NationStates Jolt Archive

I am posting this against my better judgement.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=3&u=/ap/us_prisoner_abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Claimed Right to Waive Torture Laws



By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration laid out its legal reasoning for denying terror war suspects the protections of international humanitarian law but immediately repudiated a key memo arguing that torture might be justified in the fight against al-Qaida.

The release Tuesday of hundreds of pages of internal memos by the White House was meant to blunt criticism that President Bush had laid the groundwork for the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by condoning torture. The president insisted Tuesday: "I have never ordered torture."


But critics said the developments left unresolved some questions about the administration's current guidelines for interrogating prisoners in Iraq and around the world. For example, a 2002 order signed by Bush says the president reserves the right to suspend the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war at any time.


"These documents raise more questions than they answer," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The White House is better off coming clean and releasing all relevant and nonclassified documents."


The White House released Defense Department memos detailing some of the harsh interrogation methods approved — and then rescinded — by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003. The administration continues to refuse to say what interrogation methods are approved for use now.


Six soldiers face criminal charges for abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib complex near Baghdad. Another soldier pleaded guilty and received a one-year prison term. The Justice Department (news - web sites) has filed criminal assault charges against a contract CIA interrogator, accusing him of beating a prisoner in Afghanistan who later died.


An Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo argues that torture — and even deliberate killing — of prisoners in the terror war could be justified as necessary to protect the United States. The memo from then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee also offers a restricted definition of torture, saying only actions that cause severe pain akin to organ failure would be torture.


Bybee is now a justice on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals


The Justice Department backed away from Bybee's memo Tuesday. Senior department officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the memo would be rewritten because it contains advice that is too broad and irrelevant. The officials, who briefed several reporters in a widely publicized news conference, said department policy allowed them to demand anonymity.


The White House also released documents detailing some of the most harsh interrogation methods Rumsfeld approved for use on prisoners at the lockup at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:


_Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.


_Removing prisoners' clothes.


_Intimidating detainees with dogs.


_Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.


_Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.


_Shaving detainees' heads and beards.





_Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.

That panel reported to Rumsfeld in April 2003, and its recommendations included prohibiting the removal of clothes, which it said could be considered inhumane treatment under international law. Rumsfeld issued a new set of approved interrogation methods later that month, disallowing nakedness and requiring approval for four techniques: use of rewards or removal of privileges; verbally attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating friendly and unfriendly interrogators in a "good cop, bad cop" method; and isolation.

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves.

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties.

"I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan," Bush wrote. "I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

..Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules...

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves...

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties...

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq...

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

Terrorists are not recognized as civilians of any specific country or uniformed soldiers representing any country because they belong to international terrorists networks, which are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because al-Qaeda has not (and most likely will not) sign the Geneva Convention papers.

Now grow some backbone and realize that in the real world terrorists are not given the star treatment when captured. Information can save lives and I would hardly define those methods as "torture."

..Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules...

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves...

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties...

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq...

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

Terrorists are not recognized as civilians of any specific country or uniformed soldiers representing any country because they belong to international terrorists networks, which are not covered by the Geneva Conventions because al-Qaeda has not (and most likely will not) sign the Geneva Convention papers.

Now grow some backbone and realize that in the real world terrorists are not given the star treatment when captured. Information can save lives and I would hardly define those methods as "torture."


So you are saying it is ok for us to ignore all laws and go rouge? Acts like this will only further hatred for America, and you need to stop being so duncical and see that instead of being such a homicidal maniac.

For a start, Duncical is not a real word.

Right, those things listed above, is NOTHING compared to what those Iraqi's would have done to coalition troops.

It sickens me to see our lads get so much grief for this, you people who oppose these methods and the war. THESE PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST THOSE WHO WISH TO KILL YOU.

The methods listed above is a pretty damn gentle way of getting info, and if that info SAVES lives, then it should be done.

get off your high horse cold hard bitch. Tell you what, go spend a couple of weeks in Saudi, wear and American or British flag......or even just walk the streets in your normal attire....we will see how much respect and tolerence is shown towards you.....assuming of course you don't get captured and then have your head slowly cut off with a four inch blade.

Havnt seen any Germans being beheaded yet, so I'd not be overly afraid.

But then, the Germans and French would rather sit on there asses and let everyone else deal with the problem and then be the first to jump in helping with the lucrative contra.....I mean rebuilding of Iraq.

Point being...there have been some mistakes made by some people with regards prisoner abuse....but NOTHING compared to what Iraqi troops have done....yet all the focus is on the coalition.

War sucks, shit happens, deal with it.

If you claim to be the beacon of the free world then you need to accept that you are being judged by your stated ideals. I can safely say that the US are not fulfilling their role as "leader of the western world" or at least not satisfactory. You're fired.

also 90% of the people being detained are 100% innocent too and arent terrorists and have no information

I aint American, I'm from the UK.

I've never seen the USA as the leader of the free world, I also don't agree with their policies, but at the same time I'm pissed off with do gooder twats like yourselves slagging off our troops.

Those "do gooder twats" as you say are only pissed off at the troops who decide to beat, sexually abuse, and otherwise torture Iraqi citizens. And don't give me that "the Iraqi's would have done the same things to us" crap, as I'm fully aware that they would. The point is that the soldiers in Iraq are supposed to show certain levels of restraint. Most of the prisoners in that prison are there for petty charges as well, not for terrorism. Most of them were arrested for looting.

I find it amazing that while you hate terrorists (as I do), you are quick to defend America's "right" to stoop to their level. I hardly consider all troops to be this way, as I believe that the vast majority of them are doing a great job. But when a few bad apples start torturing, raping, and murdering people, you are quick to jump to their defense.

And stop insulting the guy who posted this. Its not like he wrote it, so whining about how he's a "do gooder twat" is counterproductive.

In this case, CHB, your judgment is just fine.

Here's what ought to scare anyone who cares about the US system of government: [quote="George W. Bush"]I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."[quote]

He's admitting that he believes the President has the right to set aside the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions, whether you agree with them or not, are signed treaties, and as such are the law of the land as per the US Constitution. What Bush's justice department is arguing and Bush is accepting is the idea that the President can usurp the power given to the other two branches--that of legislation and interpretation--unilaterally, and is answerable to no one should he decide to do so. If this is allowed to stand, then Bush is saying that during a time of war (an undeclared war, I might add) he is essentially a dictator.

In this case, CHB, your judgment is just fine.

Here's what ought to scare anyone who cares about the US system of government: I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

He's admitting that he believes the President has the right to set aside the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions, whether you agree with them or not, are signed treaties, and as such are the law of the land as per the US Constitution. What Bush's justice department is arguing and Bush is accepting is the idea that the President can usurp the power given to the other two branches--that of legislation and interpretation--unilaterally, and is answerable to no one should he decide to do so. If this is allowed to stand, then Bush is saying that during a time of war (an undeclared war, I might add) he is essentially a dictator.

Do you happen to know if Congress ratified the Geneva Conventions?

"We're better then the terrorists because they would do worst"
"Then why do you want us to stoop to their level?"
"YOU HATE AMERICA AND ARE UNPATRIOTIC!!!!!11!one!1!!"

Actual conversation I've had :p

Do you happen to know if Congress ratified the Geneva Conventions?According to everything I've seen after a quick search, the US signed and ratified all four of the Geneva Conventions, the last ratification occurring in 1954. The US has not ratified the two protocols of 1977, despite attempts by both President Reagan and President Clinton.

Do you happen to know if Congress ratified the Geneva Conventions?According to everything I've seen after a quick search, the US signed and ratified all four of the Geneva Conventions, the last ratification occurring in 1954. The US has not ratified the two protocols of 1977, despite attempts by both President Reagan and President Clinton.

Well, I just thought that they might have a legal loophole if the Conventions had not been ratified by Congress. Meh.

For a start, Duncical is not a real word.

Right, those things listed above, is NOTHING compared to what those Iraqi's would have done to coalition troops.

It sickens me to see our lads get so much grief for this, you people who oppose these methods and the war. THESE PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST THOSE WHO WISH TO KILL YOU.

The methods listed above is a pretty damn gentle way of getting info, and if that info SAVES lives, then it should be done.

get off your high horse cold hard bitch. Tell you what, go spend a couple of weeks in Saudi, wear and American or British flag......or even just walk the streets in your normal attire....we will see how much respect and tolerence is shown towards you.....assuming of course you don't get captured and then have your head slowly cut off with a four inch blade.

Duncical is a real word, get a real education nitwit.


http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/du/duncical157706.html


Duncical
(a.) Like a dunce; duncish.


We should never sink to their level, This will only make things worse and end any chance we have of doing any good. Get off your high horse and see that fact or just shut up!

Terrorists, who want to impose a Taliban like rule on Iraqi citizens, kill innocent men, women, children, and infants. In return, interrogaters make the terrorists stand naked in the corner with panties on their heads. How exactly is that stooping to their level?

"Criminals do horrible things, therefor police should not be restrained by laws."

Duncical.

Terrorists, who want to impose a Taliban like rule on Iraqi citizens, kill innocent men, women, children, and infants. In return, interrogaters make the terrorists stand naked in the corner with panties on their heads. How exactly is that stooping to their level?

It isn't. It's a duncical (I think I'm in love :) ) exaggeration that saps credence from the side of those who would argue against the suspension of law.

Terrorists, who want to impose a Taliban like rule on Iraqi citizens, kill innocent men, women, children, and infants. In return, interrogaters make the terrorists stand naked in the corner with panties on their heads. How exactly is that stooping to their level?


What happened was a violation of international law and only furthered hatred for America in the region. Do you understand that?

In this case, CHB, your judgment is just fine.

Here's what ought to scare anyone who cares about the US system of government: [quote="George W. Bush"]I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."[quote]

He's admitting that he believes the President has the right to set aside the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions, whether you agree with them or not, are signed treaties, and as such are the law of the land as per the US Constitution. What Bush's justice department is arguing and Bush is accepting is the idea that the President can usurp the power given to the other two branches--that of legislation and interpretation--unilaterally, and is answerable to no one should he decide to do so. If this is allowed to stand, then Bush is saying that during a time of war (an undeclared war, I might add) he is essentially a dictator.
It can be argued, however, that al-Qaeda are not soldiers and aren't uniformed, and are therefore not covered by the treaty. Whatever one's thought about the conclusion of the Justice Department is, it is a sound conclusion.
BTW, I believe that Geneva's language tends to be a bit loose at times. To my best understanding, limited sensory deprivation and such is tolerated, if not accepted, by Geneva.

prisoners have died because of torture

one man was beat about the head with a rifle butt while wearing a hood and soon died from those wounds

it wasn't merely standing naked or being hooded

you fools :P do you honestly think bush has anything to do with this war or this country? NO he couldn't find his way out of a room with 12 unlocked exits. its chaney and his old ww2 vietnam(which he ditched) ideas of damn asians damn eurpians and damn every one else. dont blame bush that fool

Terrorists, who want to impose a Taliban like rule on Iraqi citizens, kill innocent men, women, children, and infants. In return, interrogaters make the terrorists stand naked in the corner with panties on their heads. How exactly is that stooping to their level?


What happened was a violation of international law and only furthered hatred for America in the region. Do you understand that?

Unless you can prove something in my first post about Terrorists not being covered in the Geneva Conventions to be factually incorrect, I am still not convinced that it was a violation of any international law.

Iraqis who have seen and endured Saddam's torture were not as nearly as suprised as sheltered pacifists like you were when the story of Abu Graib came out. The Bush Administration is talking about new interrogation techniques in Guantanamo Bay, not Iraq.


___________________________________________
"We measure the success of a mission by two things: Was it successful, and how few civilians did we hurt. They (Terrorists) measure it by how many. Pregnant women are delivering bombs, and you're talking to me about international laws?! The laws of nature don't even apply here!" - West Wing

also 90% of the people being detained are 100% innocent too and arent terrorists and have no information

How do you figure? Our policy on terrorists is to capture or kill them. Those we don't kill, go to the Gautanamo Bay prison. We only call them "suspected" terrorists because they have not officially been convicted in trial. In reality, there is no doubt in the minds of our soldiers and Marines who capture these pigs on the battlefield that the majority of the detainees are indeed terrorists. Many who have been released from the prison are known to have fled back to Afghanistan and Iraq to rejoin splinter cells of al-Qaeda.

I would also like to note that some of the other prisoners from cuba, who now run free, got off by saying that they did not fight for al-Qaeda, but had been trained in their camps and agreed to spy on other terrorists in the prison.

How do you figure? Our policy on terrorists is to capture or kill them. Those we don't kill, go to the Gautanamo Bay prison. We only call them "suspected" terrorists because they have not officially been convicted in trial. In reality, there is no doubt in the minds of our soldiers and Marines who capture these pigs on the battlefield that the majority of the detainees are indeed terrorists. Many who have been released from the prison are known to have fled back to Afghanistan and Iraq to rejoin splinter cells of al-Qaeda.

I would also like to note that some of the other prisoners from cuba, who now run free, got off by saying that they did not fight for al-Qaeda, but had been trained in their camps and agreed to spy on other terrorists in the prison.

Your lack of reason is astounding. I pity those who deal with you. I only hope that someday your hate will produce something a bit more productive than vemomous bile posted on the 'net.

If there were things approaching facts in your post, I would seek to address them. As it is, I can only shake my head in wonder.

I think when we find a terrorist we should feed him to the hogs. Terrorists do not have any protection under the geneva convention so I think the should be tortured or whatever it takes to get information out of them that could save the life of someone. No other country other than Britian, America, and a handfull of other countries follows the geneva convention so when America soldiers are catured they are submitted to much worse conditions than those at Abu Ghaib.

Terrorists, who want to impose a Taliban like rule on Iraqi citizens, kill innocent men, women, children, and infants. In return, interrogaters make the terrorists stand naked in the corner with panties on their heads. How exactly is that stooping to their level?


What happened was a violation of international law and only furthered hatred for America in the region. Do you understand that?

Unless you can prove something in my first post about Terrorists not being covered in the Geneva Conventions to be factually incorrect, I am still not convinced that it was a violation of any international law.

Here read the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm) for yourself.

Article 3

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.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Unless you can show the prisoners in Guantanamo are not being "detained", the US has violated the provisions of the convention, regardless of their status as POWs or not.

Do you not find it suspicious that Rumsfeld's panel "offered several defenses that interrogators could use if they were ever charged with crimes" (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/prisoner_abuse_dissension_1&printer=1)?

In this case, CHB, your judgment is just fine.

Here's what ought to scare anyone who cares about the US system of government: I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan. I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

He's admitting that he believes the President has the right to set aside the law of the land. The Geneva Conventions, whether you agree with them or not, are signed treaties, and as such are the law of the land as per the US Constitution. What Bush's justice department is arguing and Bush is accepting is the idea that the President can usurp the power given to the other two branches--that of legislation and interpretation--unilaterally, and is answerable to no one should he decide to do so. If this is allowed to stand, then Bush is saying that during a time of war (an undeclared war, I might add) he is essentially a dictator.
It can be argued, however, that al-Qaeda are not soldiers and aren't uniformed, and are therefore not covered by the treaty. Whatever one's thought about the conclusion of the Justice Department is, it is a sound conclusion.
BTW, I believe that Geneva's language tends to be a bit loose at times. To my best understanding, limited sensory deprivation and such is tolerated, if not accepted, by Geneva.The issue has nothing to do with whether or not al Qaeda members are covered by the conventions. The question is whether Bush has the power to unilaterally set aside the law. And the opinion of the justice department notwithstanding, I don't think he does. Neither do any number of legal commentators who have been figuratively screaming "Bullshit!" for the last few weeks.

Is that some Dumb ass American dictionary then?


duncical was not found in the dictionary.


Did you spell it correctly? Here are some possible alternatives:

- damsel
- a damsel in distress

And while I have admitted in my previous posts that mistakes have been made.....i.e A SMALL NUMBER of coalition troops have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable....I object to the level of media intensity focused on this small group which brings the whole coalition force into dis-repute.

I suppose 5-10 Iraq's dying in captivity is far worse than the tens of thousands of people who were tortured, kidnapped, raped and murdered by Iraqi troops over the years.

Once again I reiterate my original comment - this board is fiull of do gooder twats who just don't have a clue about the realities of the situation. I know, lets all hold hands and sing some songs and the bad in the world will just vanish.

why cant u guys all write 1 liners? it would make reading so much easier...

Oh...and so you can see the kind of people who are over there doing a job to protect us......this is from another board where my friend has just been told he is shipping out in 4 days to do a tour in the gulf....

Mixed feelings - Bigtime. Good to be doing something different, scared about going to the Gulf. Good to get more dosh - Don't wanna end up as the star of the next machette wielding terrorist vid. Gutted I'll miss the next rounds of silverstone if i'm out of area at the time - glad it's just down the road if I'm here Pissed off I'll not see my lass for ages - good to be able to save some money up for the wedding. Good to et out of area and back in time for the wedding - scared I might not actually come back.
so yeah a real mixed bag at the mo

A pissup at the weekend woud be ace - but if things keep going as it looks like they will I'll be getting Thursday/Friday off to see my family.
The lads reckon on going out tomorrow or Thursday if I'm still here.

This guy will be risking his life to protect people he doesn't know, to try and help rebuild a country where the majority of people hate him - and all because A FEW soldiers fu©ked up and did some things they weren't supposed too he is now getting slagged off by pacifist knob heads who would rather see our boys die than iraqi soldiers die.

Is it right that the media of our own countries villafy our men and women serving out there just because it's a good story?

Sure SOME troops have done bad things, but what about all the good? what about all the playgrounds they build for Iraqi kids? what about the hospitals being built? what about small things like arranging football matches and trying to restore normality?

No...the media and a lot of you would rather focus on the fact that the US and UK are big bad evil empires - sickens me.

I think when we find a terrorist we should feed him to the hogs. Terrorists do not have any protection under the geneva convention so I think the should be tortured or whatever it takes to get information out of them that could save the life of someone. No other country other than Britian, America, and a handfull of other countries follows the geneva convention so when America soldiers are catured they are submitted to much worse conditions than those at Abu Ghaib.

Then why did Americans plead for geneva convention when terrorists took POWs? Why terrorists should act by the rule when a democratic nation doesn't? Americans were crying out loud when the first pictures of American prisoners of war were shown. Now it doesn't seem to matter anymore. And by the way, how do you know in what kind of conditions captured soldiers are submitted? By walking over international law and the UN Americans are only making it harder for themselves.

Was this not back in 1990-91? When Saddam displayed those men / women and children on TV? remember that small kid he sat on his knee with that "Go on I dare you to bomb me" look on his face?

Is that some Dumb ass American dictionary then?


duncical was not found in the dictionary.


Did you spell it correctly? Here are some possible alternatives:

- damsel
- a damsel in distress


Even if it isn't in the dictionary--and I don't give enough of a shit to take the time to look it up--it's quite possibly a new coinage using the root word "dunce." Therefore, the act of acting like a dunce is to act duncically. Got it?

And while I have admitted in my previous posts that mistakes have been made.....i.e A SMALL NUMBER of coalition troops have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable....I object to the level of media intensity focused on this small group which brings the whole coalition force into dis-repute.

I suppose 5-10 Iraq's dying in captivity is far worse than the tens of thousands of people who were tortured, kidnapped, raped and murdered by Iraqi troops over the years.

Once again I reiterate my original comment - this board is fiull of do gooder twats who just don't have a clue about the realities of the situation. I know, lets all hold hands and sing some songs and the bad in the world will just vanish.A small number of troops have pushed the boundaries of acceptable conduct? Boy, once you latch on to the talking points, you just won't let go. Have you been asleep while all these memos from the Defense Department have been leaked or released, you know, the ones that rationalize the torture of POWs?

1) I do not think it important whether or not duncical is a real word.
2) The title "Pacifists v. America" shows less understanding and more blind jingoism than a small child.
3) Information extracted under torture is surely not going to be very reliable. Maybe I'm being a bleeding heart liberal, but I wouldn't trust what someone says if they're injured, deprived of sleep and suicidally humiliated.
4) Most people, around 90%, under arrest are innocent.
5) SCHTOP! the casual flaming, please.

Regardless of any good/bad we do in the Middle East, we(America) will still be hated.

A) We're not an Islamic state.

B) We support Israel. Even if we were to stop, we "still supplied them with weapons that murder innocent Muslim women and children." Attached to bombs, of course.

Were we justified in the usage of torture in both Iraq and Gautanamo Bay? Morally, according to the standards upheld by the United States Constitution, according to the standards we expect to be treated by others? No. Legally? Possibly.

I repeat a quotation that Daistallia 2104 posted(s/he indictated this was important by bolding it, so I only quote that), and forgive me, but I do not know the HTML code to make it look all snazzy:

"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."

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood that. But I believe it is talking about civilians and disarmed soldiers. When a civilian becomes armed with a weapon s/he is no longer a civilian. And is therefore a soldier/combatant. Un-uniformed, sure, but a soldier nonetheless. Militia, if you will. Like the good ol' boys at Lexington and Concord.

I noticed another part that Daistallia 2104 did not indicate as important, but I thought it was:

"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," which goes on to list the provisions.

I don't believe Iraq nor Afghanistan signed the Geneva Conventions. If I'm wrong, then please correct me. And if that is the case, then if they did not, the "armed conflict" took place in a non-contracting territory(i.e., Iraq). Since Gautanamo Bay IS technically American soil, the rules do apply there.

I quote from http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war-crimes/geneva-conventions/

"Needless to say, it's manifestly unfair to single out the U.S. and Iraq for violations of the Geneva Conventions. Not when you can compile similar lists for China (torture, mass executions, biological and chemical weapons), the former Soviet Union (torture, mass executions, genocide, civilian massacres, assassination, biological and chemical weapons), the current Russia (torture, biological and chemical weapons, trafficking in nuclear weapons), North Korea (torture, executions, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons), Turkey (torture, detention camps, ethnic repression), Pakistan (torture, mass executions, assassination, supporting terrorism, military attacks on civilians, nuclear weapons), Saudi Arabia (torture, supporting terrorism, gender-based oppression), Kuwait (ethnically-based slavery), Chile (torture, mass executions), the Philippines (torture and assassination), Iran (mass executions, religious and ethnic repression, chemical and nuclear weapons), Thailand (torture, child sex trade), Singapore (torture), Malaysia (torture, execution, illegal detentions), Sudan (torture, supporting terrorism, mass executions), the Congo (ethnic cleansing, torture, rape gangs, civilian massacres), South Africa (apartheid, torture, assassinations, civilian massacres), Kenya (gender-based persecution, torture, massacres), Uganda (slavery, child abduction, massacres, rape, child sex trade), Cuba (mass detention, assassinations), Colombia (assassinations, mass executions, civilian massacres, drug trade)..."

Does this excuse us? Of course not.

Does the information extracted by torture save American lives? Undoubtedly. Is there an alternative to torture to get the same information? Undoubtedly. The police force uses alternate methods to torture and manage to do just fine. Is this yet another example of a "few bad eggs?" Undoubtedly. But it is debatable about WHY the soldiers did what they did. I have serious doubts that they woke up one morning and decided that the methods they were using(previous to torture) weren't working. Hey, maybe we'll try that naked pyramid thing.

My personal opinion about the whole situation is this: the soldiers were ordered to do what they did. They were ordered to do it by superior officers and they were just following orders. But then the media caught wind of what happened. And those superiors hung those soldiers, who were just following orders, out to dry. Of course, saying you were "just following orders" is not a valid excuse. Many Nazi's claimed that during the Nuremberg trials, but that's beside the point.

The best example to what I just described above is the movie "A Few Good Men." A similar incident happened there.

We(the United States) were completely morally wrong in the practice of torture on prisoners of an undeclared war, of an unspecified origin, representing no country or armed force, fighting an arm conflict in countries that were not part of the Geneva Conventions.

Oh, and they would do worse to us. :: Throws in the silly argument. ::

If any of the information I have quoted is wrong, then please correct me. I like peaceful debate. I dislike the use of insults, and will not use them on others. Please do not use them on me, or I will have to get nasty. Hey. It's justified. I'm an American.

Hmm. i mentioned this to a fellow non-american concervative because i actually wanted to discuss this...and what was his response?

"the geneva conventions are a load of rubbish."

when he said that, i knew not to go any further in this matter. it really makes you wonder though what some of these people run on.