The Geneva convention is just one set of laws forbidding torture. There is also the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We want to make sure that laws like this are in effect, but Bush puts the prisoners in Cuba specifically in order to work around this law. The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death. Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm
Because, Max, the prisoners are being held in areas where they're not subject to the law. Cuba ring any bells? How many years have they been there now, Max? Will they have a trial soon? Another distraction. "They do it to us, so why can't we do it to them?" Spit it out, Max. Do you agree with torture or not? Why won't you answer? It's obvious that you do but for some reason you just won't say it. Why? Here. Let me start. I can understand the use of torture and don't necessarily condemn it even though I do find it distasteful. What I find most distasteful about it is purely selfish. What's to stop an administration that grows accustomed to using torture to get its way from bringing that method home? Whats to stop them from labeling me and/or my loved ones terrorists and dragging me into the torture factory? That's what gives me pause, Maxie old boy. Does this bit of common sense not even affect you at all? Not worried at all about you chickens coming home to roost? Yeah, Max. "Some people." Some people like Congress. 90 to 9, Max. 90 to 9.
To work around this law?? If that's so, why are soldiers who are accused of "torture" being arrested and tried in military courts??? Baron Max
Why aren't the people who ordered them to to "torture" in the first place? Once again, you've completely sidestepped the simple fact that this is an issue about Bush stating very clearly that to remove torture from its list of acceptable methods that the adminstration's hands will be tied in this 'war on terror'. Stop fucking sidestepping you cowardly fucking puke. Answer the fucking question! You're really showing your cowardice here, Max. You're a fucking little rabbit. Scared little fucking rabbit.
Yes, it's something to be fearful of. Not very many of them actually kill people, but their attitude, the bullying they have learned, the way they shove people around degrades life wherever they go. They come back and they want to control what people think, feel, and say. This is why we shouldn't allow ourselves to go to war ever if we can keep from it, and keep a strong enough military to prevent fights from happening in the first place. This is why peace efforts should be given every chance to work, instead of being choked off when someone gets a bug up his ass.
I hereby challenge Baron Max to not sidestep the issues at hand here. And, for once, to anwser our questions, and not keep asking more. Thats all he does. Asks more questions. How about some answers? I know, anyone in their right mind sees this for what it is: Bush indirectly supporting torture. A very troubling fact. But it just bugs me that Max can't seem to own up and admit it. Just say you support torture. Stop stalling, say what you believe, you have the right to do so.
Can't .....I don't have any answers! I only have questions ...and lots of them, too. I'm only 62 years old ...I ain't lived long enough to have all of the answers like y'all have - but give me a little more time, who knows, I might learn a bit more. Y'all are the ones who seem to have all of the answers, I'm just trying to learn from y'all, that's all. And so, when I ask a question, why can't you answer me and help me learn? Well, I don't believe that. But notice that YOU say that it's a "fact" ...can you prove it? If so, please do. And remember, proof is not the same as personal opinion or conjecture or accusation. Oh, I don't believe in torture! But I also don't believe that torture is being used in the military except in isolated, unauthorized cases. Y'all see/read about one or two isolated instances, then jump to the conclusion that it's the norm in all cases and at all times. I just don't believe that ...and it's also never been shown to be the case, even with all of the negative publicity about it. I.e., kicking a Koran is not, in my opinion, torture! Baron Max
I thought as much. Baron Max once more sidesteps the entire issue. Baron Max once more has posted an identical sentiment ("You kids have all the answers. I'm only 62 years old and haven't lived long enough to know anything. That's why I'm here to learn from all of you.") in multiple threads. Baron Max has refused to accept the 90 to 9 vote in the senate. Baron Max has refused to answer any of the rebuttals to his previous asinine statements. Baron Max has refused to discuss the meaning of the administration's statement about the necessity of torture in its "war on terror". The closest Max has come to addressing any of this is stating that 'kicking the Koran' is not torture. He makes no mention of other forms of torture. Baron Max has nothing to say. Baron Max is a scared little bunny rabbit. Texan? Right. Baron Max doesn't deserve to be called a Texan. Baron Max has no opinions whatsoever. This is why Baron Max is the ultimate puppet. But, not to the 'sensationalist media'. Only to his buttbuddy Bush. Bend over, Max. Bush is coming to dinner. Done with you. You're empty.
...LOL! What the hell are you ranting about, Invert? In that last post, I thought I answered all/most of the questions posed. What did I miss? Maybe you should read my post again and delve into what I said. I think I did answer it. Baron Max
Fine. I'll repeat myself for the final time. The administration, when queried about the reasons for wanting to veto anti-torture legislation, replied that it would be tying their hands in the war on terror. In other words, they've stated that torture (or what is defined as torture in the bill) is a necessary method in the war on terror. The administration has made a pro-torture statement. The only way they could wriggle about on this issue is something similar to your 'Koran kicking' comment. Saying that they don't feel like what they are doing to the prisoners in their charge is 'torture'. The bill was passed with a 90 to 9 majority in the Senate. 90 to 9. This is amazing. This is overwhelming. This is a bill that is well supported. Why? Because it's anti-torture... imagine that. And yet, Bush's adminstration threatens veto. Why? Because they feel torture is crucial to the war on terror and to deny them the right to torture is 'tying their hands'. The logic behind the statement is unescapable. You've stated that you don't agree with torture. So why do you disagree with anti-torture legislation? It's already been stated that the Geneva convention doesn't cover the circumstances. So. What's wrong with the bill? How can you deny that the statement from the administration admits the necessity of torture? These are the questions. I've already stated that I'm not exactly anti-torture myself. I think torture has its place. I'm only anti-torture in that I don't like the idea that the chickens will come home to roost. I don't want to be tortured. So I don't want my government becoming accustomed to using torture as an acceptable practice. Very simple.
Has your sanity left you yet? Fighting intractable conflicts with hard core lefties is not worth the time. Ask yourself, have I ever made an argument with most lefties that was not riposte with invective hatred? Very few reply without using such tactics, why bother? So you can have the last word? Because you think one might actually have the light turn on suddenly? Save yourself the time and effort, you will find much laughter in reading most of the drivel lefties write. Seriously, have you just read what is being posted lately? Keep yourself out of fight, and read the silliness with delight. Of course, you do what you want. But banging my head against the wall is not my idea of having an honest, fair debate!!! Just think about? Nader! Torture being partly defined by mental pain, as though one could gauge what that could mean? Neonazism? Sheeple? Seriously, do these terms and phrases (to name only a minute list of them) not strike you as hilarious? I know you are a vet on this forum, but other than the philosophy and some science threads none of the threads are seriously worth replying.
this absolutely pleases me sciforums lives up to its reputation as a place where rational thought reigns let this be a warning to all keep your wits about you and a firm grip on your sanity when venturing in here with..... bullshit!
Radicand, I'm sure you're not interested, but I'm not a 'hard-core leftie'. I'm not of any political persuasion whatsoever. I find politics boring for the most part and I generally don't post in this section, however the sheer... idiocy of Bush threatening to veto a 90-9 vote for an anti-torture bill is just too tempting. I find it incredibly hilarious. And then to see all the 'hard-core right-wingers' completely overlooking the significance of the statement is just fucking... insane. (Ok. It's just the Baron here, and he's more of a kook than a hard-core anything. But even so.) Also, I've already stated that I don't particularly disagree with the use of torture. My objections to torture are far more pragmatic. I don't want to be tortured therefore I would prefer to keep torture out of the repertoire of acceptable actions of my government. What about you? What's your stance on torture? I take it that you're of the stance that the definition of torture in the bill is incorrect? Gustav, you're into these kind of things, why don't you go digging for an exact list of what the bill calls torture. Let's see what it is that Bush is objecting to, exactly. Anyway, have you ever been tortured Randicand? Are you prepared to go through these various tortures to prove that they're not so bad? I doubt it. Even if you don't agree with the legislation per se, what of the overwhelming majority involved? Don't you think that it's sheer idiocy for Bush to use a veto on a 90-9 vote? I still suspect that power play has a lot to do with all this. Edit: Lastly. What you take to be 'hate' is mere frustration. The Baron is notorious for his red herring techniques and this debate is no exception. Few actually have the will to debate him because he's seen as more of a troll than a serious poster and when one goes against one's own better judgement and is then shown that one was right to begin with... well. It does get frustrating. It's interesting to watch rabbits bob and weave, except when one is hunting rabbits. And then it gets annoying.
"...in other words...."??? You've made that determination? That is NOT what the administration is saying, nor is it "other words". The administration doesn't like the wording of the new law and, if so, they shouldn't accept it ..they should veto it. That, sir, is what the veto is intended to be for. As to a 90-to-9 vote ....who gives a shit? If it's a shitty law, that just means that 90 senators can see it for what it is. That's bullshit and you know it! Ye're just trying to interpret things as YOU want to see them ....try reality for a change! Baron Max
It's a shitty law? Says who? Bush? 90-9 says its not a shitty law. An anti-torture bill would be tying the adminstrations hands in the war on terror. What else could that mean, Baron? (Thanks for finally answering the actual topic though. Took long enough.) How so? They don't like the definitions of torture supplied in the bill? Because some of those definitions are in their repertoire of acceptable tactics? Which? Will the president work through the bell with the congress to remove certain aspects of torture from the list? And then we'll know at least some of the types of torture that the administration has a liking of. I wonder which is their favorite? I know they like stripping their victims naked and degrading them sexually. Do you think that waterboarding will be taken off the list? What's your favorite form of torture, Baron? (Of course, I mean non-torture.. *wink wink*) I think electrodes on the testicles should be allowable. What do you think? And hell, the rack is good for posture...
The current, elected administration and the officials of the Department of Defense AND the administration's legal advisors AND Baron Max. I don't know ....why don't you ask the person who said it? Or do you prefer to interpret things in your own way regardless of what the speaker might have said or meant? Torture, as you well know, has different meanings for different people. The term "torture" alone is no longer adequate to define anything ....except in the eyes of bleeding-heart liberals. We've already witnessed that many of them consider kicking the Koran as "torture" ...now, please, don't tell me that you agree with that?! Baron Max
Ah. "Some people..." Okay, good, it's settled. But what ye're saying/implying is that some people don't like that, right? But is that any different to many other things in life; some like something, others don't. Who's right? ....and who determines that "right n' wrong"? You might be interested to know that Congress makes the laws, Max. Not the executive branch. Not the Department of Defense. And not Baron Max. A vote of 90-9 is untouchable. And for Bush to think he has the power to turn over such an overwhelming majority is sheer stupidity. How else can you interpret it? No. Kicking the Koran is not torture. Is waterboarding torture? Is stripping the prisoners naked and putting them in a big gay doggie pile torture? Is holding them prisoner with no possibility to have your case tried for years on end torture? You're right. "Torture" alone isn't enough to make the definition. However, I can't see how taking away Bush's right to kick a Koran would be 'tying his hands'. Do you? Do you think that kicking Koran's is a vital element in the war on terror?
Well, then he won't be able to veto it and you'll be as happy as a little pig in the mud on a hot Texas day, huh? And in fact, if what you say is true, then we shouldn't even be having this discussion ....you have nothing to worry about at all. Baron Max
Randicand, Ok, bright boy. Rather than going through the whole bill. Why not just read the amendment that is the issue. It's surprisingly short. SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. (b) APPLICABILITY.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States. (c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States. SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. (a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the [Page: S10909] United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section. (c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section. (d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109AvJjap (Your link didn't work, by the way, so mine might no either. So. If it doesn't work. Go here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm Then find the 1977 amendment. Click the link to it. Find this on that page: "TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S10908-10909" Click that link. Then select printer-friendly version and search for 1977 on that page. It's near the bottom. A pain in the ass, I know. But they have their whole system fucked up...) That's what's being objected to. Not the whole bill. I'm trying to find something factual from the white house on this, but at the moment all I've got is snippets from news sources. Those snippets are pretty damn telling. Read this exerpt from a yahoo news article for instance: "We have put out a statement of administration policy saying that his advisors would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," McClellan told reporters. Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said at as press conference Thursday that the administration is concerned that the amendment could tie its hands. "We've expressed our opposition to such amendments, anything that would interfere with the president's ability to protect Americans from terrorism and divert resources from war to focus on a lot of administrative requirements," he said. "We've had to apply ... careful, but nonetheless innovative and aggressive types of approaches to interrogating in some cases, and it's been done with due respect for the principles that the president established at the very beginning of this conflict," Di Rita said. The administration appeared to be holding out hope of getting the anti-torture language watered down -- or removed outright -- during negotiations between the Senate and the House of Representatives to iron out differences between their separate versions of the bill. Similar legisation passed by the House of Representatives did not contain the anti-torture language, and negotiators from the House and Senate now must hammer out a compromise version of the bill to send to the White House for the president's signature. "The House legislation doesn't include that language. It will now go to a conference committee. We will continue working with Congress to address this issue," McClellan said.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005100...N6yFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl So. Now. Tell me again why it is that Bush is objecting? And what is he objecting to? Look at the fucking amendment for Christ's sake and tell me what 'language' is in that amendment that should be vetoed. I.Fucking.Dare.You. Or. Tell me that you agree with the use of torture. I've already admitted several times that torture has its uses. Why are you too fucking scared to admit it? Baron, The problem is, of course, that he's trying to wring them into changing the language. He's banking on Republican solidarity. So. Now that you've read the text of the amendment and you've read that it is this amendment that he's objecting to in particular. What do you have to say, Baron? Are you going to now say you're pro-torture? Are you going to admit that the Bush administration is pro-torture? What do you have to say? Let's hear it.
Hey. What happened to bright boy's post? He erased it?! Right after I posted? Por que? Don't like egg on your face, Randicand? God damnit. I can't retrieve it either or I would and I'd post it in a quote just to show how fucking stupid you are. It had been here for several hours. Plenty of people saw it, I'm sure. Tool. Hee hee. Actually. I can retrieve it. Points off for illegal hitting? How about points off for talking out your ass? Or points off for cowardly deletion? Most definitely points off for the bright yellow font you chose.
