Bush Admin. Cleared-Again

Southern Man said:
GCIV, Article 5: :pke:
Click to expand...

You neglected to look at GCIII, Article 5.

Among other things it states " If there is a question of whether a person is a lawful combatant, he (or she) must be treated as a POW "until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (GCIII Article 5)."

That ruling was never removed.
 
It sounds like you're the one who needs to read, since you don't seem to know the difference between legit POWs and captured belligerents, and therefore can't begin to frame an argument. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
It sounds like you're the one who needs to read, since you don't seem to know the difference between legit POWs and captured belligerents, and therefore can't begin to frame an argument. :palm:
Click to expand...

I can read and see that the determination is to be made by a "competent tribunal".

Have you found the treaties, documents, and conventions concerning torture that the USA signed?





BTW, first you argued that waterboarding was not torture. Then you argued that we would not torture our own soldiers. Then that the Geneva Convention did not apply to terrorists and enemy combatants. Then that the Geneva Convention allowed special circumstances governing them.

In what direction will you run next?
 
You're running, not I. Bush used enhanced interrogation on terrorists not covered under the GC, so get over it. Yet Obama is using surrogates in Afghanistan for god knows what, yet no whining from you libtards. :lol:
 
Its a cut-n-dry case when the guy's shooting at you from a school full of children or not wearing a uniform, or has just blown up a bus or a market. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
You're running, not I. Bush used enhanced interrogation on terrorists not covered under the GC, so get over it. Yet Obama is using surrogates in Afghanistan for god knows what, yet no whining from you libtards. :lol:
Click to expand...

It was covered clearly. It was covered when our soldiers were waterboarded by the japanese. It has been covered for decades. Calling it "enhanced interrogation" doesn't change what it is, and it is torture.

The lawyers and the people who authorized it say its not, the people who have been thru it say it is. Who do you think is the more reliable authority?
 
Southern Man said:
Its a cut-n-dry case when the guy's shooting at you from a school full of children or not wearing a uniform, or has just blown up a bus or a market. :palm:
Click to expand...

Our soldiers perform covert ops without wearing uniforms all the time.

Someone shooting from a school full of children is an enemy combatant. Someone who has just set off explosives is an enemy combatant.

You are trying to create a strawman argument again.

The people we waterboarded were not shooting from schools and didn't set off explosives.

We thought they knew something that would help us find other terrorists. So we tortured them to get them to talk.

You can make a case that it was justified, as I have said before. But trying to say waterboarding isn't torture or that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them is either ignorant or a lie. Pick one.
 
Originally Posted by Cypress

Personally, I think it has less to do with Bush worship, and more to do with the fact that rightwingers love torture.

As you know from your years of message board experience, many in the rightwing are in favor of waterboarding and abusing prisoners.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Torture is listening to you libtards insist that waterboarding a terrorist is torture. :palm:
Click to expand...


Here's a rightwing radio talk show host, who submitted to waterboarding in an attempt to prove it's not "torture".

How long was he able to endure the waterboarding?

3.5 seconds

After which, crying like a baby, he made them stop waterboarding him.

What did he say after 3.5 seconds of waterboarding?


Mancow: "My God, that was horrible! It was way worse than I thought. It is absolutely torture!"

 
Southern Man said:
His opinion, just like mine is having to read spineless liberal shit.
Click to expand...

And your opinion is formed from information from the people who approved the torture (so they have a vested interested in making you think its not torture) and people on conservative talk radio who have no clue.

And you ignore the badasses who have been waterboarded and say its torture.


:good4u:
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
the problem with the need to identify unlawful combatant is you're putting that power in the hands of a government. governments need to make everything unlawful or they can't control the populace.
Click to expand...

Exactly right, that is why the Geneva Convention requires that the determination be made by a military tribunal. And its a good idea.

But the fact that we signed a treaty saying we would not torture people does sort of cover that anyway.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, my opinion is based on standard definitions of the word.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
Date: 1540
1 a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining



The first definition fits perfectly. (from Merriam-Webster)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top