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.
Daily trivia: Japanese soldiers were executed after WW-II if they were found guilty of water-boarding POWs.
Many of the worst torturers of the Japanese military were not hung, only the most notorious were. Furthermore, some of the most prolific torturers of the Japanese military were debriefed, and their methods held in secrecy and their confessions documented in return for their not being prosecuted. While we did not practice torture we still made some bargains with the Gestapo and Kempetai at wars end.
Now those lessons are in practice. Officially, under the direction and orders of the former Bush administration
They need to turn it over to thye justice department at this point as the presdient has mad ehis determination after flip-flopping. No one is going to testify before congress without taking the fifth as grand jury and trials are siad to be coming. Its just spin to do it now;too late.
Legal thing? Based upon what legal code? I'll be waiting but I bet I wont get an intelligent response..
If you're asking about the legal basis for torture being illegal, it's probably in many places. But the one I can cite is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, to which we are signatories. And treaties carry the full weight of law according to our Constitution.
I see that you skipped over the 'moral' part with no objection, so you must believe it to be immoral. You're half-way to being a decent person!
Argument? He was driving home the point that Thompson is a nobody, never held a elected office right? He dropped out of the primaries fairly early right? He offered an opinion and he has that right but his opinion matters little against John Smith peddling his produce on the street corner...
That's right Senator Thompson never held elected office. Sheesh.
You know what they say about opinions.
And I was driving home the point that the poster refused to engage on the substance of Thompson's statement but chose to make a silly comment. Leaving one the impression that the poster could not refute the substance. Which I am sure is the case.
Last edited by shorebaby; 04-22-2009 at 08:49 PM..
Obama must be wearing flip-flops the way he keeps doing 180 degree on what he says and does. Sure hope the Senate does put everybody under oath- including the senators that were briefed on the intellengence committee.
If you're asking about the legal basis for torture being illegal, it's probably in many places. But the one I can cite is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, to which we are signatories. And treaties carry the full weight of law according to our Constitution.
There are also relevant federal statutes, at least the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the UN Convention Against Torture, to which we are a party.
I much as I'd like to support Leahy, we need to keep the US Congress as far away as possible from the torture issue. They will make an absolute mess of it-- it will be divisive and turn into a circus that won't come to a satisfactory conclusion. The torture question needs to be handled either by the Department of Justice, or another indpendent body constituted for the purpose. Involving Congress is guaranteed to produce a disappointing outcome.
Considering that Nancy Pelosi and other dems were made aware of the program and had no objections this will be fun to see what happens when the truth comes out. Also since Eric Holder in an interview with Paula Zahn of CNN (2002) said that the Geneva Convention did not apply to terrorist I guess we should go after him also?
Some marker needs to be left, yet the US needs to move forward. One idea recently being circulated is that Obama could simply pardon the top half dozen or so Bush officials who were involved in falsely justifying illegal acts. That would establish the fact that crimes were indeed committed, leave the perps with the rest of their lives to enjoy that special torture stigma, and still avoid the circus and recrimination that could so easily attend any political proceeding...
Would he also pardon Pelosi and the other dems that knew of the program and did not object? Just curious.
Considering that Nancy Pelosi and other dems were made aware of the program and had no objections this will be fun to see what happens when the truth comes out. Also since Eric Holder in an interview with Paula Zahn of CNN (2002) said that the Geneva Convention did not apply to terrorist I guess we should go after him also?
How does that change the OP? Anyone that signed off on the approval of torture needs to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law regardless of party or power.
If you're asking about the legal basis for torture being illegal, it's probably in many places. But the one I can cite is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, to which we are signatories. And treaties carry the full weight of law according to our Constitution.
I see that you skipped over the 'moral' part with no objection, so you must believe it to be immoral. You're half-way to being a decent person!
Well if you would have just read further down to article 4 you would have seen that the terrorist do not meet the requirements of a prisoners of war. Even Eric Holder admitted that to Paula Zahn back in a 2002 interview on CNN.
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.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
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.
