"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.c230bf50bbc6ad6d357f33f6d4c3cd90@108 4811830.nulluser.com...

these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through
isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that the
Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."

Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to torture"?
LOL.



The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this
system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained
by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive,
policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a
handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics
that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.
Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda
and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the
success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay,
seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even
though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva
Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were
drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break
prisoners' resistance to interrogation.

I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...despite the promises from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri that the next
attack was imminent. I credit those in our government and armed services
who took bold steps (outside the usual legal box that confines them) to
protect our country.

The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted to
"legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult, threats,
and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:10:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to
torture"? LOL.

Maybe not, but sodomy, rape, and murder are. Oh, and the incidents at Abu
Ghraib are starting to look like the tip of an iceberg.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...217973,00.html


The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted
to "legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult,
threats, and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.

BS, the Geneva Convention doesn't define *illegal* combatants. It does
contain this clause.

" Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
has been determined by a competent tribunal. "

So, when was the tribunal?

I would also suggest that this clause pertains, at least to Afghanistan
captives.

" 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. "

Text of the Third Convention:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/6fef85...8?OpenDocument

Text of the Fourth Convention:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/His...s/geneva1.html

And here I was so happy with the past 200 years of no terrorist attacks on
our country...

Your man gets to the white house and less than 9 months later we are
attacked....

Sorry but your man let the guard down there.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:10:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to
torture"? LOL.

Maybe not, but sodomy, rape, and murder are.

So Bush and Rumsfeld told the soldiers to sodomize, rape, and murder the
detainees? Interesting theory you have there...




Oh, and the incidents at Abu
Ghraib are starting to look like the tip of an iceberg.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...217973,00.html


The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted
to "legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult,
threats, and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.

BS, the Geneva Convention doesn't define *illegal* combatants.

No, but it *does* define "lawful" combatants...and the detainees at
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib don't meet the definition, thus making them
"unlawful" combatants. Read Article 4, Section 2:

"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:"

* * *

(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 . . . 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;



Were they wearing fixed distinctive signs recognizable from a distance? Or
were they dressed in civilian garb while hiding among women and children and
taking pot shots at our troops?

Here's a very thorough analysis of the "unlawful combatant" issue as it
deals with our al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. Although written before the
Iraq war, it can very easily apply to the detainees we nabbed in Iraq.
Saddam and his generals (as well as Republican Guard soldiers) qualify for
POW status. The insurgents currently doing the fighting do not.

No terrorist attacks on our country?!?! Wrong.

I suppose you meant to say "on American soil"? Well, you'd be wrong again.
Terrorists attacked the very same WTC in 1993. Although it was blamed on
domestic terrorists, the OKC bombing suspects had made trips to the
Philippines during the same time Ramzi Yousef (the man responsible for the
1993 WTC bombing) was there. There seems to be ample evidence to convince
people like Sen. Arlen Specter and former CIA Director James Woolsey that
there was a link between Iraq, the OKC bombing, and radical Islamic
terrorist organizations.

http://www.jaynadavis.com/wnd.html






wrote in message
link.net...
And here I was so happy with the past 200 years of no terrorist attacks on
our country...

Your man gets to the white house and less than 9 months later we are
attacked....

Sorry but your man let the guard down there.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.c230bf50bbc6ad6d357f33f6d4c3cd90@108 4811830.nulluser.com...


these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through
isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that the
Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to torture"?
LOL.



The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this
system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained
by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive,
policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a
handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics
that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.
Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda
and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the
success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay,
seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even
though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva
Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were
drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break
prisoners' resistance to interrogation.


I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...despite the promises from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri that the next
attack was imminent. I credit those in our government and armed services
who took bold steps (outside the usual legal box that confines them) to
protect our country.

The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted to
"legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult, threats,
and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.




How the **** would you know? You're a 32-year-old dentist who has had
the world handed to him on a silver platter.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.c230bf50bbc6ad6d357f33f6d4c3cd90@108 4811830.nulluser.com...


these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through
isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that the
Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to
torture"?
LOL.



The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this
system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained
by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive,
policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a
handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics
that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.
Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda
and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the
success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay,
seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even
though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva
Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were
drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break
prisoners' resistance to interrogation.


I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...despite the promises from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri that the next
attack was imminent. I credit those in our government and armed
services
who took bold steps (outside the usual legal box that confines them) to
protect our country.

The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted
to
"legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult,
threats,
and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.




How the **** would you know? You're a 32-year-old dentist who has had
the world handed to him on a silver platter.

33.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message

news:c3dhc2g=.c230bf50bbc6ad6d357f33f6d4c3cd90@108 4811830.nulluser.com...


these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through
isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that the
Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to
torture"?
LOL.



The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this
system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained
by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive,
policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a
handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics
that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.
Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda
and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the
success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay,
seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even
though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva
Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were
drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break
prisoners' resistance to interrogation.


I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...despite the promises from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri that the next
attack was imminent. I credit those in our government and armed
services
who took bold steps (outside the usual legal box that confines them) to
protect our country.

The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted
to
"legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult,
threats,
and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.




How the **** would you know? You're a 32-year-old dentist who has had
the world handed to him on a silver platter.

Ah, I would imagine that you need to refer to the said 32-year old
individual as Dr. NYOB.

Harry you are one ****ed on old fart that is jealous of anyone's and
everyone's success in life.

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


news:c3dhc2g=.c230bf50bbc6ad6d357f33f6d4c3cd90@108 4811830.nulluser.com...


these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through
isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that the
Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to

torture"?

LOL.




The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this
system of interrogation, according to internal government memos obtained
by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive,
policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a
handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics
that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.
Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from Qaeda
and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the
success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay,
seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even
though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva
Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were
drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break
prisoners' resistance to interrogation.


I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...despite the promises from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri that the next
attack was imminent. I credit those in our government and armed

services

who took bold steps (outside the usual legal box that confines them) to
protect our country.

The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted

to

"legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult,

threats,

and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.




How the **** would you know? You're a 32-year-old dentist who has had
the world handed to him on a silver platter.


Ah, I would imagine that you need to refer to the said 32-year old
individual as Dr. NYOB.

Harry you are one ****ed on old fart that is jealous of anyone's and
everyone's success in life.




Jealous? Of a dentist? Heheehehe.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message



news:c3dhc2g=.c230bf50bbc6ad6d357f33f6d4c3cd90@108 4811830.nulluser.com...


these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners
through
isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation-methods that
the
Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."


Isolation, insults, threats, and humiliation are "tantamount to

torture"?

LOL.




The Bush administration created a bold legal framework to justify this
system of interrogation, according to internal government memos
obtained
by NEWSWEEK. What started as a carefully thought-out, if aggressive,
policy of interrogation in a covert war-designed mainly for use by a
handful of CIA professionals-evolved into ever-more ungoverned tactics
that ended up in the hands of untrained MPs in a big, hot war.
Originally, Geneva Conventions protections were stripped only from
Qaeda
and Taliban prisoners. But later Rumsfeld himself, impressed by the
success of techniques used against Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay,
seemingly set in motion a process that led to their use in Iraq, even
though that war was supposed to have been governed by the Geneva
Conventions. Ultimately, reservist MPs, like those at Abu Ghraib, were
drawn into a system in which fear and humiliation were used to break
prisoners' resistance to interrogation.


I'm glad we've gone almost 3 years since a terrorist attack on our
soil...despite the promises from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri that the
next
attack was imminent. I credit those in our government and armed

services

who took bold steps (outside the usual legal box that confines them) to
protect our country.

The war on terrorism is an unconventional war being fought by *illegal*
combatants as defined by the Geneva Convention. If the terrorists are
illegal combatants, then they're not guaranteed the protection granted

to

"legal" combatants by the Geneva Convention. Humiliation, insult,

threats,

and isolation are not "torture" anyhow.




How the **** would you know? You're a 32-year-old dentist who has had
the world handed to him on a silver platter.


Ah, I would imagine that you need to refer to the said 32-year old
individual as Dr. NYOB.

Harry you are one ****ed on old fart that is jealous of anyone's and
everyone's success in life.




Jealous? Of a dentist? Heheehehe.

Of course I am jealous of a Dentist. You work four or so days a week and you
make a lot of money? Maybe in my next life I'll work a little harder in
school.