Trump Needs His 'Own Damn Bucket' to Waterboard: Ex-CIA Chief (Iraq, middle east)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here let me help you, the Geneva Convention is pretty clear no?
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Terrorists are not recognized as "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Convention.
A prisoner of war is someone who was caught wearing the uniform of another country.
That doesn't apply to terrorists.
Correct. Terrorists are civilians, yet by taking up arms, they are giving up the protections offered to civilians in a combat zone under the conventions.
Hovever: We know a lot of the detainees weren't captured in the heat of the battle - they were detained on information provided by informers - some of whom were friendly to us, some of whom saw a chance to get rid of a hated enemy. Under the conventions, that makes them civilians detained by an Occupying Power, and that gives them a modicum of rights. I know you guys hate that, but it's still the case.
Quote:
Weren't spies executed -- legally -- during WW II by both sides?
Certainly - but legally implies a trial. Even the effin' Nazis had the courtesy to line up a kangaroo court to make sure the forms were upheld - at least in occupied Europe.
Quote:
They had no protection by the Geneva Convention because they were not wearing uniforms.
Actually... To be considered a spy under the GC, "out of uniform" does not suffice. An escaped POW, for instance, can don civilian clothing. The GC specifically forbids capital punishment for that. There has to be a concerted effort to gather intelligence. (This is why we tell soldiers to never take notes if they escape captivity.)
A more relevant comparison would be that of francs-tireurs and saboteurs - who were most certainly legally executed, but again, after a trial. They weren't soldiers under the GC, never would be - they were civilians committing crimes. And that's the category the Gitmo detainees fall under.
Quote:
We should extract information from the terrorists by whatever means, and then execute them by hanging them.
Looking through the Constitution, I do not see the footnote that says "offer not valid for those we consider terrorists".
Correct. Terrorists are civilians, yet by taking up arms, they are giving up the protections offered to civilians in a combat zone under the conventions.
Hovever: We know a lot of the detainees weren't captured in the heat of the battle - they were detained on information provided by informers - some of whom were friendly to us, some of whom saw a chance to get rid of a hated enemy. Under the conventions, that makes them civilians detained by an Occupying Power, and that gives them a modicum of rights. I know you guys hate that, but it's still the case.
Certainly - but legally implies a trial. Even the effin' Nazis had the courtesy to line up a kangaroo court to make sure the forms were upheld - at least in occupied Europe.
Actually... To be considered a spy under the GC, "out of uniform" does not suffice. An escaped POW, for instance, can don civilian clothing. The GC specifically forbids capital punishment for that. There has to be a concerted effort to gather intelligence. (This is why we tell soldiers to never take notes if they escape captivity.)
A more relevant comparison would be that of francs-tireurs and saboteurs - who were most certainly legally executed, but again, after a trial. They weren't soldiers under the GC, never would be - they were civilians committing crimes. And that's the category the Gitmo detainees fall under.
Looking through the Constitution, I do not see the footnote that says "offer not valid for those we consider terrorists".
It's refreshing reading a post based upon facts, instead of what people think the facts are.
Correct. Terrorists are civilians, yet by taking up arms, they are giving up the protections offered to civilians in a combat zone under the conventions.
Hovever: We know a lot of the detainees weren't captured in the heat of the battle - they were detained on information provided by informers - some of whom were friendly to us, some of whom saw a chance to get rid of a hated enemy. Under the conventions, that makes them civilians detained by an Occupying Power, and that gives them a modicum of rights. I know you guys hate that, but it's still the case.
Certainly - but legally implies a trial. Even the effin' Nazis had the courtesy to line up a kangaroo court to make sure the forms were upheld - at least in occupied Europe.
Actually... To be considered a spy under the GC, "out of uniform" does not suffice. An escaped POW, for instance, can don civilian clothing. The GC specifically forbids capital punishment for that. There has to be a concerted effort to gather intelligence. (This is why we tell soldiers to never take notes if they escape captivity.)
A more relevant comparison would be that of francs-tireurs and saboteurs - who were most certainly legally executed, but again, after a trial. They weren't soldiers under the GC, never would be - they were civilians committing crimes. And that's the category the Gitmo detainees fall under.
Looking through the Constitution, I do not see the footnote that says "offer not valid for those we consider terrorists".
So libs would and sadly even many conservatives would rather bake them a cake. Trump is right. Political correctness is our problem in the USA imo.
Former National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency director Michael Hayden on Friday with Real Time host Bill Maher.
Quote:
“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that Candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” Hayden said, quoting Trump’s remark that “‘We’re gonna do waterboarding and a whole lot more because they deserve it” during a GOP candidate debate.
“What about killing the terrorists’ families?” Maher replied. “That never occurred to you, and you’re a real badass.”
“God no,” Hayden answered. “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”
Believe me, what can be done to a human to make them talk, and tell the truth is amazing and waterboarding, as done by the CIA required a Doctor to be in the room, the guy having his head lowered to prevent water from getting into the lungs (as much as possible) and restraints on how long the water could be poured.
Now done by other countries, water boarding can be very deadly.
Why stop with waterboarding? Just go full out medieval on prisoners. We could end drugs in this country. Just torture the dealer's and users till they break and give up their supplier. What could go wrong? Let's get tough on crime and terrorism... Let's make sure we kill and torture those suicide bombers... That will show them who is boss...... Its all good until they come for your son or daughter......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
