usaf

The VC lived and worked among us dressed as civilians. Many "insurgents" who resist those who invade/occupy their country are civilians.

Did we afford Geneva to Charlie in nam?

Furthermore, the govt of Afghanistan at the time we invaded/occupied was the Taleban. Included in their ministry of defense was Al Queda. Ministry of defense, does that tell you something? Govt's military.

I've already had this discussion with others on a different thread about the 12 year old boy held for 7 years. You and your fascist leaning buddies want to focus on ONE tiny section of the GC, (2b), to deny GC to "enemy combatants". This was thought up by neocon lawyers as a technicality to be able to do as they pleased. Try reading ALL of the GC and see if some sections don't apply to a country invaded/occupied, whose military barely resisted. Then, tell us how these "enemy combatants" were rounded up and detained indefinitely and which of them attacked the usa.

???

One other thingy. Becoming MORE like our enemies is no victory in any sense of the word. To the CONTRARY.....OBL and his minions cheer each and everytime they know we changed our rules of law, invaded/occupied mid east countries that didn't attack us, and refused the GC to detainees. Great recruitment and the INCREASE in terrorism since 911 proves that law enforcement and diplomacy is the better way to capture, convict and incarcerate/terminate terrorists.

still works out that there were several incidents prevented no matter HOW much that may piss you off...

#184 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2009-09-01 11:48 AM |

And the links to this proof are where???

Your bs about the LA tower was just debunked and like most rwrs, you just continue to spew misinformation anyhow.....

too easy....

Let's see what the repug candydate has to say about torture....you know, the one who actually SERVED in a war.....and a POW...

But, I'm sure you and self serving hallichainy know so much better, eh? LMFAO

"I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan," said the Arizona Republican. "I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq... I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members."

The senator, appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, offered his assessment just hours after Cheney defended the use of torture during an interview with Fox News Sunday. Host Bob Schieffer pushed McCain to explain how it was that an al Qaeda member had told him that the use of torture helped them recruit.

Relaying a conversation that he and Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) had with a jailed "high-ranking member of al Qaeda," McCain replied that pictures of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib had allowed the terrorist organization "to recruit thousands of young men."

Hey JJ

Was the Cole bombing a terrorist attack in your opinion?

Seriously, what measures do you support?
Any?
In reality - I DO have to mow the lawn. Sorry.
#252 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-09-01 02:36 PM

Man, I can use nearly any excuse to avoid "THE LAWN"....LOL

For the UMPTEENTH TIME, LAW ENFORCEMENT with DIPLOMACY with other countries helped capture, convict, incarcerate/terminate the terrorists who attacked us in the 90's.

Truely funny when you see theses tampon wearing libs ...etc...

Until then, how about we stick to the childish name calling and finding yet another way you can call me a racist...

#277 | POSTED BY LIBERTYMONGER AT 2009-09-01 07:46 PM

HAHAHAAHAhHhahaaahaaAHAHAAHAAH
AHA

HA

Have you fought on a forward line in accordance with the Geneva Convention
#279 | POSTED BY LIBERTYMONGER AT 2009-09-01 09:31 PM

Have you?

Do tell!

Couple of points

1. There is a reason the military and veterans support the Geneva Convention.

2. Deny it to others, you are denying to our own troops.

3. There is NO evidence torture works. The victims will tell their torturers whatever they want to hear...regardless of veracity. Furthermore, other methods work without sacrificing our values, rule of law and GC.

4. Torture has made us less safe, increased terrorism and recruitment of other enemies against the usa.

5. Read what McCain, Petraeus and other war veterans have to say on the subject instead of believing 5 deferment hallichainy, analcyst rushaddict and others who don't know shit about it....eh?

Jeff J

Section 2b is but ONE section of the GC. It is the section that the torturemongers used as a technicallity to pretend there is such a thing as "enemy combatants"

At the time we invaded Afghanistan, the Taleban was the accepted govt by their people and AlQueda was part of their ministry of defense......this makes them covered under GC. As far as iraqnam is concerned, how do you figure that thousands of citizens of a country that never attacked us deserve to be tortured to give hallichainy some info supporting his invasion/occupation would not be covered.

READ ALL the GC and you will see that one tiny section does not disclude those we "captured", illegallyd detained indefinitely and torture interrogated....

The documentation for these points can be found where i posted them on the thread about the 12 year old boy that spent 7 years in gitmo.

Here, argue with your former hero......

Petraeus Against Torture, For Closing Gitmo
by: Jon Soltz
Tue May 26, 2009 at 11:48:45 AM EDT

Last year, those on the right loved General Petraeus. You couldn't debate anyone on the neocon side without them trying to hide behind the General. There were even rumors swirling that Republicans would recruit him to be their nominee in 2012. Then, supporters of Governor Palin found their new nominee for 2012, but they think General Petraeus would make a fine subordinate to the Governor in a Dream Ticket in four years.
Well, don't look now, but our friend Sam Stein at the Huffington Post reports:

General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.
General Petraeus goes on to say that he believes we need to stay within the Geneva Convention, and that closing Gitmo "sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

Of course, this flies in the face of the Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney crowd - those who believe that we're safer when we do things that serve as great recruiting tools for al Qaeda.

and btw Jeff J

Tell us, how many of those hijackers were iraqi or afghanis???

NONE, eh?

Begin to THINK for yourself and stop listening to "far" right loons....that never served anyone but themselves

It isn't true, but it probably makes things easier for you to believe otherwise.
#290 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-09-02 09:11 AM

Ok Jeff...I'll bite, WHERE do you get your info that torture works and is condoned for some people?

Jack Bauer?

What is you expertize in the subject of torture? Did you serve? Have you been educated by the military on the GC? WHO IS telling you this BULLSHIT, if not chickenhawk, war/torture mongers who didn't keep us safe on 911??

Show me some reports/articles of war veterans agreeing with torture...with LINKS please....I will post a myriad of article from war vets who disagree.

I find it incredible that your party RAN mccain, yet you NOW want to pretend he is LESS THAN, since he's saying something you don't agree with....Same with Petraeus who is saying not only does torture not work, but better results can be obtained otherwise AND torture has made us LESS SAFE AND our allies shy away from supporting our goals....

do tell Jeff...

As for 101CHERRY

Join up sonnyboy...your country needs you. In the process, you might learn a thing or two you don't know...eh?

John McCain said it worked on him. Next.
#294 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2009-09-02 09:23 AM

Waterboarding worked on KSM. Next.
#296 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-09-02 09:24 AM

LINKs to referenced articles please......

But don't sit there and pretend that this shit doesn't work. It does. It always has and always will.
#299 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2009-09-02 09:27 AM

I can provide many that say torture does work.
Was John McCain lying in his book? Am I lying when I say torture would work on me?

#320 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-09-02 09:47 AM

Yet, you can provide ZERO FACTS with LINKS, eh?

LOL

I just find it amazing how these ARM CHAIR GENERALS read a couple of articles and become self proclaimed experts in the matter.
#324 | POSTED BY LIBERTYMONGER AT 2009-09-02 11:11 AM

I just find it amazing how you can pretend you have any FACTS and continue to spew bs from self serving war profiteer and 5 deferment hallichainy.....while IGNORING what war vet and pow McCain says on the subject and/or Gen. Petraeus......

Let's see some FACTS and/or opinions from actual WAR VETERANS bro!

For the posters thinking they can TWIST McCain's words....to support their political partisan goals.....

I began to recover my wits and my interrogators came to the hospital to resume their work. The beatings were of short duration because I let out a hair-raising scream when they occurred and my interrogators appeared concerned that hospital personnel might object.

Eventually I gave them my ship's name and squadron number. When asked to identify future targets, I recited the names of north Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed.

For almost two months, nothing happened. Then the punishment sessions began. I was hauled into an empty room and kept there for four days. At intervals, the guards returned to administer beatings.

One guard held me while the others pounded away.

They cracked several of my ribs and broke a couple of teeth. Weakened by beatings and dysentery, with my right leg again almost useless, I found it impossible to stand.

On the third night I lay in my blood and waste, so tired and hurt that I could not move. Three guards lifted me to my feet and gave me the worst beating yet. They left me lying on the floor moaning from the stabbing pain in my re-fractured arm.

Despairing of any relief from pain and further torture, I tried to take my life. After several unsuccessful attempts, I managed to stand. Up-ending the waste bucket, I stepped on it, bracing myself against the wall with my good arm.

I looped my shirt through the shutters. As I looped it around my neck, a guard saw the shirt through the window, pulled me off the bucket and beat me.

Later, I made a second, feebler attempt at suicide. On the fourth day, I gave up. I signed a confession that "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pilot".

The guards ordered me to record my confession on tape. I refused, and was beaten until I consented.

from Faith of My Fathers, by John McCain

In a strong pushback against claims made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. John McCain insisted on Sunday that the use of torture on terrorism suspects violated international law, didn't work, and actually helped al Qaeda recruit additional members.

"I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan," said the Arizona Republican. "I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq... I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members."

The senator, appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, offered his assessment just hours after Cheney defended the use of torture during an interview with Fox News Sunday. Host Bob Schieffer pushed McCain to explain how it was that an al Qaeda member had told him that the use of torture helped them recruit.

Relaying a conversation that he and Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) had with a jailed "high-ranking member of al Qaeda," McCain replied that pictures of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib had allowed the terrorist organization "to recruit thousands of young men."

Okay Fagforth...
#326 | POSTED BY LIBERTYMONGER AT 2009-09-02 11:39 AM

Your namecalling makes a great argument monger....

LMFAO @ you....

So if I make a web page that says torture would work on me and link to it you would believe it, but if I say it here you don't? LOL

#328 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-09-02 12:02 PM

Is that ALL you have? Your own OPINION? What do you base your opinion on goatman? Any facts from someone that would KNOW?

By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.

An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.

WHat about you, woke? You could hold up under torture? You wouldn't blab? Torture wouldn't work on you?
You are a stronger person than I, then.
Here is an account by John McCain about another POW he was with:
They had to break his already broken right arm a second time, and threaten to break the other, before Bud gave them anything at all.
www.news.com.au
#332 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-09-02 12:09 PM

That is a stupid, strawman argument goat......of course it would work to get me to say any damned thing they wanted me to say...

Do you believe that information would be VALID and worth using?

Hello? Anyone home?

WHAT info did "bud" give them? Don't know do you?

LINKS to valid references on the subject please.....

monger

I have ONLY your word you ever even served son....but if you have a pissing contest to prove veracity of my pov...

USAF 68-72
Security
including gas truck convoy, perimeter and base security from Bien Hoa to Tay Nihn....69-70....

Wanna denigrate my service like you are mccain and petraeus and your own military training on Geneva Conventions..??

Be my guest

TABLES TURNED
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, "I know you won't remember everything I told you today, but just remember what your mom told you: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." That's a pretty good standard for life and for the law, and even though I left the unit in 1995, I like to think that some of my teaching had carried over when the 72nd refused to participate in misconduct at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Sometimes, though, the questions we face about detainees and interrogation get more specific. One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding."
>>
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

>>
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.

More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."

In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject 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 four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.

Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.

I asked you: Would you stand up to torture? Yes or no.

#339 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2009-09-02 12:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

asked and answered here goatman.....

#336

Your turn:
of what use is information gained from torture, when a person will say anything the interrogator wants to hear to make it stop?

THINK for yourself for a change son....

BEGALA: We -- our country executed Japanese soldiers who water- boarded American POWs. We executed them for the same crime that we are now committing ourselves. How do you defend that?

We chided Begala slightly because we thought he wasn't quite right on the facts:

Actually, Fleischer could have countered Begala by pointing out that we didn't actually execute the Japanese soldiers convicted of the war crime of waterboarding American prisoners -- we just sentenced them to 15 years' hard labor.

But now, Begala makes clear he knew whereof he spoke:

But I was not referring to Asano, nor was my source Sen. Kennedy. Instead I was referencing the statement of a different member of the Senate: John McCain. On November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, "Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:

"McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning." Politifact went on to report, "A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps."

The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts."

We apologize to Begala for the error.

We'll be waiting a long time, I expect, for all those right-wingers out there who claim waterboarding isn't torture to apologize to the world.

goatman

HELLO??

Are you able to listen and understand that information gained from torture where people will say ANYTHING to make it stop is not reliable. Therefore my comment that your argument is strawman...of what use is unreliable info?

Secondly, information may be gained using other methods and when torture is begun, it actually STOPS that flow of info...

Here is another actual example...

Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering
An FBI agent testifies that an al-Qaida prisoner provided useful intelligence until the CIA got rough -- and casts doubt on Bush's statements about the effectiveness of harsh interrogations.

By Mark Benjamin

FBI agent Ali Soufan testifies from behind a black curtain and a room divider, right, in Washington Wednesday, during a hearing to examine the Bush administration's detention and interrogation program.

May 14, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The testimony of a key witness at a Senate hearing Wednesday raised serious questions about the truthfulness of former President George W. Bush's own personal defense of the CIA's brutal interrogation program. Former FBI agent Ali Soufan also indicated that the harsh interrogation techniques may actually have hindered the collection of intelligence, causing a high-value prisoner to stop cooperating.

In the first congressional hearing on torture since the release of Bush administration memos that provided the legal justification for torture, Soufan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the CIA's abusive techniques were "ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida." According to Soufan, his own nonviolent interrogation of an al-Qaida suspect was quickly yielding valuable, actionable intelligence -- until the CIA intervened.

Soufan was with the FBI on March 28, 2002, when the United States captured its first suspected al-Qaida operative after 9/11, a man named Abu Zubaydah, held at a secret location overseas. Soufan had investigated terrorism cases dating back to the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998, and he was one of the first experts called after Zubaydah's capture.