Vito wrote:
Again, AFAIK it is not US policy to torture anybody.

That's because you haven't bothered to look, and keep both hands clapped
over your ears so you won't hear.

... We are obeying
international law.

No, we are not. The Bush Administration thinks 'interntional law' is for
pussies.



...The relatively few held at Gitmo are not POWs.

Of course not.

International law says we can shoot them.

No, it does not.

Since you're not Dave, insisting that any & all evidence against your
statements is contrived & falsified leftist propaganda, I will humor you
and provide a few links. Since you *still* believe all that malarkey
about how the brave & noble Ho Chi Minh liberated Viet Nam and was
acclaimed by popular support, I doubt it will do any good.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

The whole thing stinks.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
....., I doubt it will do any good.

Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

http://reference.allrefer.com/encycl.../prisoner.html

prisoners of war, in international law, persons captured by a belligerent
while fighting in the military. International law includes rules on the
treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants.
This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they
are war criminals; see war crimes) and forces that do not observe
conventional requirements for combatants (see war, laws of).

war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war (see war,
laws of). Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian
courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international
tribunals.

Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
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.

Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004.../usint8614.htm

Interesting but not applicable to the war criminals held at Gitmo. Moreover,
it simply forbids torture. They are not being tortured.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/

Rehash of the above .....

ANd here's a piece of liberal propaganda from that leftist pandering
trash, the Washington Post, which fingers Rummy directly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...0540-2005Feb28

"The State Department's annual human rights report released yesterday
criticized countries for a range of interrogation practices it labeled as
torture, including sleep deprivation for detainees, confining prisoners in
contorted positions, stripping and blindfolding them and threatening them
with dogs -- methods *similar* to those approved at times by the Bush
administration for use on detainees in U.S. custody.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved in December 2002 a number of
severe measures, including the stripping of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?

I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.

"Vito" wrote
I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things......


One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for
a living. All the typical answers came up: fireman, mechanic, businessman,
salesman, doctor, lawyer, and so forth.


But little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher
prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a
gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men and they put
money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go
home with some guy and make love with him for money."


The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other
children to work on some exercises and then took little Justin aside to ask
him, "Is that really true about your father?"


"No," the boy said, "He works for the Republican National Committee and
helped re-elect George Bush, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front
of the other kids."

....., I doubt it will do any good.


Vito wrote:
Not when your references support my position and impeach yours.

Hardly


Those being held at Gitmo are war criminals tried by Afghan military courts.


Yeah, right.


Those held at Gitmo were not fulfilling these conditions hence they are war
criminals not POWs


And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.




Cuba, and using dogs to frighten them. He later rescinded those tactics and
signed off on a shorter list of "exceptional techniques," including 20-hour
interrogations, face slapping, stripping detainees to create "a feeling of
helplessness and dependence," and using dogs to increase anxiety."

So DoD and DoS disagree. I agree with DoD. YMMV

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?




Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices" he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

"DSK" wrote
And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?

Yes.

I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.

Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works, including many
"western democracies" using Napolionic law. There, a judge hears the
evidence, determines guilt and passes sentance. The accused may or may not
be invited. Happened to a dude I knew - got drunk and wrecked his car in
Mexico and did a year. In Afghanistan the judge is likely some local tribal
elder but he has the same authority. Bottom line is if you want US/UK
justice don't get drunk and wreck in Mexico and don't go making trouble in
Afghanistan.

So, no you realize that Rumsfeld *did* give the orders? Only you think
it's OK because he changed his mind... sort of?

Sure, I simply dispute whether the things he OK'd are torture.



Why is President Bush insistent on Congress not restricting his "right"
to torture prisoners? Why are they denying that they knew these foreign
gov'ts practiced torture ("I mean, really... nobody told us!")?


I have no idea why Bush does things but my slight aquantance with
psychology
suggests he is mad - that like many religious people, he hears "voices"
he
attributes to God that tell him to do things. I never heard anyone deny
that these foreign government practiced torture, just that these
governments
had promised not to torture the ones we deported to them.


Yeah right.

Never mind, I'm not interested in arguing with your "voices."

DSK

And did it say that war criminals can be held indefinitely, shot on
whim, etc etc, without trial?


Vito wrote:
Yes.


Where?


I notice that you have yet to provide one single scrap (other than your
conitnued ludicrous assertion) that these prisoners have had anything
resembling a trial.


Like I told Dave, you keep looking for a US or UK type trial with all the
hoopla, but that's not the way the rest of the world works

Yeah, I' sure... blah blah blah.

There is no evidence that even a rudimentary tribunal has been held for
even a small minority of these prisoners. The U.S. gov't and the
military has not made any such claim.

You're pushing hot air, buddy. You have no facts and you can't admit the
truth, same as our discussion on Viet Nam.

Bye. I hope you and your voices have a good time together.

DSK

"DSK" wrote
Where?
I'm sorry, I thot you'd read it. Musta been on reeky motorcycles.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4 defines POW.

Also: "Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its
jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity
card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental,
personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The
identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or
both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party
to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed
forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be
issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war
upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him"

Note that those held at Gitmo do not meet these criteria.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person
shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present
Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person,
be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile
to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases
where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having
forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Full text
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...s/geneva1.html

Enjoy!

BTW

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of
which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected
by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of
a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be
regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals
has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Thus a Saudi (for example) caught in Afghanistan and held by the US is not a
"protected person" because we have diplomatic relations with the Saudis.