#7 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Unless they are members of al Queda, apparently:

I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

"Enhanced interrogations" were developed to skirt around the Geneva Conventions, most likely because Bush implemented the quote you offer:

I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

If there hadn't been detainees who were water boarded, put in stress positions, or held without sleep for days on end, I would believe the latter scenario was supported by Bush. But considering the vast amount of evidence showing that water boarding was used (a method that was used by the Japanese in WWII and a method that Japanese officials were tried, convicted and hung for), I firmly believe Bush had no actual intention of providing the safeguards within the Geneva convention to detainees.

The portion of the memo in which you highlight was meant to skew the perspectives of people like yourself. Apparently it worked.

If you would have read the entirety of the memo you would see that the whole thing is set in this light. But then there would be a little more trouble jiving with the whole bush derangement thing.
#21 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

So then you admit to skipping the first part of the memo and my original post quoting the the memo where it acknowledged that al Queda should not be afforded the safeguards of the Geneva convention?

I'm not jumping in TRUTH's boat claiming that this memo approves the use of torture, but I do recognize that it offers dueling points that make the entirety quite vague now that we know the kind of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used (which included waterboarding - a method used by the Japanese in WWII, who were also tried, convicted and hung for using the method defined as torture in the Geneva Convention).

My point being, although Bush acknowledges in the memo that al Queda would be treated in the consistency of the Geneva Conventions (which they obviously were not), he also underscores the fact that he legally doesn't have to apply Geneva Convention protections to these individuals. I know you are trying to point out the idea that this memo shows that Bush could have tortured the detainees because they are not adherents to the Geneva Conventions, but because we Americans are such moral and good standing people, the detainees would be afforded the Geneva Convention protections. Hindsight spells a different story as to which line of reasoning Bush actually implemented. He tortured those people by waterboarding (again, a method that was inhumane enough to convict Japanese officials of war crimes and lead them to execution post WWII).

You have to acknowledge that although Bush ties a little "moral relativity" to the bottom of the memo, he does state in the beginning of the memo (which sets the context) that he has full legal power to apply "enhanced interrogation techniques" upon the detainees that normally would be considered inhumane treatment under the Geneva Conventions. Considering the last part of the memo was not adhered to (the moral relativity part), that only leaves the legal justification for torture on detainees.

#27 | POSTED BY E_PLURIBUS_UNUM

Don't bother adding to the discussion or anything.

Oh, wait, that's right.....you're one of those pro-torture freaks, eh? =P

#29 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Yes....and there is evidence that detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Grahib received such treatment as well. But that's beside the point.

Waterboarding was specifically acknowledged as torture in those trials. Take a look for yourself.

i do not believe water-boarding to be torture specifically.
#37 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Just as long as you know, many others disagree - including those who have been waterboarded.

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, thus causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2] The term water board torture appears in press reports as early as 1976.[3]

#39 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

McCain's statement: *that = [waterboarding]

#41 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

I'm not saying you should base your opinions on that of others. But did you even read the description of the harmful effects that are caused by the act of waterboarding? Any other act that have those kind of consequences is deemed torture.

Now as to the Japanese hung for torture, the National Review covered the debate quite in depth and chronicled its discussion with the Huffington Post over the issue. National Review maintains:

In no way, shape or form could waterboarding be said to have been the predominate reason any one of these people were hanged. Begala suggesting people at the Tokyo Trials were hanged for waterboarding is akin to noting that Charles Manson is guilty of trespassing on Roman Polanski's home and then insisting that's the reason he got a death sentence. (Not that I'm suggesting trespassing and waterboarding are equivalent crimes; I'm just making a logical point.)

The Review is factually correct, but the overall argument covers whether or not waterboarding is considered torture. Although the Japanese officials were not hanged for specifically ordering prisoners to be waterboarded, the act of waterboarding was included in the list of actions considered torturous.

The National Review is very capable in proving that Japanese officials were not hanged specifically over the issue of waterboarding, but waterboarding was specified as a form of torture through the trials, to which the National Review relents.

Only for those like yourself who would destroy the US in the name of PC.
#44 | POSTED BY E_PLURIBUS_UNUM

Baseless accusations move the discussion nowhere.

My accusation seems to be spot on, Con.

You're "libs and PC rhetoric will destroy the Union" statement (paraphrase) reeks of desperation. Try making a valid point. It might make you feel better.

Using some nerve gas, we might have actually been able to win in Afghanistan.
#48 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Why stop at that? At least with nuclear weapons, you're removing the threat of any "generational" response. The idea was to win the people over to the Western life masked and labeled as democracy. It's nation building and it didn't work.

ossammer hussein obama been laden. (or what ever that aye-rab name was)
#52 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

You're trash.

Couldn't figure out a way to include Barrack in that disparaging remark? Fucking pathetic loon.

I hadn't realized that
#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Really? Globalization at its finest. Americanized globalization equates massive profits for American corporations. The spark is of course influenced by the military industrial complex. Within the context of perpetual war for perpetual profits - it most certainly does make sense.

2+2 does = 4