Modification of Geneva Conventions

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think that's enough questions. I don't have all day to answer your questions. I hope there is a point to all this.

To me, it's ok to ask questions. If you don't know the answers, that's ok too.
The answers are easily found.
In a way, it seems that our country wouldn't be in the situation that it's currently facing had not those that brought them to the fore been branded as "unpatriotic".
At this point in time, since I've used up most of the plastic sheeting and duct tape that I bought a few years ago, and since we've had the "regime change" and "mission accomplished" on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln, and there are no WMD's...only a few questions remain.
One is:
Have the actions initated by the administration created more or fewer terrorists?
Follow up:
Are American citzens "safer" now?

[Danzig]

altho it is generally believed we are safer, many don't feel safer....law of averages and all that....after all, one has to believe that eventually a plan will come to fruition.


as for iraq and wmd's...i think they had them, and we knew they had them, because we gave them to them. or gave them the know-how. also, don't forget that saddam gassed the kurds--altho poison gas isn't nuclear, it most definitely has been considered a wmd.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

altho it is generally believed we are safer, many don't feel safer....law of averages and all that....after all, one has to believe that eventually a plan will come to fruition.


as for iraq and wmd's...i think they had them, and we knew they had them, because we gave them to them. or gave them the know-how. also, don't forget that saddam gassed the kurds--altho poison gas isn't nuclear, it most definitely has been considered a wmd.

Danzig,
You are correct that the US supplied Saddam with wmd's. They were obsolete as the "shelf life" is limited. They had been dismantled, and Saddam was "bluffing" to the UN inspectors, as he didn't wish to admit "powerlessness".
Yes, he used them against the Kurds. The Kurds had initiated an insurrection on assurances of CIA support. The US "left them out to dry".
Israel took out the only nuclear power plant during the 80's.
There was no "yellow cake" from Niger, no centrifuge tubes.
Now, I'll post an article regarding the need for clarification of treatment of prisoners.
DTS

[Downthestretch55]

Bush's Paltry Excuse for Subverting Geneva Convention
by Robert S. Rivkin

President Bush claims to be worried that our CIA interrogators are confused by the rules that govern them. This claim is hogwash.

While addressing the post-Hamdan v. Rumsfeld battle going on in the Senate over the U.S.’s treaty obligation to adhere to the terms of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, President Bush claimed at Friday’s press conference that all he is seeking to do in his proposed legislation is to define the Article’s “vague” provisions.

He said, “the standards are so vague that our professionals won’t be able to carry forward the [interrogation] program, because they don’t want to be tried as war criminals. They don’t want to break the law.” Providing a congressionally-approved, American definition of Common Article 3 would supposedly provide CIA interrogators of terror suspects with clear guidelines as to which interrogation techniques are legal and which are illegal. Sounds simple and straightforward -- but is it?

A prohibition contained in Common Article 3 (which is enforceable criminally through the 1996 War Crimes Act which Bush seeks to change) forbids “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Clearly, many of the nauseating abuses committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere (stripping detainees naked, dousing them with cold water, bombarding them with loud music for hours, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep and light) would constitute violations of Common Article 3. Those military members who have been prosecuted, however, were charged in military courts under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Some of the UCMJ’s provisions are just as vague as those of Common Article 3 – if not more so.

For example, the UCMJ’s Article 93 makes it a crime to engage in “cruelty, oppression or maltreatment” of a subordinate. Is “cruelty, oppression or maltreatment” less vague than “humiliating and degrading treatment”? The Manual for Courts-Martial, the official guide used by all military lawyers to implement the UCMJ, does list specific acts which could constitute violations of Article 93 or other articles of the UCMJ. These sample charges are known as “specifications.” The Manual makes clear that a military accused can be charged with a specification which is not listed. If an accused claims that a new specification does not amount to a violation of an article (such as 93), his lawyer could make that argument to the court, and if necessary, to the appellate military courts. That is the way our system works, because it is impossible to describe in advance all the permutations of bad behavior that humans are capable of that are sufficiently evil to be deemed criminal.

Other articles of the UCMJ that are even more vague than Article 93 are 133 and 134. Article 133 prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.” Article 134, long known as “the devil’s article” because it has been used for several decades to punish behavior that was undefined in advance, makes criminal “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” The appellate courts have upheld these articles against challenges by defense lawyers that they were “unconstitutionally vague.”

During the President’s press conference, it would have been reasonable to expect at least one White House press corps reporter to ask Bush why Common Article 3 was deemed by him to be too vague -- while the UCMJ Article 134 was not. Not a single reporter posed the question.

The Bush Administration’s real agenda likely has at least three goals: first, to allow CIA interrogators to continue to engage in “soft torture,” so long as it doesn’t “shock the conscience”; second, to provide immunity for all those interrogators, civilian and military, who committed outrages upon detainees’ personal dignity and engaged in humiliating and degrading treatment in the past few years; and third, to give congressionally-granted immunity to senior Bush Administration officials for their having encouraged field operatives to inflict degrading treatment and outright torture in the past.

Myriads of articles have been published about the notorious “Torture Memo” of August 1, 2002, and others, which defined torture so narrowly as to “legalize” what most people and nations would regard as torture. These law-twisting memos, bitterly contested at the time by the Judge Advocates General of our Armed Forces as violating our most noble traditions, told President Bush exactly what he wanted to hear – that he and he alone, could decide what interrogation methods may be used in the “war on terror.”

Even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld buried their arguments in justification of the tyrannical (“unitary”) Presidency, Bush’s operatives continue to push for congressional approval to water down established international standards. If Bush’s version of interrogation rules and military tribunals (including use of coerced and secret evidence) becomes law, not only will U.S. soldiers be put at greater risk of torture by other countries; the U.S.’s reputation in the world will be further diminished, and the moral high ground will be gone forever.

Robert S. Rivkin, author of GI Rights and Army Justice, is a San Francisco-based writer and lawyer who specialized in military law for many years.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Bush's Paltry Excuse for Subverting Geneva Convention
by Robert S. Rivkin

President Bush claims to be worried that our CIA interrogators are confused by the rules that govern them. This claim is hogwash.

While addressing the post-Hamdan v. Rumsfeld battle going on in the Senate over the U.S.’s treaty obligation to adhere to the terms of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, President Bush claimed at Friday’s press conference that all he is seeking to do in his proposed legislation is to define the Article’s “vague” provisions.

He said, “the standards are so vague that our professionals won’t be able to carry forward the [interrogation] program, because they don’t want to be tried as war criminals. They don’t want to break the law.” Providing a congressionally-approved, American definition of Common Article 3 would supposedly provide CIA interrogators of terror suspects with clear guidelines as to which interrogation techniques are legal and which are illegal. Sounds simple and straightforward -- but is it?

A prohibition contained in Common Article 3 (which is enforceable criminally through the 1996 War Crimes Act which Bush seeks to change) forbids “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Clearly, many of the nauseating abuses committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere (stripping detainees naked, dousing them with cold water, bombarding them with loud music for hours, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep and light) would constitute violations of Common Article 3. Those military members who have been prosecuted, however, were charged in military courts under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Some of the UCMJ’s provisions are just as vague as those of Common Article 3 – if not more so.

For example, the UCMJ’s Article 93 makes it a crime to engage in “cruelty, oppression or maltreatment” of a subordinate. Is “cruelty, oppression or maltreatment” less vague than “humiliating and degrading treatment”? The Manual for Courts-Martial, the official guide used by all military lawyers to implement the UCMJ, does list specific acts which could constitute violations of Article 93 or other articles of the UCMJ. These sample charges are known as “specifications.” The Manual makes clear that a military accused can be charged with a specification which is not listed. If an accused claims that a new specification does not amount to a violation of an article (such as 93), his lawyer could make that argument to the court, and if necessary, to the appellate military courts. That is the way our system works, because it is impossible to describe in advance all the permutations of bad behavior that humans are capable of that are sufficiently evil to be deemed criminal.

Other articles of the UCMJ that are even more vague than Article 93 are 133 and 134. Article 133 prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.” Article 134, long known as “the devil’s article” because it has been used for several decades to punish behavior that was undefined in advance, makes criminal “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” The appellate courts have upheld these articles against challenges by defense lawyers that they were “unconstitutionally vague.”

During the President’s press conference, it would have been reasonable to expect at least one White House press corps reporter to ask Bush why Common Article 3 was deemed by him to be too vague -- while the UCMJ Article 134 was not. Not a single reporter posed the question.

The Bush Administration’s real agenda likely has at least three goals: first, to allow CIA interrogators to continue to engage in “soft torture,” so long as it doesn’t “shock the conscience”; second, to provide immunity for all those interrogators, civilian and military, who committed outrages upon detainees’ personal dignity and engaged in humiliating and degrading treatment in the past few years; and third, to give congressionally-granted immunity to senior Bush Administration officials for their having encouraged field operatives to inflict degrading treatment and outright torture in the past.

Myriads of articles have been published about the notorious “Torture Memo” of August 1, 2002, and others, which defined torture so narrowly as to “legalize” what most people and nations would regard as torture. These law-twisting memos, bitterly contested at the time by the Judge Advocates General of our Armed Forces as violating our most noble traditions, told President Bush exactly what he wanted to hear – that he and he alone, could decide what interrogation methods may be used in the “war on terror.”

Even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld buried their arguments in justification of the tyrannical (“unitary”) Presidency, Bush’s operatives continue to push for congressional approval to water down established international standards. If Bush’s version of interrogation rules and military tribunals (including use of coerced and secret evidence) becomes law, not only will U.S. soldiers be put at greater risk of torture by other countries; the U.S.’s reputation in the world will be further diminished, and the moral high ground will be gone forever.

Robert S. Rivkin, author of GI Rights and Army Justice, is a San Francisco-based writer and lawyer who specialized in military law for many years.

I rarely agree with articles that you provide but I actually agree with this article. Everything he's saying is right on. It doesn't mean that I think our guys shouldn't use the interrogation methods that they are using. Here is something to think about that is not far-fetched. Let's say that we capture one of these guys overseas and we treat him really badly. We do the things that this guy talks about in the article but it leads to an admission of a terrorist plan that we thwart because of the admission that was obtained due to the methods used. Let's say that 1,000 lives were saved as a result. Would you rather that we didn't do the harsh interrogation if it ended up saving 1,000 lives? That's a tough question.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I rarely agree with articles that you provide but I actually agree with this article. Everything he's saying is right on. It doesn't mean that I think our guys shouldn't use the interrogation methods that they are using. Here is something to think about that is not far-fetched. Let's say that we capture one of these guys overseas and we treat him really badly. We do the things that this guy talks about in the article but it leads to an admission of a terrorist plan that we thwart because of the admission that was obtained due to the methods used. Let's say that 1,000 lives were saved as a result. Would you rather that we didn't do the harsh interrogation if it ended up saving 1,000 lives? That's a tough question.

Rupert,
I'm gratified that you and I are exchanging "meaningful questions".
I'm also thrilled that you and I agree on some issues.
In answer to your question, I'd be in support of one life being saved, let alone 1,000 if done within non-torturous techniques. That includes ALL humans, not only Americans.
The USA continues to set the model for the rest of the world.
I agree with Senator McCain regarding the preservation of "moral high ground".
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
I'm gratified that you and I are exchanging "meaningful questions".
I'm also thrilled that you and I agree on some issues.
In answer to your question, I'd be in support of one life being saved, let alone 1,000 if done within non-torturous techniques. That includes ALL humans, not only Americans.
The USA continues to set the model for the rest of the world.
I agree with Senator McCain regarding the preservation of "moral high ground".
DTS

I don't consider sleep deprivation to be torture, do you? I know they do stuff worse than that but would you consider that type of thing to be torture?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Bush's Paltry Excuse for Subverting Geneva Convention
by Robert S. Rivkin


Robert S. Rivkin, author of GI Rights and Army Justice, is a San Francisco-based writer and lawyer who specialized in military law for many years.

Leftists from San Franciso's opinions dont really hold much water with the rest of us Americans.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

To me, it's ok to ask questions. If you don't know the answers, that's ok too.
The answers are easily found.
In a way, it seems that our country wouldn't be in the situation that it's currently facing had not those that brought them to the fore been branded as "unpatriotic".
At this point in time, since I've used up most of the plastic sheeting and duct tape that I bought a few years ago, and since we've had the "regime change" and "mission accomplished" on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln, and there are no WMD's...only a few questions remain.
One is:
Have the actions initated by the administration created more or fewer terrorists?
Follow up:
Are American citzens "safer" now?

Unfortunately, I would probably say that more terrorists have been created. I thought about this long and hard a few years ago and I thought the result would be the opposite. I was wrong.

By the same token, I still think we are safer here in the US. You may think it is paradoxical that I think that more terrorists have been created yet I still think we are safer, but I can explain why I think this. I basically think that there are definitely more angry Muslims in the Middle East right now than there were a few years ago. However, just because you have some angry people in the streets in the Middle East, that doesn't necessarily put us at greater risk. Most of these people don't have the means to hurt us. A guy like Bin Laden can hurt us because he has the money, his group is well organized, etc.

I think the biggest threat to us was always from someone like Bin Laden. But I think that all the things we've done since 9/11 like improving and totally revamping our intelligence(CIA, FBI, informants, etc.), being more careful who we give visas to, putting Bin Laden on the run, and all the other things we've done have made us safer. Although we may not be safer from small isolated attacks from lone people acting on their own such as the guy who shot a few people at the ticket counter at Los Angels Airport. We actually are probably at greater risk when it comes to lone people acting out on their own.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Unfortunately, I would probably say that more terrorists have been created. I thought about this long and hard a few years ago and I thought the result would be the opposite. I was wrong.

By the same token, I still think we are safer here in the US. You may think it is paradoxical that I think that more terrorists have been created yet I still think we are safer, but I can explain why I think this. I basically think that there are definitely more angry Muslims in the Middle East right now than there were a few years ago. However, just because you have some angry people in the streets in the Middle East, that doesn't necessarily put us at greater risk. Most of these people don't have the means to hurt us. A guy like Bin Laden can hurt us because he has the money, his group is well organized, etc.

I think the biggest threat to us was always from someone like Bin Laden. But I think that all the things we've done since 9/11 like improving and totally revamping our intelligence(CIA, FBI, informants, etc.), being more careful who we give visas to, putting Bin Laden on the run, and all the other things we've done have made us safer. Although we may not be safer from small isolated attacks from lone people acting on their own such as the guy who shot a few people at the ticket counter at Los Angels Airport. We actually are probably at greater risk when it comes to lone people acting out on their own.

I agree that we are at greater risk and that more terrorists have been created.
I wish it wasn't so.
I have no plans to travel abroad. As far as safety in the US, many places are unprotected, unfortunately.
Chemical plants, port facilities, water supplies, power grids...
Sad situation. We are very vulnerable, and I truely wish it wasn't so.