NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/ts_nm/guantanamo_canadian_dc;_ylt=AvRqaY2Pmdd7Dj4JFali8vpg.3QA

For all of you that claim the Administration doesn't torture and that claim that it's effective (How would you know if you don't torture? Even against the mounting evidence that it ISN'T effective). Here's the evidence pointing otherwise:

Khadr said he gave "answers that made interrogators happy" to protect himself from further harm, but the information was untrue."

Effective, huh? Don't torture, huh?

its the administrations favorite way of explaining things.

like when alberto gonzales denied knowing anything about the firings of the us attorneys but said they were all done for cause and besides they didnt need any cause to fire them.

In before "Why do you IslamoFascists hate freedom?"

But really, keep in mind that waterboarding was part of the charges levelled against Japanese Officers at the end of World War 2 that resulted in their execution. For the Shrub Administration to come out with a complete 180 and say that waterboarding isn't torture speaks volumes on this group.

In before "Why do you IslamoFascists hate freedom?"

But really, keep in mind that waterboarding was part of the charges levelled against Japanese Officers at the end of World War 2 that resulted in their execution. For the Shrub Administration to come out with a complete 180 and say that waterboarding isn't torture speaks volumes on this group.

Sadism is an ugly thing.

I think you can ask any intelligence officer and they'll tell you unanimously that torture isn't effective. It's pretty obvious that someone would say anything to stop the torture.

But forceful interrogation is another thing. I do believe that people can be coerced to provide information. What's the line? Waterboarding -- ban it. Sleep and sensory deprivation -- is that okay?

"when Khadr was 15"

So it's it also OK to use forceful interrogation techniques on a child too? :(

"when Khadr was 15"

So it's it also OK to use forceful interrogation techniques on a child too? :(

Why do you hate freedom?!

"when Khadr was 15"

So it's it also OK to use forceful interrogation techniques on a child too? :(Suspects of terrorism aren't humans, duh.

Why do you hate freedom?!
Because I don't get paid enough, nor have a free supply of chocolate. I also blame the corrupting influence of Pablo Picasso. And Ruffy.

Suspects of terrorism aren't humans, duh.
I keep forgetting that fact, sorry.

"when Khadr was 15"

So it's it also OK to use forceful interrogation techniques on a child too? :(

Thoughtcrime doubleplusungood.

The Movie "Rendition" really explains the effectiveness of torture.

That's sickening... this boy was just a child :(

But not surprising from USA... the country which used two atomic bombs, napalmed a whole country, has an habit of replacing democratic president with dictators in latin america, and support terrorists like Luis Posadas Carriles... USA is as much the "land of freedom" as I'm a monk.

The Movie "Rendition" really explains the effectiveness of torture.

Or the lack thereof.

I think you can ask any intelligence officer and they'll tell you unanimously that torture isn't effective. It's pretty obvious that someone would say anything to stop the torture.

But forceful interrogation is another thing. I do believe that people can be coerced to provide information. What's the line? Waterboarding -- ban it. Sleep and sensory deprivation -- is that okay?

I saw a show on the history channel about the history of interogation and torture.

An american pilot who was shot down in world war ii talked about the most effective interogator that he met. He said that some tried more brutal methods. This guy would give him schnapps and cigarettes and befriended him and took him on long walks. In casual conversation one day eh asked the pilot why soemtimes american fighters would fire white tracer rounds. The pilot told him that that meant that that(sorry about all the that's) gun was down to 50 rounds of ammo. The interogator then changed the topic. it was only later that the pilot realized what ahd happened.

I think that is how we should go about it. throw in some tougher interogation to get them to like the nice ones even more.

That's sickening... this boy was just a child :(

But not surprising from USA... the country which used two atomic bombs, napalmed a whole country, has an habit of replacing democratic president with dictators in latin america, and support terrorists like Luis Posadas Carriles... USA is as much the "land of freedom" as I'm a monk.

While I would agree with almost everything on your list, the first one I think is too uncertain to place. As terrible as it was, I don't know that I would say it was the wrong thing to do. It may have been a necessary evil at the time. In addition, those proved to be the only times the weapon was used (probably because of what happened those two times) and I don't know if the full effects on human beings were known at the time.

As for everything else, yes. The U.S. was wrong to do those things without question.

Sadism is fun.

Fixed ;)

Wow, if Omar Khadr, a member of an unapologetic family of terrorists who killed an Army medic trying to help him said it, it must be true. It's not like his leftist lawyers could tell him exactly what the weak minded want to hear. They should let him go! Along with the other poor innocent victims in Gitmo.

Wait, you mean the Bush administration is consitantly full of shit? Wow.

Wow, if Omar Khadr, a member of an unapologetic family of terrorists who killed an Army medic trying to help him said it, it must be true. It's not like his leftist lawyers could tell him exactly what the weak minded want to hear. They should let him go! Along with the other poor innocent victims in Gitmo.

1- Guilt by association. Assuming what you said to be true.

2- "Ohh, the damn lefties want to prevent us from getting our jollies through torture!" is getting old. It's not about being "leftist", as if that were an insult, it's about basic human decency.

3- Why not? The military judges the Administration you fellate had to be dragged kicking and screaming to set up there already DID free a lot of them after, y'know, a TRIAL.

Yeah and what was it? It was I think 17 innocent inmates that were released and recaptured on the battlefield about two years ago, I imagine that number has gone up some.

And the system if broken because they are still alive. They have zero rights under the Geneva Convention and they certainly don't have the rights of an American citizen.

So damn concerned about the rights of genocidal terrorists.

Yeah and what was it? It was I think 17 innocent inmates that were released and recaptured on the battlefield about two years ago, I imagine that number has gone up some.

And the system if broken because they are still alive. They have zero rights under the Geneva Convention and they certainly don't have the rights of an American citizen.

So damn concerned about the rights of genocidal terrorists.

Yeah, you see, you're wrong. You have no idea about how reality actually works.

You didn't even know who Khadr was. I'm assuming he comes from a family of terrorists? Mmmm. Even the average Canadian would know that much. Which says right away that you know nothing about Gitmo and the inmates there, since he is one of most infamous.

Forgive me if I ignore you.

Forgive me if I ignore you.

I forgive you for being ignorant, but you should strive not to be so.

Yeah and what was it? It was I think 17 innocent inmates that were released and recaptured on the battlefield about two years ago, I imagine that number has gone up some.
Source it.

How do people not know this stuff? I mean this is basic knowledge.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/07/27/1185339258055.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

You just think about that when you get up your superiority trip. These were prisoners who they judged to not be a threat and it turns out, guess what, wrong. So if you are still there, it's pretty obvious there is a damn good reason for it. Even if it's not been brought out in a trial, being that it's so confusing how people with no rights are supposed to be given trials.

How do people not know this stuff? I mean this is basic knowledge.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/07/27/1185339258055.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

You just think about that when you get up your superiority trip. These were prisoners who they judged to not be a threat and it turns out, guess what, wrong. So if you are still there, it's pretty obvious there is a damn good reason for it. Even if it's not been brought out in a trial, being that it's so confusing how people with no rights are supposed to be given trials.

Funny. Here I'd think that being an innocent man and being imprisoned without a trial would be pretty fucking good reason to want revenge. These terrorists were CREATED by the method you espouse.

Wow. So they quite coincidently became terrorists because they were held for a time in Gitmo?

Priceless. Sounds like the new ideology in the Western world.

How do people not know this stuff? I mean this is basic knowledge.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/07/27/1185339258055.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

You just think about that when you get up your superiority trip. These were prisoners who they judged to not be a threat and it turns out, guess what, wrong. So if you are still there, it's pretty obvious there is a damn good reason for it. Even if it's not been brought out in a trial, being that it's so confusing how people with no rights are supposed to be given trials.

People with no rights?
:confused:

Wow. So they quite coincidently became terrorists because they were held for a time in Gitmo?

Priceless. Sounds like the new ideology in the Western world.

No, not "quite coincidently", but rather, for revenge for destroying their lives.

Funny. Here I'd think that being an innocent man and being imprisoned without a trial would be pretty fucking good reason to want revenge. These terrorists were CREATED by the method you espouse.

For a realist, he's failing to see the reality that:Half of the inmates have been released. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6241123.stm)

Not so damn sure about their guilt, are we now?

People with no rights?
:confused:

There aren't people with no rights, but HSH seems not to grasp even the most basic concept of Law.

For a realist, he's failing to see the reality that:Half of the inmates have been released. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6241123.stm)

Not so damn sure about their guilt, are we now?

The guy is to a realist like a map of Middle Earth is to geography of our world.

There aren't people with no rights, but HSH seems not to grasp even the most basic concept of Law.

I could understand it if he had said people with limited rights, I mean they are being held on a military base and thusly could be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, but no rights?

I could understand it if he had said people with limited rights, I mean they are being held on a military base and thusly could be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, but no rights?

Plus they have all the human rights in the Human Rights Declaration and, yes, in the Geneva Convention.

Plus they have all the human rights in the Human Rights Declaration and, yes, in the Geneva Convention.

Very true, I was just thinking of reduced rights in comparison to a U.S. citizen outside of the military. Unless HSH can provide with some at least quasi-rational explanation for "no rights" comment I'll just file a mental note to the effect of "HSH is an idiot about terrorists".

How do people not know this stuff? I mean this is basic knowledge.

Basic knowledge, yet only 7 is the official number, so your own "basic knowledge" is flawed. That's what I wanted you to show. :)

Also, note how a majority of the released never were a threat, a danger, or presented a need to be at Guantanamo at all in the first place...

Oooh, the mistakes being made are whopping, and Guantanamo is only counterproductive today.

Wow. So they quite coincidently became terrorists because they were held for a time in Gitmo?

Priceless. Sounds like the new ideology in the Western world.

So clearly if I put you in a box for 2 years, beat you regularly, you'd love me.

Hold still while I bring the electrodes.

Sure you did Graven. It's not like you had no clue as to the real situation.

Nothing like the willfully ignorant folk. Have you even looked at the Geneva Convention qualifications?

There is criteria that has to be met and it's already been well established that they meet none of it, much less all of it. They have ZERO RIGHTS.

Sure you did Graven. It's not like you had no clue as to the real situation.

Nothing like the willfully ignorant folk. Have you even looked at the Geneva Convention qualifications?

There is criteria that has to be met and it's already been well established that they meet none of it, much less all of it. They have ZERO RIGHTS.

Even IF that were true, which it isn't...

Do you know what the word UNIVERSAL in the UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights means?

I'll give you a hint, it doesn't mean the human rights in Jupiter or the "rest of the universe".

Nothing like the willfully ignorant folk. Have you even looked at the Geneva Convention qualifications?

There is criteria that has to be met and it's already been well established that they meet none of it, much less all of it. They have ZERO RIGHTS.

Lovely straw man by a lovely ignorant torture addict. By this criteria, namely the ignorant stance of yous, the moment you leave America, you have zero rights. I do hope you take a trip abroad one day.

Straw man?

Tell me exactly how terrorists meet the criteria to be considered a POW? This wasn't even in discussion for 60 years until the U.S. starting taking lots of terrorists as prisoners.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/POW.HTM

I don't recall any kind of outrage at all for how American prisoners were treated in Korea or Vietnam or even those taken in Desert Storm. What hypocrites the rest of the world is really.

No, of course it's not effective. But no matter what name you give it or what methods you choose to use, there is never a guarantee that the information will be accurate, and it is most probable to false. Consider this:

you are a Taliban official who is being interrogated, no force is being used, you are offered freedom and possibly a monetary reward if you give the interrogator/s information that they view as useful.

Your first reaction would be that, as a patriotic man/woman, you should give them false information thereby attaining; your freedom, possible funds to be used for Taliban activities, you now know the techniques of American (or otherwise) interrogators, you are able to keep your sense of honour by lying and so not betraying your beliefs.

So in that case, non-torture methods are shown to be ineffective. In the following case, I will examine the effectiveness of torture/physical intimidation or abuse:

Same situation as before, you are a Taliban official ho has been captured,this time however, your interrogators are beating and humiliating you (Abu Ghraib anyone?). Your first instinct, as it would be for anyone in your situation, is to make the pain and humiliation end. So what do you do? You lie, you tell them what you think they will believe and what they will want to hear. This allows you to attain; your freedom, knowledge of their interrogation techniques, you are able to keep your honour and your beliefs intact.

So you see, no method of interrogation is effective, at least, not with the technology available today. Lie detectors are nowhere near accurate, being both easily fooled and often accusing innocent people( I'd be pretty nervous if FBI agents beat me and connected a lie detector to me)

Straw man?

Tell me exactly how terrorists meet the criteria to be considered a POW? This wasn't even in discussion for 60 years until the U.S. starting taking lots of terrorists as prisoners.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/POW.HTM


Whether they are POWs is not the question. They are most certainly human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights).

They are also most certainly persons (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/) and please note that the 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that "no person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Not "citizen". Person. Now, care to prove how people in Guantanamo Bay are neither "humans" nor "persons"?

I don't recall any kind of outrage at all for how American prisoners were treated in Korea or Vietnam or even those taken in Desert Storm. What hypocrites the rest of the world is really.

Of course you don't recall any of that. How the hell would you? You were yet to be born during either Korea or Vietnam and I'm pretty sure you're not nearly old enough to remember a thing about Desert Storm, if you were even alive at the time.

It's the same logical leap as a creationist arguing against the big bang by going "gee, I don't recall the earth forming slowly over billions of years...". And it's just about as intellectually dishonest too.

of course you "don't recall" it. You weren't fucking born yet.

Whether they are POWs is not the question. They are most certainly human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights).

They are also most certainly persons (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/) and please note that the 5th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that "no person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Not "citizen". Person. Now, care to prove how people in Guantanamo Bay are neither "humans" nor "persons"?



Of course you don't recall any of that. How the hell would you? You were yet to be born during either Korea or Vietnam and I'm pretty sure you're not nearly old enough to remember a thing about Desert Storm, if you were even alive at the time.

It's the same logical leap as a creationist arguing against the big bang by going "gee, I don't recall the earth forming slowly over billions of years...". And it's just about as intellectually dishonest too.

of course you "don't recall" it. You weren't fucking born yet.

Ouch. ;)

The constitution protects American citizens, that is not in dispute.

And I am a big history buff Neo. When I say, I don't recall, I mean I have not read about any non-American movements during either one of those conflicts that ever made any kind of big deal about the brutal conditions that American POW's faced, nothing even close to the kind of critics and movements that have to do with accusations about Gitmo.

So basically you are trying to divert attention from that fact by attacking my age so you don't have to actually argue the point right? Or are you actually claiming that there was widespread outrage and political movements against the North Vietnamese government because of the way they treated prisoners?

That might work for the weak minded like Heikoku who didn't even know who Omar Khadr was, yet still felt informed enough to talk about the innocence of Gitmo inmates, but that kind of nonsense doesn't work on a realist.

Point is that this big outrage about Gitmo is pure hypocrisy and the demand that rights be given to terrorists after they received none from other governments for decades makes world opinion something to yawn at.

The constitution protects American citizens, that is not in dispute.

1- You're arguing the law with a lawyer.

2- Again, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS STILL APPLIES!

Once more, with feeling:

EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS STILL APPLIES!

snip

To be fair, what he said wasn't false, it was just misleading.

The US constitution does apply to US citizens. However, it also applies to anyone else on US soil, whether they are there illegally or legally.

In a limited fashion, it also applies to US citizens and residents abroad, but again, only in a limited fashion.

To be fair, what he said wasn't false, it was just misleading.

The US constitution does apply to US citizens. However, it also applies to anyone else on US soil, whether they are there illegally or legally.

In a limited fashion, it also applies to US citizens and residents abroad, but again, only in a limited fashion.

Misleading and a shoddy attempt at a restriction that goes directly against the wishes of his forefathers, you mean.

It's as useless as the United Nations.

No one on earth has ever acknowledged the that as a guideline for prosecuting terrorists.

Misleading and a shoddy attempt at a restriction that goes directly against the wishes of his forefathers, you mean.

Perhaps, but he'd have to have made his intentions clear. He didn't say "It doesn't apply to non-US citizens"

In that case, he would indeed be lying and more than just misleading.

(as an aside: People have used the universal declaration of human rights to try terrorists, see Spain, who has laws based on the declaration).

The constitution protects American citizens, that is not in dispute.

...did you just not read what Neo Art wrote and declared, on that basis, that there's no dispute?

And I am a big history buff Neo. When I say, I don't recall, I mean I have not read about any non-American movements during either one of those conflicts that ever made any kind of big deal about the brutal conditions that American POW's faced, nothing even close to the kind of critics and movements that have to do with accusations about Gitmo.

So what? Perhaps America is held to a higher standard. Perhaps the treatment of American POWs in Vietnam has jack shit to do with the treatment of Gitmo prisoners because, ya know, the US is not Vietnam.

Point is that this big outrage about Gitmo is pure hypocrisy

No, the outrage is a genuine humanitarian opposition to torture and killing people for fun.

Maybe it doesn't outrage you. Maybe the human pyramids and such tickles you pink. But to most of us in the free world that sort of thing is not acceptable conduct.

and the demand that rights be given to terrorists after they received none from other governments for decades makes world opinion something to yawn at.

And you call yourself a "realist?" You can't even, apparently, read.

The constitution protects American citizens, that is not in dispute.

Then why does the constitution sometimes say citizen and sometimes say person? You're quite right the constitution protects citizens, among other people.

But the 5th (and 14th) doesn't justsay citizen, does it? No, no it says person. And to claim that the constitution only protects citizens is patently false. Even non citizens are afforded certain rights. The right to counsel at a criminal trial, the right to be given Miranda warnings, the right to a jury trial, the right to free speech and freedom of religion.

To try and argue otherwise is not only to be factually wrong, but laughably ignorant.

When I say, I don't recall, I mean I have not read

Funny how those two things don't mean even remotely the same thing don't they?

about any non-American movements during either one of those conflicts that ever made any kind of big deal about the brutal conditions that American POW's faced nothing even close to the kind of critics and movements that have to do with accusations about Gitmo.

Then this:

And I am a big history buff Neo.

Is demonstrably false

So basically you are trying to divert attention from that fact by attacking my age

No, I am pointing out that your age makes certain claims you have made utterly invalid. For example, you didn't say "I don't recall reading about" you said "I don't recall". You can pretend you meant to say "read about" and not trying to create a false, misleading, dishonest, and, frankly, cowardly suggesting that you spoke on any degree of authority of first hand experience in events you are far too young to have witnessed. You can claim that this is what you meant all along and were not trying to pretend to know something you didn't.

But you'd be lying. Just as you were lying about being around to 'recall" the events of any of those three wars. And I felt it appropriate to point that fact out to everyone

Terrorist combatants who are captured in war zones are not protected by the U.S. constitution and anyone that says they are knows nothing about it, which is usually the case anyway.

And I'm so sorry for not using specific words to state that I have not read about any such movement and if you can prove me wrong, please feel free to do so, but I think you know that I'm 100% right. I'm not going to spend 10 pages arguing over the proper phrase to use.

Terrorist combatants who are captured in war zones are not protected by the U.S. constitution and anyone that says they are knows nothing about it, which is usually the case anyway.

Said the torture-wanker, trying to argue about the law with a lawyer.

It's as useless as the United Nations.

tsk tsk, I suggest you read Article VI

Said the torture-wanker, trying to argue about the law with a lawyer.

So a "lawyer" is stating that U.S. constitution applies to enemy combatants in foreign wars?

Wow. Actually, I wouldn't be shocked.

Terrorist combatants who are captured in war zones are not protected by the U.S. constitution and anyone that says they are knows nothing about it, which is usually the case anyway.

Uh huh. Where's your law degree from, by the way?


And I'm so sorry for not using specific words to state that I have no read about any such movement

You're not sorry you used the wrong words on accident. You're sorry you tried to claim some firsthand knowledge you don't have, and got called on it, thus leaving you scrambling to come up with some BS explanation of "what I meant to say ..."

So a "lawyer" is stating that U.S. constitution applies to enemy combatants in foreign wars?

Wow. Actually, I wouldn't be shocked.

But they are not counted as enemy combatants, if they were they would be accounted POW status under the Geneva convention, in which case the US would have the right to ask them their name and military designation. You cry on alot about 'at war with terrorists', yet you can't even follow rules for that.

So a "lawyer" is stating that U.S. constitution applies to enemy combatants in foreign wars?

Once those enemy combatants enter land that is subject to the US jurisdiction?

You better fucking believe it.

As does the Bush administration, which has been the primary impotus of the justice department's nonsensical argument that Gitmo is not "subject to US jurisdiction" because it's "leased land" and not US territory.

Even though it's a fucking military base.

Uh huh. Where's your law degree from, by the way?

You're not sorry you used the wrong words on accident. You're sorry you tried to claim some firsthand knowledge you don't have, and got called on it, thus leaving you scrambling to come up with some BS explanation of "what I meant to say ..."

You are saying that only a person with a law degree can read or understand the consitution?

And also you are claiming that by using the phrase, I don't recall in a post that I was claiming to be 80 years old?

To be clear and not drag this out. I meant clearly that I had not come across any such movement in anything that I have ever read about either war, despite the atrocities being widely known.

You are saying that only a person with a law degree can read or understand the consitution?

I AM saying that just about anyone can understand the Constitution better than you do, and a lawyer in particular.

You are saying that only a person with a law degree can read or understand the consitution?

No, I'm sure a person of reasonable intellect and a respectable amount of integrity and an unbiased motivation can read the constitution in an objective and rational mannor.

That, however, is not you.

And also you are claiming that by using the phrase, I don't recall in a post that I was claiming to be 80 years old?

You said you "don't recall" specific events of the Korean War. You could not possibly recall something from a time frame from whic you did not exist.

Now I don't know if you were directly trying to claim you were 80 (which by the way, there are people in their 60s who are quite capable of remembering events from the Korean war, oh great historian who is not sure how long ago 1950 was) or were just trying to pull a fast one by trying to pretend to have some first hand knowledge you do not have, and can not have.

But either way, you failed.

To be clear and not drag this out. I meant clearly that I had not come across any such movement in anything that I have ever read about either war, despite the atrocities being widely known.

Which, as I said, refutes any claim of yours to be any kind of serious student about american history.

You never heard the name Hanoi Jane?

Snip.

Neo, finish him off, will ya? I gotta go to bed.

Straw man?

Tell me exactly how terrorists meet the criteria to be considered a POW? This wasn't even in discussion for 60 years until the U.S. starting taking lots of terrorists as prisoners.

They are human, and subject to human laws, including those regarding the treatment of prisoners.

If you want to throw out these laws merely because you feel that you don't like them, then conversely, I can throw out laws against murdering and stab you multiple times.

Now I don't know if you were directly trying to claim you were 80 (which by the way, there are people in their 60s who are quite capable of remembering events from the Korean war, oh great historian who is not sure how long ago 1950 was) or were just trying to pull a fast one by trying to pretend to have some first hand knowledge you do not have, and can not have.

But either way, you failed

Which, as I said, refutes any claim of yours to be any kind of serious student about american history.

You never heard the name Hanoi Jane?

Well if it isn't Mr. Serious. What a piece of work you are. 80 was just a number, I wasn't specifically giving a the minimum age I thought would remember the era. What a tool.

And exactly what does Hanoi Jane have to do with outrage over the way the Vietnamese or Koreans treated prisoners?

Hanoi Jane went there and said that prisoners were all being treated well like a damn fool and you somehow can relate that to the international movements against Gitmo?

Neo, finish him off, will ya? I gotta go to bed.

Well if I must then I must. Let's look at a few cases, shall we? I know how to do that, cause, you know, I"m a lawyer and all. As to the question of whether the US constitution applies to non citizens...lesse...ok, here we go.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (U.S. 1886)

In the pioneer case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court said of the Fourteenth Amendment, 'These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; . . . .' 118 U.S. 356, 369.And in The Japanese Immigrant Case, the Court held its processes available to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." 189 U.S. 86, 101.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 771 (1950)(emphasis added).

The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic. A resident, alien born, is entitled to the same protection under the laws that a citizen is entitled to. He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. . . . The contention that persons within the territorial jurisdiction of this republic might be beyond the protection of the law was heard with pain on the argument at the bar -- in face of the great constitutional amendment which declares that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 213 (U.S. 1982)

aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271 (U.S. 1990)


You're done here child.

And exactly what does Hanoi Jane have to do with outrage over the way the Vietnamese or Koreans treated prisoners?

Hanoi Jane went there and said that prisoners were all being treated well like a damn fool and you somehow can relate that to the international movements against Gitmo?

Mr. Student of History, let me ask you this.

Do you know WHY people called her Hanoi Jane?

Because she went to North Vietnam to support our enemies and did a bunch of propaganda broadcasts for the communists.

Because she went to North Vietnam to support our enemies and did a bunch of propaganda broadcasts for the communists.

you mean...people were angry with her for making propaganda posts like "they're not being tortured?"

You mean...people knew americans were being tortured? And found that her refusal to admit they were being tortured amounted to support of our enemies?

Gee, it would seem people were very upset about the torture of US soldiers to the point she was protested against for suggesting otherwise...

Actually it was more because she went on the radio for the communists to dishearten the U.S. soldiers and of course her picture taken with the AA battery. Hardly just because of the prisoners.

The fact that she called American POW's a bunch of liars when they said were tortured was one of many reasons. Yes, people everywhere heard the stories about prison conditions and it certainly wasn't on the agenda of world opinion and all these massive demonstrations like Gitmo.

I don't understand how you would compare this to an international movement to hold the North Vietnamese accountable for their treatment of prisoners that makes Gitmo into a spa. If you are trying to equate that to this, then you are not redeemable at all.

Because she went to North Vietnam to support our enemies and did a bunch of propaganda broadcasts for the communists.

I didn't know about her, good on her!

you mean...people were angry with her for making propaganda posts like "they're not being tortured?"

You mean...people knew americans were being tortured? And found that her refusal to admit they were being tortured amounted to support of our enemies?

Gee, it would seem people were very upset about the torture of US soldiers to the point she was protested against for suggesting otherwise...

Are you denying that they were being tortured? Or are you saying it was a GOOD thing because they were Americans. Your opinion is twisted and wrong either way.

Are you denying that they were being tortured? Or are you saying it was a GOOD thing because they were Americans.

I suggest you take the time and effort to figure out how to read if you believe I was stating either one.

How you could derive that from my statement is beyond me.

I suggest you take the time and effort to figure out how to read if you believe I was stating either one.

How you could derive that from my statement is beyond me.

Maybe you should state things in a less confusing manner. Btw, what were you trying to say?

Maybe you should state things in a less confusing manner.

To be truly frank, if you are:

1) an english speaker, and;
2) sober

and had bothered to read that interchange, i can't imagine how you would be confused

Btw, what were you trying to say?

I'm trying to say exactly what I said. It would seem people were very upset about the torture of US soldiers to the point she was protested against for suggesting otherwise.

So to suggest, as HSH has, that there was no outcry against the torture of US soldiers during vietnam, is patantly, demonstrably, and utterly false

To be truly frank, if you are:



So to suggest, as HSH has, that there was no outcry against the torture of US soldiers during vietnam, is patantly, demonstrably, and utterly false


I never said that, if you are trying to refer to me as well as HSH, you're wrong. If not, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I never said that

and, no offense, but I wasn't directing my comment about her to you, I was directing it at him..

and, no offense, but I wasn't directing my comment about her to you, I was directing it at him..

I wasn't too sure. Sometimes people talk about another persons opinion to make a point about yet ANOTHER person. Ah well, at least that misunderstanding is out of the way.

I wasn't too sure. Sometimes people talk about another persons opinion to make a point about yet ANOTHER person. Ah well, at least that misunderstanding is out of the way.

my point was, in general, that to claim that there was no outcry against the treatment of US soldiers in vietnam, which he has claimed, is entirely false

Just to clear things up, the Article 4 of Geneva Convention:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


Said insurgents/terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere could potentially be protected under Geneva convention POW rules if they fulfilled descriptions number 2 and 6.

Clearly, the insurgents in Iraq and Gitmo do not qualify as Militia because:

i. They do not have a discernable sign, uniform, or identification as militia, so as to differentiate militia from civilians.

ii. Do not carry arms openly, but rather hide them among women and children (despicable)

The Insurgents in Gitmo and Iraq do not qualify as Geneva-protect fighters in description number 6 because:

i. They do not respect the laws of war, with no Rules of Engagement (ie they behead captured civilians, which is AGAINST the Geneva convention)

Therefore, said Gitmo/Iraq insurgents are treated as spys under the convention, and can be dealt with as a nation sees fit.

Why should the US risk its soldiers by tying the soldiers' hands behind their back with strick ROE when their enemies fail to uphold even the most basic tenants of the Geneva convention? To protect our ideals? Tell it to the soldiers who died because Washington denied their fire support...

P.S. The article above I think you'll find is accurate, retrieved from http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/genevacon/blart-4.htm

Therefore, said Gitmo/Iraq insurgents are treated as spys under the convention, and can be dealt with as a nation sees fit.

That's nice. Are they persons? Yes? Then the way this nation "sees fit" has already been pretty well articulated by the 5th amendment.

This has already been done, I quoted 4 supreme court cases to that effect.

Try to keep up.

That's nice. Are they persons? Yes? Then the way this nation "sees fit" has already been pretty well articulated by the 5th amendment.

This has already been done, I quoted 4 supreme court cases to that effect.

Try to keep up.

Are the people living in Tibet persons? They must be protected under our Constitution as well! Quick, lets give the freedom of speech!

Need I remind you of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. The executive can do what it must during war. Maybe you should consider yourself lucky that some president like Lincoln isn't indefinitely incarcerating you for "psychologically hindering the war effort," ala Hanoi Jane? ::headbang:

Are the people living in Tibet persons? They must be protected under our Constitution as well! Quick, lets give the freedom of speech!

Need I remind you of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. The executive can do what it must during war. Maybe you should consider yourself lucky that some president like Lincoln isn't indefinitely incarcerating you for "psychologically hindering the war effort," ala Hanoi Jane? ::headbang:

1- Gitmo is YOUR territory, and if you're of the opinion that the US should stoop to China's levels regarding human rights, you are not an American.

2- That Lincoln suspended habeas corpus was, even at the time, a bad decision. He was a great man, but he wasn't a perfect man. And selling your soul for some perceived safety is the ONE thing you shouldn't do in a war, especially because it's ineffective.

3- At the time, the US was being INVADED. FULLY.

4- No, he shouldn't consider himself lucky that he's being treated like a human being. Here I thought you liked America. Small tip: Freedom of speech is America too.

5- I highly doubt that veiled threats to try to shut your opponent up will work on Neo, and I'm certain that they won't work on me. Now either cut it off and take us on in a decent way that doesn't make you sound like a sadistic, megalomaniac child, or leave this debate for us adults. Seeing you in action has been, so far, a joke.

I don't recall any kind of outrage at all for how American prisoners were treated in Korea or Vietnam or even those taken in Desert Storm. What hypocrites the rest of the world is really.
I'm sure that's an omission of convenience. I think the settlement that allowed tortured ex-POWs to be paid out of Iraqi assets is still pending disbursement.

To be perfectly fair, the prisoner's assertion that he's innocent shouldn't be taken as evidence that he is; at least not the kind of evidence the OP thinks it should be taken as.

To be perfectly fair, the prisoner's assertion that he's innocent shouldn't be taken as evidence that he is; at least not the kind of evidence the OP thinks it should be taken as.

Neither should the official's assertion that he's guilty, not without due trial.

Neither should the official's assertion that he's guilty, not without due trial.

Agreed, and I didn't suggest anything like that. But you did claim that "this is the evidence" that shows that torture is ineffective, and that's just not true. If there is evidence showing that torture is ineffective (and I believe there is), it's elsewhere.

Agreed, and I didn't suggest anything like that. But you did claim that "this is the evidence" that shows that torture is ineffective, and that's just not true. If there is evidence showing that torture is ineffective (and I believe there is), it's elsewhere.

Not to mention unethical, but, to be fair, I didn't mention it before either.

Sure you did Graven. It's not like you had no clue as to the real situation.
That is correct. I consider myself well-informed, so it's fun to see you make mistakes.

Nothing like the willfully ignorant folk. Have you even looked at the Geneva Convention qualifications?

There is criteria that has to be met and it's already been well established that they meet none of it, much less all of it. They have ZERO RIGHTS.
Wrong.

To quote HRW (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm):
POWs receive the full protection of the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. POWs may not be tried for the mere act of being combatants, that is, for taking up arms against other combatants. However, they may be prosecuted for the same offenses for which the forces of the detaining power could be tried, including common crimes unrelated to the conflict, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as "unlawful combatants" or "non-privileged combatants, " although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions. Such persons are still protected under the Geneva Conventions, but under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."
...and the ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument):
Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.


Also, let me just mention José Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29) to show how far the government is willing to go.

That's sickening... this boy was just a child :(

But not surprising from USA... the country which used two atomic bombs, napalmed a whole country, has an habit of replacing democratic president with dictators in latin america, and support terrorists like Luis Posadas Carriles... USA is as much the "land of freedom" as I'm a monk.

Don't do that, really. The use of the atomic bombs was the fastest and least damaging way to end the war, we could kill 500,000 American soldiers and 1,000,000 Japanese solodiers, or we could kill 200,000 Japanese civilians, you have to understand that in a time of total war, one has to desensitize themselves to anything but sheer numbers, and as for the after effects (radiation, etc.) we had no way of REALLY knowing what was going to happen, we only had a few years of limited experience with the technology. As for the napalming of a whole country, I'm assuming that that's in reference to the Vietnam War. Please realize that we had made a commitment to uphold a democratic Vietnamese state some 15 years before the war, when we arrived it was simply our mission to maintain defenses for the South Vietnamese so that they could begin launching an offensive against the North, that never happened, the South Vietnamese were so preoccupied with the VC that the forgot about the NVA, in doing that, they pulled us into a Jungle Guerilla war, something we were not prepared for (we assumed we'd be fighting the NVA). We couldn't handle the situation from a man-to-man perspective so we used the best conventional weapons we had at the time, that was Napalm, which is used for clearing thickly wooded areas, yes it was used against infantry, but the majority of it was used for it's traditional purpose, and the vast majority of the country remained unburnt, and, if you'll remember, the French did just as much damage as we did, before we got there.

As far as "replacing democratic presidents with dictators in latin america", it's caleld Cold War politics, get over it. The same goes for Carilles, it was the Cold War, he was anti-Castro, so were we, we're not proud of it, but it seemed the right thing to do at the time (we would've liked to just invade Cuba and be done with it, but we couldn't risk Soviet intervention in a war in the Western Hemisphere)


And, here it comes, the traditional WWII card, ready, here we go, YOU STILL OWE US, ENJOY THE RIGHT TO BE A CANDY-ASS, BECAUSE WE'RE THE REASON YOU'VE GOT IT, SHUT UP ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AND DON'T INSULT MY COUNTRY, I DON'T INSULT YOURS!

I suggest you take the time and effort to figure out how to read if you believe I was stating either one.

How you could derive that from my statement is beyond me.

Well, he COULD be higher than a kite.

It's really, really funny to watch all the torture nuts try vainly to defend an outdated and ineffective method of interrogation. It really is.

It's really, really funny to watch all the torture nuts try vainly to defend an outdated and ineffective method of interrogation. It really is.

It isn't. It WOULD be if it weren't a sobering reminder of what some people "think".

Terrorist combatants who are captured in war zones are not protected by the U.S. constitution and anyone that says they are knows nothing about it, which is usually the case anyway.


*sigh* Im so fucking sick of you saying this over and over and over.


SCOTUS says they are, and I guess they know nothing about the Constitution. Rasaul V Bush. Fucking read it. This is probably the 19th time in debates like this Ive brought this up to you. It says that terrorists combatants are given rights under the Constitution, such as right to an attorny, etc.


So, once again, you are ignorant, Mr. Realist.

I saw a show on the history channel about the history of interogation and torture.

An american pilot who was shot down in world war ii talked about the most effective interogator that he met. He said that some tried more brutal methods. This guy would give him schnapps and cigarettes and befriended him and took him on long walks. In casual conversation one day eh asked the pilot why soemtimes american fighters would fire white tracer rounds. The pilot told him that that meant that that(sorry about all the that's) gun was down to 50 rounds of ammo. The interogator then changed the topic. it was only later that the pilot realized what ahd happened.

I think that is how we should go about it. throw in some tougher interogation to get them to like the nice ones even more.



I saw this as well. Its the Good Cop/Bad Cop thing. Id like to think that if its effective for police officers all over the country that the CIA could use it to great effect.

*sigh* Im so fucking sick of you saying this over and over and over.


THE MOSTLY REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED SCOTUS says they are, and I guess they know nothing about the Constitution. Rasaul V Bush. Fucking read it. This is probably the 19th time in debates like this Ive brought this up to you. It says that terrorists combatants are given rights under the Constitution, such as right to an attorny, etc.


So, once again, you are ignorant, Mr. Realist.

Fixed for driving home the point. ;)

It's really, really funny to watch all the torture nuts try vainly to defend an outdated and ineffective method of interrogation. It really is.

:(

It's not, really. Not so long as the torture nuts are dictating U.S. policy.

Don't get me wrong, I know what you mean -- it's definitely absurd.

Of course torture is effective! Hey, didn’t we see Jack Bauer, on “24,” get his burger his way after attaching electrodes to the poor schmuck at the counter of Burger King?

When Jack Bauer loses his keys he just starts torturing everyone in the vicinity until he gets his keys back. Does it work? Yes and no. He ends up with half a dozen sets of keys, but none of them actually fit the doors of his home or car. That's the effectiveness of torture.

Of course torture is effective! Hey, didn’t we see Jack Bauer, on “24,” get his burger his way after attaching electrodes to the poor schmuck at the counter of Burger King?

When Jack Bauer loses his keys he just starts torturing everyone in the vicinity until he gets his keys back. Does it work? Yes and no. He ends up with half a dozen sets of keys, but none of them actually fit the doors of his home or car. That's the effectiveness of torture.

Your post is hilarious for two reasons:
1) Very good analogy IMHO.

2) There is a number between five and seven. It's called SIX (6)! And it's not ONLY the result of a division of two other numbers.

Seriously, does six (6) exist anymore?

When Jack Bauer loses his keys he just starts torturing everyone in the vicinity until he gets his keys back. Does it work? Yes and no. He ends up with half a dozen sets of keys, but none of them actually fit the doors of his home or car. That's the effectiveness of torture.

Well, there go my hopes of winning this thread...

When Jack Bauer loses his keys he just starts torturing everyone in the vicinity until he gets his keys back. Does it work? Yes and no. He ends up with half a dozen sets of keys, but none of them actually fit the doors of his home or car. That's the effectiveness of torture.
Sigged (with your permission). :)

Sorry, Heikoku, this one's the winner. :D

Sigged (with your permission). :)

Sorry, Heikoku, this one's the winner. :D

I could tell. ;)

We do torture and we all know it. It would simply be bad form to admit to it. Also, torture is effective when dealing with a person that would be willing to spend a lifetime in prison to protect someone or something because you can torture them and they will give you false info just to save their skin but if you keep finding out it's BS and keep coming back they'll figure out that the torture isn't gonna stop unless the info is true and eventually they will give the truth.

Well, there go my hopes of winning this thread...

*proclaims Heikoku the winner, anyway, and gives him an ice cream cone*

We do torture and we all know it. It would simply be bad form to admit to it. Also, torture is effective when dealing with a person that would be willing to spend a lifetime in prison to protect someone or something because you can torture them and they will give you false info just to save their skin but if you keep finding out it's BS and keep coming back they'll figure out that the torture isn't gonna stop unless the info is true and eventually they will give the truth.

Your post isn't only factually inaccurate, it's incoherent as well. Plus, with other methods that AREN'T torture, you can get the information you need FASTER, by the very claims you made.

*proclaims Heikoku the winner, anyway, and gives him an ice cream cone*

:D

Thanks!

We need torture to make the upper class scum pay for oppressing the common man.

We need torture to make the upper class scum pay for oppressing the common man.

Oh rlly?

And just how are YOU being oppressed?

Do you work in a sweat shop? Did a noble flog you for disrespecting him?

What's your story?

You know what they say - Freedom Tickles.