You mean like the innocent civilians the Bush admin has kidnapped/ tortured ? You think that putting on a uniform makes you more deserving of human rights somehow ? Why are the civilians OK to torture ?
Evil Captor - George W Bush has accepted teh Lord Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. So then it doesn’t matter what else he does. He’ll be forgiven.
Except that I’m not advocating that we “ignore all the rules”.
I’m presenting my own views here, not those of the White House. I’m saying that I would be OK with interrogation techniques for unlawful (or illegal enemy) combatants that go beyond the Army Field Manual. I have not said that I’m OK with denying them all legal process-- in fact I’m not OK with that. Don’t confuse “disagrees with Evil Captor” with “Agrees with George Bush”. There’s a **lot **of ground between those two positions.
See my post, above, in response to DtC.
It’s not what I think, that’s what the Geneva Convention says.
It all depends on your definition of torture. There are a lot of things that you can’t do to POWs but that still don’t qualify as torture-- like treating prisoners differently depending on which ones cooperate and which ones don’t.
Is it cute?
You’re still creating an arbitrary category of “unlawful combatants.” What does that mean? How do you prove it? How can such a prisoner prove he’s NOT one?
As it stands now, an “unlawful combatant” is anybody who wasn’t wearing a uniform when we attacked them.
Yes.
As i mentionned in another recent thread, people supporting this kind of stuff should watch “The Confession” about the Prague trials. They might come to rethink their opinion about sleep deprivation, stress position, food deprivation, etc… being no big deal. Again, as I mentionned previously, it’s the old fahionned solid beating which is no big deal by comparison with these methods.
It’s not about getting someone slightly tired or hungry, you know…
It’s not arbitrary, and I didn’t create it nor did Bush. It’s been around for a long time, and can be found in the case ex parte Quirin (1942).
The GC (Article 5) tells us what to do (emphasis added):
Note the “should any doubt” phrase. If I catch you in the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia wearing dark tights and a ski mask, carrying a machine gun, I don’t think there’s any doubt about your status. Stil, it leaves a lot of wiggle room. What is a “competent tribunal”, for instance?
Pretty much. I hope you’re not expecting me to defend that.
Any kind of extrajudicial punishment in the form of physical, mental, or emotional pain or discomfort, including the withholding of sustenance or medical care or threat of extrajudicial punishment against one’s self or others or the intentional fear of such extrajudicial punishment.
I know that English isn’t your first language, so perhaps you don’t know that “off” is American slang for “kill” in that context. I’m sure you’ll want to retract your statement after learning that. Right?
I didn’t mean you, DtC, since you are a US citizen. Let’s assume that “you” in the above sentence is a non-US citizen.
That’s not torture – so far as I know, there’s no standard for tastiness for prisoner’s food. In fact, I recall a warden in a prison a few years ago who served recalcitrant prisoners an unappetizing, tasteless “meal loaf” when they got out of line. I didn’t think of it as torture, I don’t think anyone would.
Me, neither. ISTM that it can have enough of an effect on a person’s psyche to constitute torture, so I guess I’d rule it out on general principles.
Yeah, but I’m not talking law, I’m talking ethics. I’m a better human being than you because I don’t believe you can put people through any amount of shit just because they didn’t happen to be wearing a uniform when you captured them.
I would consider fingernail pulling torture. I am not certain that the Bush Admin. is doing it, but given that people are being tortured TO DEATH while in their custody, it strikes me as a moot point – a detour, as it were.
That’s a fair statement.
So, these non-POW prisonners presumably deserve or require such a harsh treatment, according to you. Could you tell us why exactly? Because it has been determined with certainty that they were very evil criminals?
Or because they have been suspected by unknown agents of unknown crimes, rounded up by unknown people in unknown circumstances, to be detained for unknown reasons in unknown places where they’ll be interrogated using unknown methods to get unknown informations about unknown supected plots until some unknown official will determine on an unknown basis that they’ve nothing or nothing more to tell and can face an unknown fate.
That’s pretty convincing…
You should try someday to live in free country where people usually believe in liberty and individual rights. It should be a very enlightening experience to you. Not everybody is accustomed to give a pass to Stalinian methods, you know. Not yet, at least.
But you and many others are making a goo job at rehabilitating these methods, I must admit.
You’re a different human being. Doesn’t make you better. It might make you worse.
Then you shouldn’t have brought it up.
If you want to adress my specific arguments, I’d be happy to debate this with you. As it is, there’s too much straw in that post for me to see where you’ve done that.
clairobsur: I’m still waiting for your response to this post (in reference to the “Yes” in your post #27).
OK. So, I assume these prisonners after having been legally arrested according to warrant based on sufficient evidences, should be made aware of the charges levied against them, should be advised by a lawyer, and then their cases should be brought up to a public court, which, after hearing the case, if it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have informations of extreme importance, would allow the use of torture on them, (torture that would include methods strictly defined by the new “torture code” to be voted by the legislative body), under the supervision of observers, and with the possibility to bring charge against the torturers if they don’t follow the approved torture regulations?
Did I get it right?
The British shared your opinion with regard to IRA suspects. That didn’t stop many bombings and killings over 30 years. In fact it helped radicalise a large part of the NI and the Republic civilian population against the state. They also managed to get confessions from innocent people like the Birmingham Six and the Guilford Four who all spent over a decade in prison before justice was finally done and they were released.
Not only is it morally abhorrent it is also unproductive and potentially damaging in the long run.
I knew it, but didn’t pay attention. I meant that you should consider yourself an evil person.
Forget about the terrorists. The real danger for our democratic countries are people thinking like you. You’re following the same logic that thousands before you who were ready to bring their support to oppressive regimes. You’re undermining the values we’re cherishing. Values that took centuries to establish and defend at great cost.
Terrorists might threaten or harm us. You’re trying to destroy us from within. You’re betraying democracy and freedom.