Who needs those antiquated "Geneva Conventions" anyway?

This just in: Somebody rooled craps 154 times in a row.

Much more important.

It's amazing the stuff you hear outta Patreous when the BushCo muzzle comes off.

Spud puts Gen Dave in the same camp as Obama.

To whit... They are both good actors doing their level best to do their jobs well despite having been cast in a lousy play.

And yes, the reaction from the rtarded mouth breathing set to this latest pronouncement is bound to be rife with both irony and hypocrisy.

Be Well.

Bush used to fire his generals who talked sense

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

But Herr Bush and dickless keep saying that they did not torture?

'we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized'

Like what?

It was the left who accused Petraeus of lying, never forget that:

When we bomb a suspected hideout for al qaeda operatives which also houses women and children what did we violate there? Was there any trial? Who stands up for the 4 year old who gets killed?

There are no easy answers in war and in the end the winner gets to tell the story.

Did our enemy sign the Geneva Conventions? If they didn't, we could not violate them.

The enemy is ourselves

The Geneva convention covers combatant NATIONS, one nation against another. What nation does Al Queda come from. Read it, try to understand it, and then comment on IT!

The word torture is thrown around very losely in most of these posts and needs to be SPECIFICALLY codified or refusing to give someone a kleenex to blow their nose will be torture!

Oh, by the way, where are all the captured American GIs that are held be Al Queda? Will they be released when this 'war' is over?

Some of you need to call both sides of the kettle BLACK, not just the one.

From what is being said here, I hope we never face another attack within these United States. If we do, it will be disaster!

Some of you treat your employees worse than we are treating those detainees in both Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afganistan.

"Did our enemy sign the Geneva Conventions? If they didn't, we could not violate them."

#10 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-05-30 03:36 PM

The Supreme Court begs to differ. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that signatories to the Geneva Conventions are required to abide by the Conventions even where involved in conflicts with non-signatories.

The United States has left the family of civilized nations

So it is the duty of a civilized nation to allow itself to be destroyed by those who observe no laws what so ever.

What a predicament. To hold the moral high ground, even if that high ground is 6' under on boot hill.

I just keep hearing Jack Nicholson screaming 'You can't handle the truth', and then being arrested.

So the Geneva Convention covers NGO Combatants?

I wonder if the new definition will also apply to Alien life forms once we discover them?

there is no line between legal and fairness. The 2 are mutually exclusive and have no bearing on the other. The issue at hand is legality

***"And yes, the reaction from the rtarded mouth breathing set to this latest pronouncement is bound to be rife with both irony and hypocrisy."***

No more than the slobbering libritards that made a habit of referring to Gen. Petraeus as "Gen. Betraeus" who will now hold him us as one of their own. Neither side has sole custody of irony or hypoctisy.

those who violate treaties and laws wrapped in a flag are misguided zealots. They are on the same level as any terrorist anywhere. They do not honor their word and have no principals.. cowards

Ah yes, the torture apologists know more than Petraeus.

If only he was on this blog he could learn how he has it all wrong.

If God strikes down military kissasses, then this General had better be ready to dodge lightning bolts or whatever He elects to use.

>>"So it is the duty of a civilized nation to allow itself to be destroyed by those who observe no laws what so ever."

I suppose we could always try to revise the Geneva Conventions, but I suspect that not many other nations will be interested in signing onto such an agreement. Alternatively, we could unilaterally withdraw, but then we run the risk that other nations will do the same and torture our soldiers in future conflicts.

Principles are a real bitch. However, while Al Qaeda and their associated religious nutballs can certainly cause us significant harm, we managed to mostly abide by the Geneva Conventions in prior conflicts where the very existence of our nation was at stake.

As an aside, I suppose we could keep the existing Conventions and simply disregard them when we see fit, using the Presidential pardon power to pardon civil servants who torture in the line of duty. Such a use of the pardon would be a sharp departure from recent precedent where it was reserved for helping out crooked donors. However, I think that any pardoned torturer would still have to worry about being swooped up and tried for war crimes any time he headed over to Tijuana for a donkey show or some cheap Viagra.

I thought libs hated Petraeus, now the MFers are quoting him. The next thing you know lefties will be quoting the Christian Bible instead of their own bibles, the Manifesto and the Audacity of Hope.

If God strikes down military kissasses, then this General had better be ready to dodge lightning bolts or whatever He elects to use.

#23 | POSTED BY JOHNSON

If there is a god dealing subjective punishment it is you and your tighty righty proponents of torture that had better be ducking.

I thought
#25 | POSTED BY FWTHOM AT 2009-05-30 06:45 PM | REPLY | FLAG:WORKING WITHOUT TOOLS

Herr Bush and dickless have done more to make certain that in the future U S prisoners are tortured than anyone else has or will. Heck of a job there Herr Bush!

So it is the duty of a civilized nation to allow itself to be destroyed by those who observe no laws what so ever.
What a predicament. To hold the moral high ground, even if that high ground is 6' under on boot hill.
I just keep hearing Jack Nicholson screaming 'You can't handle the truth', and then being arrested.

#15 | POSTED BY ZULU AT 2009-05-30 04:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

ZU-
Agreed. There is debate as to whether waterboarding, as performed, was illegal.

No he doesn't think there is a debate.

He reads it just as he states he doesn't give a rats ass whether it illegal or not if it helps fuckum, i.e Nicholson.

Zulu is not looking for a crack to hide.

cowards do not believe in the rule of law

funny how some people will defend rape

take a stand, do you support raping children?

We, the civilized nations of the world, have agreed to treat people humanely, even if they choose not the return the favor.

#13 | Posted by analingus

Water boarding is not torture. The term does need to be defined in unmistakable words. When I look it up it always mentions physical harm.

Water boarding is not torture. The term does need to be defined in unmistakable words. When I look it up it always mentions physical harm.

#32 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Thank God, I was really sweating the rape pictures
~Dick Cheney

I am certain that the coward doesnt believe rape is torture either. they deserve it and probably enjoyed it. cowards are simply cowards

#32

Upon first hearing about waterboarding, I thought it sounded like torture. But then it's not, you say? I looked it up on Reference.com. It's torture, first used during the Spanish Inquisition by the fucking church.

Its the truth. I rspect a man who tells the truth. Not that Raush wont get on his knees and perform some unusual act to Petraus to get him to run against Obama in 2012 when the Pubs change there mind on this one but I resepect Patraeus.

The Number One Question is "What did the Bush Regime Accomplish???"
Its simple enough...outside of helping the Big Oil companies,Cheney's Halliburton and murdering over a million innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan...just what,if anything,did the Bush Presidency achieve for America???

Ah yes, the torture apologists know more than Petraeus.

If only he was on this blog he could learn how he has it all wrong.

#22 | Posted by YAV

So, he was "Be-traeus" when he was hyping the surge, but, once he is remotely critical of Bush his word is gospel???

To be fair, I don't have problem with these comments uttered by Patraeus. He seems to be speaking his mind, which is fine.

I just get a kick out of when either 'side' tries to throw a comment or two into the face of the other side. For example, if Ken Starr were to make a comment even remotely critical of the Bush admin. the 'gotcha' crew would be out in huge force. The same would hold true if the political tables were reversed.

Back on topic...we face a serious threat. We face a threat that, our current legal structure is ill-equipped to handle. Bush knew this and plodded ahead without giving a shit regarding the law. The Dem party, largely recognized what Bush was dealing with and mostly decided to fuck our national security for political gain - If Bush supports this it MUST be wrong!!!

Well, Obama and his strong Dem majority is dealing with the same problems.

Thus far; the more Obama has been immersed in his presidency and has been forced to deal with these issues - the more he resembles that horrible GWBush in terms of approach and policy.

JeffJ-
Is it possible for you to extract yourself from the moronic partisan bobble-head derby long enough to understand what Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' have clearly stated?

Is it? (I'm not sure if it is possible)

Is it?

Of course it is.

Any more questions?

Betelg,

You are more than welcome to address me as "Jeff".

While I appreciate you trying to be respectful of my handle - the last "J" is just a formality.

You are more than welcome to address me as "Jeff".

While I appreciate you trying to be respectful of my handle - the last "J" is just a formality.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-31 01:50 AM | Reply

Yeah and get You mixed up with JeffnDenmark??

Larry

Of course it is.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-31 01:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then do so.

Larry,

I have always addressed him as "Jeffn".

Regardless, you raise a fair point.

I was just trying to save you and a few others from typing that extra, cap "J".

Then do so.

Go ahead and get the ball rolling, Socrates.

Jeff-
You don't seem capable of viewing the Constitution outside a contemporary partisan stance, as Petraeus and Mullen do.

You defend actions that are indefensible, Jeff, and use partisan talking points to cover your ass.

Petraeus and Mullen don't.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ

Look, Bet...

I am not trying to get shitty with you. This is a discussion that MUST take place. I would love nothing more than to discuss the finer points of this with you, but, let's just say that I have concerns that you will reciprocate. It's already 2AM here in Michigan. I am more-than-happy to discuss this with you, but if now doesn't work, please just say so, call me 'Hitler' and then table this conversation until a more convenient opportunity presents itself.

>"Thus far; the more Obama has been immersed in his presidency and has been forced to deal with these issues - the more he resembles that horrible GWBush in terms of approach and policy"

Yeah, responsibility for the safety of an entire nation has a way of encouraging one to be more careful with placing too much importance on civil liberties.

Kinda reminds me of judges granting temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases. No one wants to be the judge who denies a restraining order and wakes up the next morning to find his name in the paper next to a picture of the victim after she's been offed by her lover. As a result, judges would err on the side of caution and routinely grant the TRO, even though it may not have been appropriate. Worst case scenario, someone had his rights curtailed a little bit; best case, the judge just saved a life.

>"Water boarding is not torture. The term does need to be defined in unmistakable words. When I look it up it always mentions physical harm."

Psychological abuse qualifies as torture too, I think. However, I can't say for certain if water boarding meets the threshold as I've never been water boarded. I guess we'll just have to wait for one of the stalwart supporters of "enhanced interrogation" techniques to volunteer. I mean, what's the big deal if there's no physical harm, right? What, still no volunteers?

Jeff-
I don't recall Petraeus or Mullen calling you "Hitler"(And I certainly didn't), but if that's the only way you can deal with being consistently and persistently wrong, then you have fun talking to yourself.

Good night, Jeff.

You don't seem capable of viewing the Constitution outside a contemporary partisan stance, as Petraeus and Mullen do.

#46 | Posted by BetelG

I would be willing to bet than when viewing the Contstitution on a Macro-scale I am FAR more 'applicable' than you!

You defend actions that are indefensible, Jeff, and use partisan talking points to cover your ass.

You couldn't be more wrong. Having said that, on this specific issue, you have the high-ground. In an ideological sense, I lose, easily, on premise alone.

Having said that, this world is FAR-messier than what you portend.

Fine - You wanna play 'catch and release'?

Then release these 'detainees' into your neighborhood.
I am serious.

Good night, Jeff.

#51 | Posted by BetelG

Sleep well; and don't let the Mao-bugs bite.

There are no easy answers in war and in the end the winner gets to tell the story.

Sure there are, and, no they (whoever "they, the winner" are, do you know?) don't.

It was the left who accused Petraeus of lying, never forget that:
pol.moveon.org

... He said steps, which means he considers multiple things as violations. Wonder what those things are . . .

What does one have to with the other? Sometimes people are wrong, sometime right, sometimes maybe.

That link points to legitimate articles in a valid argument over then progress in Iraq. But go ahead, shoot all messengers and burn all messages before reading any.

We face a threat that, our current legal structure is ill-equipped to handle. Bush knew this and plodded ahead without giving a shit regarding the law. The Dem party, largely recognized what Bush was dealing with and mostly decided to fuck our national security for political gain - If Bush supports this it MUST be wrong!!!

and there you have it, WRONGNESS by FEAR.

Freedom is "scary." start digging your bunker if you aren't already in one... apparently, you've been in one all along.

Try setting your time machine for Massachusetts, 1692- 1693.

Water boarding is not torture. The term does need to be defined in unmistakable words. When I look it up it always mentions physical harm.

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-05-30 07:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sniper, thanks for the info.
Be sure to call Gen. Petraeus and let him know he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
LOL.

I wonder what DICKless and the W. Co. will come up with on Petraeus.

Get read Ditto heads.... Monday will be a barn burner on Lush Limbaugh show.

I can just hear it now.

We prosecuted WW2 interrogators for water boarding!
It must have been torture in the 20th century!

We prosecuted WW2 interrogators for water boarding!

We prosecuted WW2 interrogators for a multitude of crimes. I don't think anyone was ever prosecuted exclusively for waterboarding.

We prosecuted WW2 interrogators for water boarding!
It must have been torture in the 20th century!

#59 | Posted by geehowdyfrommo

That is not true. Show me an article where someone was prosecuted for water boarding.

"That is not true. Show me an article where someone was prosecuted for water boarding."

Whuhappen, Snoops? Cat got your tongue?

You've been told about this sort of stuff before. The problem is, you just don't appear to be educable. I hope for your sake you're at least trainable.

#62 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I guess you didn't read the part where it said 'Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him'

doc, you suffer from selective reading.

I guess you didn't read the part where it said...[blah, blah, blah]...you suffer from selective reading.
#64 | Posted by Sniper

Really? I guess you didn't read and process my statement: "There were other charges as well, but one of the the specifications focused on waterboarding; hence, the guy was prosecuted for waterboarding."

Yours is a processing problem, Sniper. Simply put, you can read a sentence but you don't comprehend its meaning.

priceless . . .

you guys snipe back & forth - each insisting the other side are clueless Neanderthals

while Presidents Bush(W) and Clinton hang (together) in a Toronto Pub downing some Moosehead Lagers, talking some "skull & bones shit", & watching the playoffs (NHL)

if the subject of the "right" & "left" being at each other's throats came up, they'd just "high five" each other & order another round

ps - dont' shoot the messenger, he just calls it like he sees it

"Specification 1: That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils

Read your own post doc!!! Beating him and kicking him had nothing to do with it.

I don't think anyone was ever prosecuted exclusively for waterboarding.

#60 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-31 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

It was one of the charges.

It's illegal. End of story. Nice try, though.

It's illegal.

What's the statute?

End of story.

End of story because you say so, huh? Ever thought of applying for the supreme court to exercise your supreme knowledge?

Nice try, though.

Thanks

OK, based on Doc's post, it appears that Yukio Asano was prosecuted for alleged war crimes for a number of acts, including engaging in waterboarding.

It is entirely possible that, assuming Asano was convicted, he could have been convicted for the kicking and beating, but not the waterboarding portion of the charges. However, that begs the question of why the U.S. mentioned waterboarding in its charges? That is, if waterboarding isn't illegal, then why bring it up during a war crime trial? Would a supposedly legal act (waterboarding) become illegal just because it occurred where kicking and beating also occurred? Are war crimes determined using some totality of circumstances test?

Anywho, can I assume that DR's champions of waterboarding have no complaints when our own troops are abused in like fashion?

Ever thought of applying for the supreme court to exercise your supreme knowledge?

Nice try, though.

Thanks

#69 | Posted by goatman at 2009-05-31 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Self retort

PS- Is waterboarding a crime? yes/no.

Do your homework, and quit trying to apologize for actions under a republican administration because you voted for them. That's what your little semantics games on this issue are about, and everyone knows it "bi-partisan goatman".

republican administration because you voted for them

???

I see the drugs are kicking in, so I'll assume all else you say is a lie, too.

Thanks for playing.

"bi-partisan goatman".

Non partisian, actually. Bi-partisian implies two parties. I vote for the person I like regardless of party.

Again, thanks for playing. Your consolation prize is at he door.

Alexandrite-
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, physical abuse, sexual humiliation and the occasional rape, murder, or "disappearance" of prisoners is only illegal when another party does it. We found lawyers to tell us that we could do it legally, and "non-partisan" apologists for this grotesque abuse of power applaud.

lar, read doc's post post # 62. I normaly don't put much stock in his posts but...... he did make my arguement for me about water boarding.

fact remains, the U S is recovering from 8 years under a nazi and a totally incompetent administration

he did make my arguement for me about water boarding.
#75 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-05-31 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Can't Read and Comprehend...Not Safe for Walking, Chewing Gum Experiment

That is not true. Show me an article where someone was prosecuted for water boarding.
#61 | Posted by Sniper

"Specification 5: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose."
[Link provided]
#62 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

he did make my arguement for me about water boarding.
#75 | Posted by Sniper

LOL!

I know nobody gives a damn, but I think I'm in the camp of those of say these "terrorists" aren't covered by the Gevena Convention anyway. Hence, no violation.

"Specification 5: That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose."

Geneva Convention, whatever...Asano would have been OK if Japan had won. Must be a lesson in there somewhere. It's interesting too, that Henri Wirz was the only person convicted and hanged for war crimes during the Civil War. He was basically a scapegoat on the LOSING side.

Show me an article where someone was prosecuted for water boarding.
#61 | Posted by Sniper

Google "Edwin F. Glenn" and see what you come up with. It'll provide you with some reading-comprehension practice.

"Asano would have been OK if Japan had won."

True. But they didn't. So he wasn't.

"Must be a lesson in there somewhere."

Youbetcha. Robert McNamara recalls in "Fog of War" how Gen. Curtis LeMay told him -- after they'd organized and carried out the firebombing of Japanese cities -- that if the US had lost the war both of them would've been tried as war criminals.

Jest -

"The Andersonville Trial" is available through Netflix as a DVD or streaming.

"Youbetcha. Robert McNamara recalls in "Fog of War" how Gen. Curtis LeMay told him -- after they'd organized and carried out the firebombing of Japanese cities -- that if the US had lost the war both of them would've been tried as war criminals."

No doubt...I've also read accounts from former Japanese seamen of the PT boat sailors machine-gunning survivors of coastal shipping vessels sunk by them. Sherman had it right, "War is hell."

"Wirz is an excellent example."

Here's an excellent article I consider to be unbiased. It addresses some of the incidents seen in the Andersonville movies.

Sherman started reading his long, technical speech. But before he sat down, the General suddenly said, Cadets of the graduating class' the students arose and saluted and then changed it to Boys,' making this statement: I've been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It's entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.

Jest - Thanks for the link, I'll try and get around to reading it and the related material later today.

The original Pogo cartoon

i have always respected gen. patraeus's methods.

he actually learned about the local civilians instead and using his head for a method that should be implemented in more areas.

i'm glad he's going to run afghanistan operations.

and this libs being against him thing is rediculous.

when he was first hired, libs might have said stuff because bushco had failed so bad.

he proved everyone wrong and has earned the respect of everyone.

when he was first hired, libs might have said stuff because bushco had failed so bad

he proved everyone wrong and has earned the respect of everyone.

#88 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-06-01 12:07 PM

very true! nice summary.

That is not true. Show me an article where someone was prosecuted for water boarding.
#61 | Posted by Sniper

how many times do you need to be shown this?

Waterboarding is Torture and Torture is a Crime.

Here is another Torture case that was prosecuted right in Texas.

George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

The deputies were sentenced to four years in prison and Parker pleaded guilty to extortion and federal civil rights violations and received a 10-year sentence. Parker admitted that he had operated a "marijuana trap" on U.S. Highway 59, arrested suspects, and, according to court documents, subjected "prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions.

"This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning," the complaint said, which referred to the technique as "water torture."

unfortunately, these detainees do not fall under the Geneva convention guidelines. Therefore, they have no rights and should not be extended any in the U.S. court system. The problem is we should have never taken them in the first place. They should have been left on the field of battle. How they should have been left is up to you.

"Thank you, Captain Obvious.

#5 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2009-05-30 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: "

Ahem, that's General Obvious, to you.

thank you ~ jesusisanotherbegottenwatabe:>)

>"unfortunately, these detainees do not fall under the Geneva convention guidelines. Therefore, they have no rights and should not be extended any in the U.S. court system."

Rather than repeating myself, please see comment lucky #13 wherein I cited the Supreme Court ruling that disagrees with you.

Rather than repeating myself, please see comment lucky #13 wherein I cited the Supreme Court ruling that disagrees with you.

Thank you. I don't know how many times it has to be cited before it sinks in.