have engaged in terrorist activity, including those who have provided material support to terrorist organizations, are considered a security threat No conviction here Bully covered under section 241(b)(3)(B), and are thus removable and excludable from entry into the United States despite facing prospective persecution abroad.37

 

[Bullypulpit]

My dear sir, before one opens one's mouth, one should read the FULL text and not cherry pick one word. Notice what is missing from your deduction of what the implementation of the article requires, there is no AND, rather ALL items are an OR.

If you insist on not answering the question, then I will assume that you are full of .... That you have no basis for you presumptions and that you fail to accept reality. Further, you will begin to lose all credibility with me (you have lost it with most members here, and I am beginning to see why).

So, read the "full" text, slowly, then visualize what is being said. Now go back and read it a second time to make sure that you understand what you are replying too. I only ask you to do this, because this is the third time Bully, that I have had to painstakenly point things out to you.

So, I await more "key" concepts from and yearn to hear how my argument is falling apart....

From my earlier post:

The only reality that I fail to accept is one whereby the govenrment of the United States feels that it can, without compunction or consequence, send anyone it deems a "threat" to this nation into a situation where they are refoulered to another country where they may be subjected to torture with no recourse...With no opportunity to confront his/her accusers...With no contact with any outside agency. This is not the America so many generations have fought and died for. Your willingness to defend the indefensible is truly sad, for it means that the dream of American is dead, and with it the Republic.

Your argument may be sound on legal grounds, but on moral grounds, it is empty, lifeless and dead. And, after all, morals were big on the Republican agenda weren't they? Perhaps y'all need to read those parts of the Bible which deal with morality and justice...You know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you would practice what you preach, this issue would never have arisen.

 

[Johnney]

The only reality that I fail to accept is one whereby the govenrment of the United States feels that it can, without compunction or consequence, send anyone it deems a "threat" to this nation into a situation where they are refoulered to another country where they may be subjected to torture with no recourse...With no opportunity to confront his/her accusers...With no contact with any outside agency. This is not the America so many generations have fought and died for. Your willingness to defend the indefensible is truly sad, for it means that the dream of American is dead, and with it the Republic.

Your argument may be sound on legal grounds, but on moral grounds, it is empty, lifeless and dead. And, after all, morals were big on the Republican agenda weren't they? Perhaps y'all need to read those parts of the Bible which deal with morality and justice...You know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you would practice what you preach, this issue would never have arisen.

well its not a perfect world, otherwise we wouldnt be over there holding so many hands.
but if it saves jsut one American life, tortrue them til the cows come home. cut off body parts and sooner or later they will sing like birds.
whats a matter bully? you think that blanket of security youve been living under came by pleases and thank yous? open your eyes, shut your mouth, and enjoy the feeling yo uget when you can go to bed at night and not worry about someone cutting your throat in the middle of the night for no more reason than you being an American.

 

[Shattered]

They are tried in a court of law, and if the evidence is sufficient to find them guilty of the crime of which they are accused, they will be punished. That's how courts work dearie.

They will be "punished"? How so?

 

[Johnney]

What, no reply for me Bully? was the scenario too muck like thinking of reality for you? Hey come back and visit us sometime when your fantasy world gets too boring!

or when you come down off whatever medication your on

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully - I think you obviously got in over your head here but I would still love an answer to my last question: What Would You Do?

What would I do? Ensure that all detainees were provided due process, had access to counsel, were able to communicate with their families, and were not subject to refouler in the abscence of a criminal conviction in a court of law. It's called doing the right thing. The laws and principles that guided this nation must apply equally to all...Failure to do so is to fail the Republic and everything which it stood for.

The extremes the Adinistraion went to to exclude Taliaban and AlQaeda members from the Geneva Conventions, UN Human Rights Conventions as well as US and international law is unprecedented. The rationales for these actions are tenuous at best and, as I mentioned earlier, are sowing the seeds of a bitter harvest indeed.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully - I think you obviously got in over your head here but I would still love an answer to my last question: What Would You Do?

What would I do? Ensure that all detainees were provided due process, had access to counsel, were able to communicate with their families, and were not subject to refouler in the abscence of a criminal conviction in a court of law. It's called doing the right thing. The laws and principles that guided this nation must apply equally to all...Failure to do so is to fail the Republic and everything which it stood for.

The extremes the Administraion went to to exclude Taliaban and AlQaeda members from the Geneva Conventions, UN Human Rights Conventions as well as US and international law is unprecedented. The rationales for these actions are tenuous at best and, as I mentioned earlier, are sowing the seeds of a bitter harvest indeed.

 

[Annie]

What would I do? Ensure that all detainees were provided due process, had access to counsel, were able to communicate with their families, and were not subject to refouler in the abscence of a criminal conviction in a court of law. It's called doing the right thing. The laws and principles that guided this nation must apply equally to all...Failure to do so is to fail the Republic and everything which it stood for.

The extremes the Administraion went to to exclude Taliaban and AlQaeda members from the Geneva Conventions, UN Human Rights Conventions as well as US and international law is unprecedented. The rationales for these actions are tenuous at best and, as I mentioned earlier, are sowing the seeds of a bitter harvest indeed.

Hell Bully, even the judiciary agrees that the Taliban and Al Queda ops are outside. I guess I've given you credit you don't deserve.

 

[Annie]

Bully, does the highlighted part of the following resonate at all?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041011-085231-5401r.htm

Iwo Jima, if covered by media today
By Zell Miller
Published October 12, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:
DAY 1
With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.
Cutie: "John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you're successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can't be sure this is the truth. What do you think?"
Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."
Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"
Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."
Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"
Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."
Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"
Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."
(A Marine sergeant watching nearby yells, "Ask her what does she want us to do -- sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "
Cutie: "Pfc. Doe, what's that mountain in the background? Is that the one they say is impregnable?"
Pfc. Doe: "I don't know what that word means, ma'am, but that's Mt. Suribachi, and we're going to put a flag right up on top of it just as soon as we can. I gotta go."
Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?" (Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)
DAY 2
At 7 a.m., Cutie's morning show opens with a shot of hundreds of dead bodies bobbing in the water's edge. Others are piled on top of each other on shore. After a few seconds, one can see Marines digging graves to bury the dead.
Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions:
1. Were the Marines properly trained?
2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives?
3. Has the president once again misled the American people?
"After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.
"But before we leave this horrible -- some will say needless -- scene, let us give you one more look at this Godforsaken place where these young Americans are dying. Volcanic ash, cold, wet miserable Marines just thankful to be alive. And still no flag that we had been promised on that mountain. Things have gone from bad to worse in this obviously misguided military operation. One thing is certain, there should be and there will be a high-partisan -- make that bi-partisan -- congressional inquiry into this."
DAY 3
Cutie: "Marines continue to be locked in a life-or-death struggle over this worthless piece of real estate in the middle of the Pacific. The word 'quagmire' is being used in the U.S. Senate, a body very familiar with quagmires. Senator Blowhard has called it 'a colossal military blunder.' And Senator Bombast maintains it was a fraudulent scheme hatched while the president was on his sixth vacation at the Little White House in Georgia.
"The recently organized Senate Squeakers Group may ask for the president to resign. They maintain that politics should not stop at the waters edge in times of war, calling that tradition an old-fashioned idea that has no place in the new century of dysfunctional government. Over forty special interest groups concurred and all issued identical news releases."
"We now turn to our politicalanalyst,James Crankville."
(James):"Cutie,the overnight poll numbers have hit this president right between the eyes. Nationwide, an overwhelming 98 percent said that if possible, they would like to see this country fight a war without a single American casualty. That is nearly the same percentage we saw three days ago when the American public said they would be in favor of going to war if we could win without firing a shot. So, you can see there is a trend developing here that spells trouble for this administration."
"That this president is going ahead with this war is just unbelievable. The witty New York Times columnist, Myscream Loud, wrote in her inimitable fashion that 'The president's policy is as crippled as his legs.' (giggle) Last week she said he had reached the point where no one will 'Fala' him. F-A-L-A, his dog, get it (more giggles)? Has that woman got a way with words! Go girl."
DAY 4
Cutie (holds up front page of the New York Times): "This morning, the New York Times had this photo on the front page. As you can see, the Marines have finally raised a flag on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The fighting is still going on but it looks like this battle is over. We tried to find Pfc. Doe, the young Marine I interviewed that terrible first day, but he was unavailable. Here is Corporal Smith though. (With girlish enthusiasm). "Well, we see that flag flying. It's pretty much over isn't it?"
Cpl. Smith: "Oh, no ma'am, it's not over by any means. We've got weeks of fighting and dying to go yet. This place is a long ways from being secured. But we did get that flag up there and it sure makes us all proud."
Cutie: "I can't tell much from the photo. Their faces are not even visible, making it impossible for us to descend upon any of their families. Corporal Smith, do you know any of the flag raisers? And do you know who ordered it put up there? Did the order come directly from the president for political reasons?"
Cpl. Smith: "All I know is that I heard some colonel put the word out that he wanted 'a flag put up there where every son of a bitch on this island could see it.' Excuse me, ma'am."
Cutie: "We know you've been in the heat of battle so,..."
Cpl. Smith: "Still am, ma'am."
Cutie: "Yes, of course, but it's all over. (Nervous giggle). Except here on Capitol Hill, of course. Corporal Smith, I wonder if you know the gender, race and ethnicity of the group that put the flag up. In other words, did that group 'look like America?' "
Corporal Smith: "Look like America? They are Americans, ma'am. United States Marines."
Cutie: "Any females?"
Cpl. Smith: "No, ma'am."
Cutie: "Any African Americans?"
Cpl. Smith: "I don't know, ma'am. But there is an Indian in Easy Company."
Cutie: "You mean Native American?"
Cpl. Smith: "Whatever, ma'am, I've got to cut out. My outfit is moving on and we've got a lot to do."
Cutie: "And we've got a lot to do here too. Spring training has started and the sun is shining brightly in Florida. But first this word from our sponsors."
Historical note: In one of the bloodiest battles of World War II, when it was said "uncommon courage was a common virtue," 6,000 Marines were killed and 18,000 wounded. Some 21,000 Japanese were killed. The island itself is still barren and only a handful of people live on it. But after it was secured by the Marines, B-29s made over 2,200 emergency landings on it, saving the lives of more than 24,000 crewmen. AP photographer Joe Rosenthal won a Pulitzer Prize for the flag-raising photo. Of the six men in the photo, three were buried in that black volcanic ash, one came out on a stretcher. Only two walked off the island.

 

[Bullypulpit]

NONE of this crap applies to ununiformed terrorists. Get bent, nubbin'.

It did until the Adminstration decided otherwise, in contradiction of over 100 years of adhering to the Geneva Conventions. The Administration decided to create a whole new class of persons, "illegal enemy combatants", in an attempt to place members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the perview of the Geneva Convetions protections for civilians and prisoners of war. The rationale for this rests on the definition of Afghanistan as a failed state. This rationale is specious though since before, during and after the rise of the Taliban, the US position was that Afghanistan constituted a state, and was thus subject to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

By placing the "war on terrorism" outside the Geneva Conventions, US troops could be denied those same protections. This also places US troops at risk for prosecution for crimes any accuser wished to bring against them, including murder. This decision also opens the POTUS to charges of a "grave breach" of the Conventions by other countries and prosecuted for war crimes.

The Administration was warned of these consequences by Colin Powell, William Taft IV, and others. Despite this, the Administration decided to pursue these policies. And we, not they, will be the ones that take it in the neck when all of these chickens come home to roost.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, does the highlighted part of the following resonate at all?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041011-085231-5401r.htm

So what's your point. WWII was a just war by any definition. The invasion of Iraq was not, again, by any definition, a just war.

 

[Bullypulpit]

lol, and meawhile your brother in arms would be feeling the effects of a knife slowly ripping through his throat! your a real sweatheart Bully, I would certainly want you covering my back in this situation!

Extremes the admin went trough to exclude the terrorists? better read the rules of the convention again, they were never covered by it to begin with

Terrorism is a matter for domestic and international law enforcement.

 

[Annie]

So what's your point. WWII was a just war by any definition. The invasion of Iraq was not, again, by any definition, a just war.

Try reading again. Perhaps it's hopeless. Wonder if you would feel differently if it was FDR doing the same as GW? PEST Bully, PEST, seek treatment.

 

[MtnBiker]

International enforcement? that's a beauty, who would you suggest for that?

The UN of course, they are wonderful at such actions.

 

[theim]

So what's your point. WWII was a just war by any definition. The invasion of Iraq was not, again, by any definition, a just war.

By the fact that the cease-fire agreement and I forget how many resolutions were violated, it was just.

 

[Avatar4321]

It did until the Adminstration decided otherwise, in contradiction of over 100 years of adhering to the Geneva Conventions. The Administration decided to create a whole new class of persons, "illegal enemy combatants", in an attempt to place members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the perview of the Geneva Convetions protections for civilians and prisoners of war. The rationale for this rests on the definition of Afghanistan as a failed state. This rationale is specious though since before, during and after the rise of the Taliban, the US position was that Afghanistan constituted a state, and was thus subject to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Excuse me while i bang my head against the wall from the sheer ignorance of this post. :bangheads :bangheads :bangheads

First, the Geneva Conventions was written up after WW2 in 1949. I dont know what kind of fuzzy math you are doing, but 2005-1949 does not equal over 100.

Second, I know this is difficult to grasp because you've been told multiple times. The terrorists are not civilians. You do know the difference between civilians and the guys trying to blow civilians up dont you? its not that tough to figure out.

As for prisoner of war status, the protection of prisoners of war only extends to states that have signed the treaty. Which state do the terrorists fight for? When have they signed any treaties whatsoever? Enlighten us oh great one.

By placing the "war on terrorism" outside the Geneva Conventions, US troops could be denied those same protections. This also places US troops at risk for prosecution for crimes any accuser wished to bring against them, including murder. This decision also opens the POTUS to charges of a "grave breach" of the Conventions by other countries and prosecuted for war crimes.

NEWSFlASH! Al Queda and the terrorists dont follow the Geneva convetion anyway. This has got to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard. If Al Queda captures American troops of course Americans arent protected under the Geneva Convetion. Its a piece of paper that means absolutely nothing to terrorists. dont you understand this?

Im going to try to be very clear here. You cant have a breach of the Geneva Convention when the Geneva Convention doesnt apply to begin with. The Geneva Convention is an agreement between states. There is no opposing state here. Is this really that tough to understand?

Besides which, the Constitution of the United States would not allow the President of the United States to be prosecuted before an international criminal court. The best you could do is prosecute him in American court and Impeach him. Any conflict between the Constitution and International agreement and the Constitution wins.

The Administration was warned of these consequences by Colin Powell, William Taft IV, and others. Despite this, the Administration decided to pursue these policies. And we, not they, will be the ones that take it in the neck when all of these chickens come home to roost.

Bully, this post is just so entirely sad. I hope you are better at your day job then you are at writing arguments.