CIA Waterboarded Zubaydah 183 Times in One Month (injection, nationalist, Rockefeller)
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.
Have you read any of the Geneva Convention treaties? Terror groups do not qualify for POW coverage and do not meet the criteria, as the Bush administration correctly determined.
This says it all. By giving itself the power to call anyone a terrorist, the Bush administration didn't have to honor any international laws or the U.S. Military Code which says it's a crime to torture. Yes, I do understand.
Geneva Convention
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission ... causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
"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 any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Please do not accuse me of being uneducated or defending terrorists. I wouldn't care if they cut off his fingers. However, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Also, if we can simply change the law as we see fit, why should we expect other countries to treat our soldiers with any respect? Total hypocrisy. Why can't they call our military "Terror Groups?"
[URL]http://www.truthout.org/042009J[/URL]
"It is a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention to humiliate and abuse prisoners of war or to harm them in any way. As President Bush said yesterday, those who harm POWs will be found and punished as war criminals," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said on March 24, 2003.
At a March 25, 2003, press briefing about progress in the US-led invasion, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "This war is an act of self-defense, to be sure, but it is also an act of humanity.... In recent days, the world has witnessed further evidence of their [Iraqi] brutality and their disregard for the laws of war. Their treatment of coalition POWs is a violation of the Geneva Conventions."
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the BBC that "the Geneva Convention is very clear on the rules for treating prisoners.. They're not supposed to be tortured or abused; they're not supposed to be intimidated; they're not supposed to be made public displays of humiliation or insult, and we're going to be in a position to hold those Iraqi officials who are mistreating our prisoners accountable, and they've got to stop."
I'll repeat it again - HYPOCRISY!
Last edited by justNancy; 04-26-2009 at 01:51 AM..
So in 183 times in one month he didn't die? What kinda lame ass torture is that? What happened to threatening of decapitation, disemboweling and what not? That seems pretty TERRIFYING if you ask me.
Please do not accuse me of being uneducated or defending terrorists. I wouldn't care if they cut off his fingers. However, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Also, if we can simply change the law as we see fit, why should we expect other countries to treat our soldiers with any respect? Total hypocrisy. Why can't they call our military "Terror Groups?"
Can you name one country since WW II that has treated our soldiers with any respect? Certainly not North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country we have fought since WW II. So if you expect other nations to follow a "higher standard" because we do, you are not living in the real world.
Treating our POWs better than they treat their POWs is not hypocrisy. Whether you consider waterboarding to be "torture" or not, you have to admit that our POWs receive far better treatment than theirs. After all, when was the last time the US beheaded a POW?
This says it all. By giving itself the power to call anyone a terrorist, the Bush administration didn't have to honor any international laws or the U.S. Military Code which says it's a crime to torture. Yes, I do understand.
Neither you nor neil0311 apparently understand. The Geneva Convention is not controlling when it comes to non-uniformed personnel. Neil was perfectly right about that. He is just too goddamn thick to know there are other anti-torture laws on the books. The right-wingers on the forum apparently heard the phrase "Geneva Convention" too many times and now can't stop saying it, it's become almost a tic of some kind, like Tourette's Syndrome.
Can you name one country since WW II that has treated our soldiers with any respect? Certainly not North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country we have fought since WW II.
This is the perennial complaint of the whiny ten-year-old who doesn't understand why he's getting spanked for something "all the other kids" get away with. Obviously some folks never really advance much beyond the ten-year-old stage of moral reasoning.
This is the perennial complaint of the whiny ten-year-old who doesn't understand why he's getting spanked for something "all the other kids" get away with. Obviously some folks never really advance much beyond the ten-year-old stage of moral reasoning.
Just the kind of comment I would expect from an anti-American terrorist-loving piece of garbage. Completely devoid of reality.
Anyone having a problem w/ torture, this petition is a request for an investigation and to restore the constitution. Feel free to sign it.
Commission on Accountability (http://commissiononaccountability.org/?source=sourcegoogle&subsource=subsourcegoogle728& gclid=CJL7-IK7jpoCFRIeDQodxkmLFw - broken link)
I don't care if he gave them the best blow-job of their life. It [waterboarding] is illegal, end of story.
You were honest about how the Geneva Conventions defines POWs. And we did sign the UN Convention Against Torture and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However the conventions do not say waterboarding is torture. You know what both Conventions say and it is your opinion that waterboarding is severe pain or suffering.
Futhermore, all previous court cases that I've read on the subject, if anyone knows of a case - please post or DM, but the accused defendants in these cited cases: burned prisoners, broke their bones, clubbed and severly beat them, and tortured them in the John McCain sense. They were not convicted for simply waterboarding but rather for the severe violence and maim of their overall actions.
The military prohibits waterboarding, yes correct. But the military doesn't label it as a violation of human rights, torture or an criminal act. Breaking the prohibition against waterboarding is the crime. And the prohibition makes sense as there is a process in place on who, how, what, when and why we use intense interrogation tactics: let the military fight and capture, allow the DOJ to vet and allow our intel experts, the CIA, to interrogate.
Through peoples personal emotional responses and interpretations to waterboarding, does waterboarding become illegal.
It is your interpretation of what severe pain and suffering constitutes, as there are no laws that list waterboarding specifically as a crime. The Supreme Court hasn't given an opinion on waterboarding; the DOJ/Attny General, the next highest authority to intrepret laws, specifically gave the go ahead. Until the Supreme Court rules on this matter, we are left with our personal interpretations and/or party leaders.
You were honest about how the Geneva Conventions defines POWs. And we did sign the UN Convention Against Torture and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However the conventions do not say waterboarding is torture. You know what both Conventions say and it is your opinion that waterboarding is severe pain or suffering.
Futhermore, all previous court cases that I've read on the subject, if anyone knows of a case - please post or DM, but the accused defendants in these cited cases: burned prisoners, broke their bones, clubbed and severly beat them, and tortured them in the John McCain sense. They were not convicted for simply waterboarding but rather for the severe violence and maim of their overall actions.
The military prohibits waterboarding, yes correct. But the military doesn't label it as a violation of human rights, torture or an criminal act. Breaking the prohibition against waterboarding is the crime. And the prohibition makes sense as there is a process in place on who, how, what, when and why we use intense interrogation tactics: let the military fight and capture, allow the DOJ to vet and allow our intel experts, the CIA, to interrogate.
Through peoples personal emotional responses and interpretations to waterboarding, does waterboarding become illegal.
It is your interpretation of what severe pain and suffering constitutes, as there are no laws that list waterboarding specifically as a crime. The Supreme Court hasn't given an opinion on waterboarding; the DOJ/Attny General, the next highest authority to intrepret laws, specifically gave the go ahead. Until the Supreme Court rules on this matter, we are left with our personal interpretations and/or party leaders.
Thank you! To the bleeding heart libs anything other than a nice warm bed and basic cable is torture...
It seems Djacques,Dukester,chilegirl etc all have appointed themselves the deciders of what constitutes torture because their party is in charge. Well to them I say PROVE waterboarding,cold rooms,bland food and loud music is torture. It causes no permenent damage and is just very uncomfortable, so what? Supermax inmates here in the U.S. are generally uncomfortable, that's the risk you take when you participate in some acts.
Now you can say "well John McCain who was tortured says we shouldn't torture" well you're right we shouldn't do what was done to him like hanging someone by their wrists while tied behind their backs because it causes PERMENENT damage it is in fact torture.
Until the Supreme Court rules on this matter, we are left with our personal interpretations and/or party leaders.
And many, many years of precedents. That's what I keep coming back to.
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.
Reply to All the Emotional Responses
