US Senate Votes To Ban Torture

[martybegan]

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

He crossed the border with guns. So yeah. That's what we would call him were the situation reversed. Sean Hannity would be screaming for "the invader" to be tortured.

Is he being held under criminal charges?

 

[g5000]

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Exactly.

There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.

 

[g5000]

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

He crossed the border with guns. So yeah. That's what we would call him were the situation reversed. Sean Hannity would be screaming for "the invader" to be tortured.

Is he being held under criminal charges?

Please explain what magical quality an "unlawful combatant" has which makes torture not torture.

 

[martybegan]

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Exactly.

There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.

No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.

 

[g5000]

If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?

 

[martybegan]

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

He crossed the border with guns. So yeah. That's what we would call him were the situation reversed. Sean Hannity would be screaming for "the invader" to be tortured.

Is he being held under criminal charges?

Please explain what magical quality an "enemy combatant" has which makes torture not torture.

They are not protected under the Geneva convention, not considered soldiers or POW's, and not afforded any rights a normal combatant gets for being on a side that follows the rules.

The examples given of people being prosecuted for waterboarding were all in cases of either soldiers or US prisoners, both groups which have protections under either international or US law. THAT is the only reason the offenders were prosecuted, not what they were doing, but who they were doing it to.

 

[Claudette]

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?

Apples and oranges. Your reaching big time when you compare a citizen in someone's jail to some one picked up on a battle field.

In answer to your question, you bet your ass I would complain about a prisoner being treated so.

But that prisoner isn't some shitbag jihadist who follows no rules but his own. Far different from a US citizen in a jail somewhere.

 

[martybegan]

If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?

A blowtorch is actually far more effective, but I digress.

 

[g5000]

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Exactly.

There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.

No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.

And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!

Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

 

[g5000]

If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?

A blowtorch is actually far more effective, but I digress.

You evade. Answer the question.

 

[g5000]

Natzi?? No I'm a realist who sees what we need to do and your a bleeding heart idiot who thinks shitbag murderes deserve to be treated like POW's with all the rules that apply.

I find it fascinating you consider Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Richard Burr, and Rand Paul to be bleeding heart liberals, mein fuhrer!

But then again, everyone is to the left of a nazi.

 

[Claudette]

Just another reason we shouldn't be playing by the rules. We should be playing by their rules which is No rules.

Doubt they would like that at all.

 

[Claudette]

Natzi?? No I'm a realist who sees what we need to do and your a bleeding heart idiot who thinks shitbag murderes deserve to be treated like POW's with all the rules that apply.

I find it fascinating you consider Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Richard Burr, and Rand Paul to be bleeding heart liberals, mein fuhrer!

But then again, everyone is to the left of a nazi.

Since I could care less what they or you think its a moot point.

Realist is more like it and its better than being an idiot with his head stuck up his ass doing the "right" thing.

 

[g5000]

Just another reason we shouldn't be playing by the rules. We should be playing by their rules which is No rules.

Doubt they would like that at all.

Spoken like I would expect a nazi to speak.

 

[martybegan]

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Exactly.

There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.

No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.

And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!

Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

The problem is that the unlawful combatants in question are not part of any "state" that has declared war, so these parts don't apply anyway.

Again, the only valid prosecutions you can show are for actions against soliders and civilian prisoners.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?

Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.

and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.

Again the issue is your human rights not your combatant status

Does the US have a right to complain if Venezuela, Columbia or South Africa uses these same techniques on US citizens to obtain a confession?

After all, we are claiming they are not torture

 

[g5000]

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Exactly.

There is no magical quality about torture which makes it not torture just because the victim is an "enemy combatant", a totally invented term for the purpose.

No, it's a defined term under the Geneva conventions, designed to make a side want to follow the rules, or face not being protected by said rules.

And the Geneva conventions forbid the torture of unlawful combatants!

Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

The problem is that the unlawful combatants in question are not part of any "state" that has declared war, so these parts don't apply anyway.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Apparently so. Read it again.

. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

 

[martybegan]

If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?

A blowtorch is actually far more effective, but I digress.

You evade. Answer the question.

Because burning really does cause permanent damage, and doesn't instill the fear of dying waterboarding causes, which is the point of the exercise when trying to break someone.

Plus most interrogation facilities are probably smoke free, so you have that issue to deal with as well.

 

[g5000]

If we can torture an "unlawful combatant" with waterboarding, why can't we burn him with cigarettes?

A blowtorch is actually far more effective, but I digress.

You evade. Answer the question.

Because burning really does cause permanent damage,

So does death. You forget an innocent detainee was tortured to death.

 

[martybegan]

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?

Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.

and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.

Again the issue is your human rights not your combatant status

Does the US have a right to complain if Venezuela, Columbia or South Africa uses these same techniques on US citizens to obtain a confession?

After all, we are claiming they are not torture

It depends on if they were unlawful combatants, and said countries were doing it to get information or for "ha ha's, or to make a point.