http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13416407.htm

Ummm...he started it and I guess should finish it. The transparency just got opaque.

Heh, I didn't miss the point. It's just that the topic of whether torture is right or wrong is a lot more interesting.

It's clear that Pelosi and Co. knew all about what was going on. I've honestly given up on trying to point out the facts about these power-mad liberals. People just want to believe what they WANT these politicians to be (which is what the politicians describe themselves as). The facts be damned.

It's a sad state of affairs, really.

Did you expect them not to be ?
Politicians have a strong tendancy to be self serving scum no matter which party they belong to .

It isn't really , what is interesting is watching people try and justify the unjustifiable .
It appears you have difficulty with the meaning of the word FACT

Actually, you do. The facts of what I said can be proven, as the posts are here for all to see. In fact, I even quoted myself as proof, and have made the facts apparent.

This is yet another abject failure to cover up your errors in the discussion.

Aramike - There is that saying that one should never argue with an idiot, because he will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience. There is another that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Now - the facts are simple - an interrogation tactic was used that is - by the current legal definition - one of torture. However, the people that it was used on do not enjoy the legal protections of the treaty defining such acts, nor do they fall under the protections of any ratified convention or the U.S. Constitution. If anyone doubts this - then I challenge them to put up a link to a US ratified treaty in which the terrorists organizations in question were a signatory, or a US Supreme Court decision stating that non-signatories to treatys and conventions shall be extened their benefits.

It can't be done.....

Also - it has been stated that the UCMJ or other military guidelines specifies how terrorists should be dealt with. Again - show me. The UCMJ, and related Geneva Convention articles stipulate how to deal with captured government civilians and military personnel of an enemy NATION. The UCMJ also puts forth a strict code of conduct for armed services personnel themselves. This is why convictions and article actions against the individuals have been ONLY under the articles of personal conduct. Again - show me I'm wrong..... Not one conviction has been for an article violation regarding the treatment of the prisoners involved itself, but rather the personal conduct article was violated by said acts.

If one were to be intellectually honest, then if the GC covered every combat situation and theatre, then the house to house, forced entry searches, etc still done today would violate the GC rules. This idea that the GC covers everyone and everything, everywhere, is pure bollox spewed by those who might WISH it did, but are apparently under no desire to learn the reality.

Its nice to sit here and bandy semantics and say "well this and well that" - but if you really want to be given some level of credibility in your arguements, you need to either put up, or shut up. Saying "well so and so who was there said such and such" - is, under the law - hearsay. So, instead of saying something is or isnt true, or that a treaty in this case does apply, show us the reality so you have something more than 3rd, 4th and 5th party hearsay that happens to agree with your point of view.

This isn't the first time I have issued such a challenge, and I fully expect that it will be again avoided because after all - the truth isn't whats important to some. For some, "fact" is subjective.

Now - sure the Dems knew what was going on. But whats important is that this entire witch hunt is an attempt to find a way to CREATE the vietnam quagmire all over again for political benefit. Take away the tools that work, hobble those that keep you safe, so that you can say "well we can't win so we have to lose".....

One last comment - politicians are by nature hypocrits. Thats why I have moved forward with my own POTUS run - you may not agree with me all the time, but at least you know I will tell you the way I see it every time - not give you some smoke and mirrors and a smile. The American people deserve that.

BTW - I am fully aware that the previous administration stated that "we don't torture" - and that was a boldfaced lie. I don't try to hide or obfuscate that point. Whats done is done.

Terrorists insurgents and non state parties are covered under common provision 3 of the Geneva convention , it was the first time s
uch people became fully covered as earlier treaties only covered "terrorists" acting under the recognised governments . It was signed and ratified by the US , hey they even helped draw it up .
So by asking for a treaty signed by terrorists you demonstrate that you also are woefully inadequate in your knowledge .
Also of course the Declaration of Human rights while not a binding treaty is obligatory on all signataries in regards to all people .
Actually that stuff predated Geneva , it goes back to the Hague conventions , Geneva just built on those .forced entry , search and siezure and fighting in civilian areas ...terms and conditions apply .


OK for someone who doesn't redefine torture
Redefining
redefining
Supporting redefining
redefining
Again
And again
And again
yet again

You are right Aramike , I was wrong , you haven't attempted to redefine torture at all repeatedly throughout the topic .
Its lucky you oppose that torture , becasue if you only opposed some torture and supported other torture then your only way forward would have been to attempt to redefine the torture you liked so it wouldn't be torture .

Testimony. Yesterday.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/

The point of which being....?

Okay, I'll - yet again - break this down for you into something more simple and suited to your abilities.

Quoting my own statements:That's not "redefining" something, as you like to claim. That's stating my opinion on the matter.Seriously? You think saying that I'm okay with limited applications of torture redefines the word?

You can't be serious (but I'm afraid you are). Not smart.I've already clearly stated (in this very quote, even) that I'm referring to the legal definition - not the definition of the word.

Get it straight.Again, how is this "redefining", as I gave no alternative definition?

Do you know what the word "redefine" means?Posting a bunch of quotes and typing "redefining" after them doesn't make it true. It just makes you look foolish in that you clearly don't know what the term means.Who said I opposed torture? I specifically said that I am for some applications of torture under specific circumstances.

The word "torture" encompasses a lot of things. Breaking those things down and being specific as to what applications I'd find acceptable is not "redefining" torture.

That's about as stupid as saying that if I were to prefer a certain model of car, that means I approve of ALL models of cars.

Silly.

Regarding how much Congress knew, and when, I think it's important to read this. An article by someone who knows the systems in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/op...ed=2&th&emc=th

Posted it earlier, but might as well quote it.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...ured-to-death/ - An article from a reporter who has been researching this for 5 years

Matt Taibbi echoing something that I've seen quite a bit of.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009...orture-is-fun/

Aramike, the line is perilously close to you.

Nice try - but the "testimony. yesteday." comment linked to the testimony of one guy regarding his witnessing of "torture" and its effectiveness.

As it has been pointed out - one guy's OPINION isnt fact, especially when the vast majority of those involved have stated it has been effective. Still - it was a noble try.

Now - regarding Common Article 3 - it states:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

.... - this is the relevant portion.
However - one important part - territory of one of the High Contracting Parties - is often glossed over. Sorry - but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan qualifes under those terms. Was this war being waged on US soil, it would be a different matter - the GC would apply. But its not - so this is why they cannot claim GC protections.

Still - a solid attempt to put out out utter bullcrap in the hope some dumb schmuck might believe it. Might want to check talking points before you repeat them though....

I will deal with the dhr when I return from work this eve.

That wasn't opinion, it was a sworn testimony. A statement of what that person witnessed.

Can you support that claim?


What is the difference between this person's apparent "OPINION" and these other people who are "stating" it wasn't effective?

You are drawing one statement as opinion and another as fact, as suits your argument.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Nice try , one ever so slight teensy weensy little enormously huge gaping great problem with what you have written there though , as the GC does apply which means your latest attempt was total bollox, Afghanistan and Iraq are both high contracting parties :doh:, even if they were not America was occupying those territories so as a high contracting party they still apply to the occupying power.
You really should apply your own words to what you write as it really was a classic example of a solid attempt to put out out utter bullcrap in the hope some dumb schmuck might believe it. :rotfl:
You had better deal with the conventions first .


That was sarcasm , we know you support torture but feel slightly uncomfortable that it is unjustifiable so attempt to redefine what it is