Vice President for Torture:
By on Nov 18th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Vice President for Torture:
Former CIA Director Stansfield Turner: “I am embarrassed that the U.S.A. has a vice president for torture. I think it is just reprehensible. He advocates torture, what else is it?” Fight back.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The drum beat gets louder. When will spin and lies fly back at them like so much projectile vomit?
November 18th, 2005 at 11:06 amI am also embarrassed that Old Cheney is our VP. I do not consider this old guy to be my VP. I did not vote for this idiot.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:11 amCan we give Cheney an official title? CEO of Torture?
November 18th, 2005 at 11:26 amDoes he own massive amounts of stock in the Co.’s that make govt. approved water boarding equipment, nipple electode clips or other S&M gear?
Do those companies employ illegal immigrants,pay no medical bene’s, and pay little or no tax?
Did these companies win their contracts without bidding?
I guess that makes Bush the President for Torture then.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:30 amNot surprising, considering the source: Stan Turner was the best Director of Central Intelligence ever, probably the only one with a well-developed sense of the inherent conflict between covert practices and democracy. During his tenure, every time I saw him interviewed his candor was refreshing, if not downright startling, for a DCI. An admirable warrior-statesman.
http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty/turner.html
November 18th, 2005 at 11:38 amThere never would have been any problem in this area if Bushie had only declared that the Geneva Convention applied. But he didn’t. By his saying that Geneva didn’t apply he gave the green light. The buck stops with our sub-human idiot in chief.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:52 amTurner said the same thing when he was in D.C. promoting his book at Politics and Prose.
He has been very harsh in his condemnation of Vice President Cheney’s desire to allow the CIA to torture.
And it’s not like he was part of the touchy-feely wing of the Carter Administration.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:59 amnow we have 2 for impeachment, this will go down in history for sure.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:59 amMary Poppins: Cheney isn’t your VP. He’s only the VP for decent, loyal Americans.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:00 pm# 9 I will have you know the I am a true American. You are a brainwash Republican.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:09 pmwwallace ! Definitely then, NOT your VP.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:11 pmunless ofcourse you consider yourself”decent”?
wwallace,
You’re a moron. Plain and simple. Not everything republicans do is good, and not everything democrats do is bad. You’re for torture? Let’s hope you don’t get accused of a crime, and find out what torture really is like. Decent U.S. citizens are found on both sides. Cheney is not a decent U.S. citizen.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:12 pmThe Vice president is not for turture. That is a lie. The President is not for torture, That is a lie.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:14 pmI’m glad someone finally called out Cheney on this. For the last year and a half, since Abu Gahrib, this country has been in denial about the torture issue. McCain shows leadership passing his ammendment and the VP wants to keep the free pass open for the spooks. What is really ironic is that this really is “the work of a few bad apples”…sadly the bad apples are calling the shots in our White House, not the ones handling prisoners in Iraq.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:16 pm#9 #10
Wwallace your more than welcome to this murder.
As Real Americans who abide,honor,believe in moral,ethical, Genevea Convention, International Law,War Laws and Ethics plus the Laws Of the United States and abiding by the Consitution and Admendments we as Citizens of The United States Of America call upon Congress to pursue the Call to Impeachment for Treason By George W Bush and his Vice President Richard Cheney and his close circles of advisors and the damn 9 neo cons who preplaned this war in Crawford Texas in early 2000.
This #9 is a matter of treason and IF your not hung upon a murder like dick cheney maybe you need to join the military and head to Iraq and kill women and children for cheney.
Its Time For All Good Americans To Rise to their Feet and Demand the Impeachment of the BushCo Cabal……
November 18th, 2005 at 12:16 pm#13 -
November 18th, 2005 at 12:20 pmYou’ve just identified two lies. This is the first sane post out of wwallace since it infected this blog.
Mary Poppin – though I loathe the man myself, he is my vice president. It doesn’t matter who you voted for in this regard, if you’re a member of the democracy, then the elected official is “your” elected official as well. You tend to lose credibility when you say things like that.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:32 pm#15 thot’s I do not believe in this war in Iraq and torturing prisoners. I agree we need to impeach Old Bushie and his Admin. I believe the day Old Bushie got in office in 2000 we should of impeached him. He is destroying our country.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:40 pmSince there are 83,000 prisoners in coalition custody, is the “torture” about just gaining terrorist info?,or a method of intimidation against the Iraqi male population with the purpose of keeping them under control through fear.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:42 pm#17 hootenatty Sorry I disagree with you. This man does not have my values. He and Bush is not my President and VP. They are only for the rich. My credibility is just doing fine.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:45 pm“Since there are 83,000 prisoners in coalition custody,”
That is not true.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terorists.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:52 pm#21
Perhaps, but are you saying that all 83,000 in custody are terrorists? How do YOU know? Has this been proven? I thought they were “suspected” terrorists.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:05 pmAnd, wwallace, do you support torture? Do you support the torture of Sen. John McCain during the Vietnam War? Wasn’t that in their “best interest” at the time, as they saw it? If you were captured by the enemy and your flesh was peeled off your body, all in the name of the enemy trying to gain a military advantage by getting secrets out of you, would you support torture?
November 18th, 2005 at 1:10 pmwwallace speaks like a true terrorist and/or dictator. THE LAW DOESN”T APPLY TO ME. If terrorists don’t count, then we aren’t ‘at war’, so the president has no war powers…
Just goes to show how how fringe, radical and out of touch with mainstream americans republicans have come.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:24 pmThe Geneva Conventions do not apply to terorists.
Comment by wwallace – November 18, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
The Geneva Conventions were drafted to protect both prisoners and civilians in times of war. What is a “terrorist” for one party, could very well be heroes for the other. In other words, these conventions protect everyone, not just the “terrorists” –specially considering that there is no definition of “terrorist” all parties can agree on. For example: Are the Chechen fighters terrorists or patriots? If you ask the Chechens, they very well could tell you their fighters are patriotic people fighting for their independence.
As for the Geneva Conventions, here is a tidbit:
November 18th, 2005 at 1:34 pm“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
Third Geneva Convention, Article 5
#17, WE did NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN, WHAT EXACTLY THEN DOES THAT MAKE US , WHO DID NOT VOTEE FOR THIS MAN?
November 18th, 2005 at 1:50 pm(only in your view ).
sounds as if you are forcing false leadership on others!
BLINDED BY FAITH!
November 18th, 2005 at 1:52 pmCan the “BLIND LEAD THE BLIND�
DONT PUT YOUR TRUST IN THE “MAD FAITH DISEASEâ€.
CALLED†BINDMADNESS,MONEYMADNESS,FREEDOMMADNESSâ€!
MANY NAMES.
Mary Poppins: Cheney isn’t your VP. He’s only the VP for decent, loyal Americans.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 12:00 pm
Here wwallace is implying he is a decent, loyal American.
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terorists.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
Here wwallace, as a decent and loyal American, is advocating a “gloves off” policy on prisoners.
Following wwallace logic to the end:
November 18th, 2005 at 1:55 pm1.-Cheney is the VP for decent, loyal Americans
2.-All decent, loyal Americans support torture
3.-Cheney supports torture
“What is a “terrorist†for one party, could very well be heroes for the other.”
What a display of gross moral equivalence. Demcorats simply cannot be trusted to defend America.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:04 pmWC,
No, there are not 83,000 people in custody.
I do not support torture, the VP does not support torture, the president does not support torture. We also do not support treating terrorists as if they were American civilians in our domestic criminal justice system.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:06 pm#25
Good post, Gregor. And what about “insurgents?” Do they count as terrorists as well?
How about the various gangs in our own California. Remember a few years ago when an innocent family in a car was gunned down by gangters because they made a wrong turn down a street? Is it fair to label gangs as “terrorists?”
Three definitions of terrorism, per dictionary.com:
(1) The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
(2) The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.
(3) Violent and intimidating gang activity .
(Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law)
November 18th, 2005 at 2:14 pmWhat a display of gross moral equivalence. Demcorats simply cannot be trusted to defend America.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Ok, then –”Scooter” Libby has been indicted for obstruction of justice. That is un-American.
Would you advocate his torture? If not, why not?
Yes, wwallace… you do advocate torture. Do not try to backpedal now.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:15 pmGregor is obviously a liar, since I have never advocated torture. Scooter Libby hs nothing to do with this thread. Do you have ADD Gregor? Or are you just generally slow-witted? :()
November 18th, 2005 at 2:18 pmGregor must think that Bill Clinton, who was impeached for his obstruction and perjury, is also un-American.
I think the fact Mr. Clinton is a crook doesn’t mean he hates his country. :()
November 18th, 2005 at 2:20 pm#30
Then 2 questions:
1. If the President and VP do not support torture, then why the arm twisting by the administration to exempt the CIA from McCain’s amendment?
2. Re: your quote, “The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terorists.” And your point is…?
November 18th, 2005 at 2:23 pmWWallace you are a liar. Bush and Cheney do support torture. The Repubs do not defend America as half of them where not in the military. Especially Cheney and AWOL Bush.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:24 pmwwallace, let me paste your posts back to you:
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terorists.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
That means that, in your opinion, none of the protections granted to combatants and civilians during an armed conflict is applicable to “terrorists”. That protection includes precluding prisoners from being tortured.
So, again, if you do not think the Geneva Conventions apply to “terrorists”, it means you believe it is ok to torture them, among other things.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:28 pmWC, The McCain amendment does much more than ban torture. Torture is already illegal, no new laws in that regard are necessary.
My point about the Geneva Conventions is that they do not apply, so the Democrats should stop saying they do.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:28 pmWWallace You are sleeping as Bill Clinton is not a crook. The only one that is corrupt is Old Bushie and Cheney..
November 18th, 2005 at 2:29 pmmary, #36: The VP and the president do not support torture. You are a liar. VP Cheney received legal deferments. He did not dodge and lie about it like Bill Clinton did. The president served in the military. Clearly, nothing you say can be trusted. :()
November 18th, 2005 at 2:31 pmMy point about the Geneva Conventions is that they do not apply, so the Democrats should stop saying they do.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
Again… As for the Geneva Conventions, here is a tidbit:
November 18th, 2005 at 2:31 pm“Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
Third Geneva Convention, Article 5
Gregor:
What an idiotic comment. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants. That doesn’t nmean other laws do not apply, you imbecile. :()
November 18th, 2005 at 2:32 pmMary Pothead, if Slick Willy isn’t a crook, why was he disbarred? :()
November 18th, 2005 at 2:33 pmThe Geneva Conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Read my previous post. In a nutshell: When it doubt, the conventions do apply.
Also, please enlighten us… what other laws apply?
November 18th, 2005 at 2:35 pmWWalace, Hey dopey, can you throw Hillary, Gore and Ted “the swimmer’ into this thread about CHENEY THE TORTURER? Get creative now.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:42 pmGregor, what doubt?
November 18th, 2005 at 2:43 pmIt’s not all that surprising to me that Chenny and his ilk would be for torture. They never had to face the possibility of being caputred by a hostile force who would torture. When the call came for them to serve, they “had other priorities”. I’m not a big fan of McCain, but he’s exactly right when he says it’s not about the terrorists, it’s about who WE are as a people. It’s un-American to torture. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Snarling Dick would want torture, he IS un-American.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:50 pmJennty,
Cheney isn’t for torture. Stop lying. Lying is un-American.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:54 pm#38
wwallace, you did not answer my question. Again, If the President and VP do not support the use of torture, then why the arm twisting by the administration to exempt the CIA from McCain’s amendment?
Oh, and I went to Sen. McCain’s Web site to read his statement on the amendment. It is in support of 2 things; this quote is from his opening paragraph:
“Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.”
Go read the rest of it and then come back and tell me, for what part of the amendment is Cheney asking exemption?
November 18th, 2005 at 2:57 pm#48
Then my mother-in-law is un-American. She lies quite often.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:59 pmWC, The McCain amendment is too broad.
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200511150828.asp
November 18th, 2005 at 3:01 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200511150829.asp
#43 Clinton was the best President we ever had. You are an Idiot. Clinton was only disbarred for a few years. Bush had 4 fail businesses. Cheney and Haliburton no bit contracts. They are both total crooks. Do you think by calling me names is going to get you anywhere. I think not.
If you think this war is so great, why don’t you sign up?
November 18th, 2005 at 3:01 pmMary Pill-Poppin:
November 18th, 2005 at 3:07 pmHalliburton got no-bid contracts when Clinton was president too. So he is a “total crook” by your own standard. Thanks for playing. :()
#53 You are a a**hole
November 18th, 2005 at 3:12 pmPill-Poppin mary called me an “a**hole” right after saying “Do you think by calling me names is going to get you anywhere. I think not.”
Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E Mary? :()
November 18th, 2005 at 3:21 pminteresting story
Discovery of prisoners heartens Iraq’s Sunni minority
By Leila Fadel and Mohammed al Dulaimy
Knight Ridder Newspapers
BAGHDAD, Iraq – U.S. troops’ discovery of 173 mostly Sunni Arab men beaten and malnourished in a secret Interior Ministry jail has sent a jolt of optimism through Baghdad’s disaffected Sunni minority.
“This is like a dream – the American forces free Iraqi prisoners tortured by the government?” said Huthayfa Mohammed, 20, a Sunni Arab who can’t find his brother after Iraqi police detained him. “This is brand new.”
Like Mohammed, much of the Sunni Arab minority has taken heart in the recent discovery, which was announced Tuesday. The idea that the U.S. military may be trying to help the Sunnis has given them an instant boost in confidence that the parliamentary elections in December could make them players in the next government.
The U.S. military’s discovery of the men is “an indication that the Americans would like to show the Iraqis how they are really trying to handle the whole situation in an even-handed policy and make them feel more confident in the American policy,” said Dr. Hassan Bazzaz, a Sunni professor of political science and international affairs at Baghdad University.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:32 pm34%
November 18th, 2005 at 3:43 pmWwallace, you say the amendment is too broad. You still haven’t answered my question. Why is Cheney asking for an exemption?
November 18th, 2005 at 3:52 pmOh, and if the amendment is too broad, seems like that would be a good thing. No one could nail the CIA for a specific act. McCain and his amendment supporters would have one set of definitions of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and the administration would have another.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:55 pmwwallace shows that he’s the most retarded kid on the shortbus again.
The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called “unlawful combatants,” are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): “nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.”
November 18th, 2005 at 4:07 pmwwallace,
I would still like to know what other laws apply, in your opinion.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:14 pmRyan,
that is what I was trying to tell wwallace, but I don’t know if he was being disingenuous, or ignoring my posts on purpose.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:20 pmOops! Typo in my own name ;-)
November 18th, 2005 at 4:22 pmGregor,
Republicans are always disengenuous about politics, and they always ignore posts that undermine their delusions. You can count on that response.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:28 pmwwallace,
I, too, am interested in why the President and Vice President insist that torture should not be banned if they are against its use? You keep saying that they are against torture but you don’t explain their opposition to making it illegal in all cases.
Torture does not work! That is a fact. You cannot rely on anything a tortured person tells you because all he wants to do is make the torture stop (even if he knows it may continue later), so he will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear just to make you stop.
As for the “bomb about to go off in an hour” scenario that torture supporters frequently like to bring up (and I know that you didn’t, but it’s been raised before), well that’s totally ridiculous. Again, you can’t believe anything you hear from someone being tortured. But if you’re in one of those situations I described, the best thing to do is to not waste time trying to torture information out of him that can’t be relied upon. The best thing to do is continue the detective work that led you to the guy and try to see not only who he has been in contact with but where he went during the last few days. But torturing him for information is both a waste of time and inhuman.
We say that the President and Vice President support torture because they refuse to let legislation go through banning it without a fight. ANd remember when the news broke about the secret CIA prisons where (it was suspected) the torturing from “extraordinary renditions” took place? Do you remember the administration’s reaction to the news? Instead of them saying, “What? We have illegal prisons where toprture might be taking place? We have to shut these down immediately and bring those responsibile to justice!”, their reaction was more like, “What? Somebody revealed the fact that we have illegal prisons? We have to find this traitor and bring him to justice!”
The President and the Vice President DO support the use of torture. What they SAY in public does not jibe with what they DO behind closed doors.
(And if you already gave an answer by the time I finished posting this, then I’ll thank you in advance if it is complete and coherent and based on facts.)
November 18th, 2005 at 4:29 pmPlus, it flabbergasts me that we have to go the books, dust them, and wiggle around the written word, to figure out if torture is ok or not.
Some other poster (I think it was Zwack) said that torture should be against anyone’s principles –and I agree. It is a barbaric practice. But when Zwack tried that argument, he was ridiculed as being effeminate.
A practice that was shunned by many during the Enlightenment is now seen as practicable. Talk about setting the clock back!
But then, I have heard people use the word “humanist” as an insult. I guess Erasmus and Plato are despicable liberals too…
November 18th, 2005 at 4:41 pmThey don’t torture? Yeah, right.
Mission Accomplished:
http://www.airfarceone.net/shrubdown.html
-
November 18th, 2005 at 4:59 pmThe president and VP do not insist that torture should not be banned. Torture is already illegal.
Ryan bin Ladin, who admitted in another thread recently that he cannot tell the difference between a chimp and a human, doesn’t know what the Geneva Conventions require. :()
November 18th, 2005 at 5:17 pmTorture is already illegal.
Comment by wwallace — November 18, 2005 @ 5:17pm
Good we can agree on something. So, nobody should be tortured. And anybody who tortures is guilty of committing an illegal act. And anyone who expresses support for torture and torturers is endorsing and condoning an illegal act. Right?
November 18th, 2005 at 5:53 pmThis is a bad move for Cheney. His pursuit of allowing the use of torture is another example of his total arrogance; he believes he is above the law.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:01 pmHe has lost credibility. He is desperate.
The other night, in his tuxedo, before a friendly crown he berated an honored veteran — the height of hypocrisy.
He is a sick man — mentally. He must be brought down.
Cheney and Bush are not my President and Vice President. They do not respect anyone who does not agree with them, therefore I do not accept them. They pursue their single-minded agenda and damn anyone or anything in their way. They listen to no one.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:04 pmMarie, Cheney is not pursuing allowing the use of torture. Stop lying.
Bush and Cheney are the President and VP of loyal Americans. Thank you for admitting you don’t qualify.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:16 pmwwallace,
so… can we agree that torture is illegal and abominable?
Regardless of what book we use to support our view.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:23 pmA loyal american doesn’t fabricate evidence to go to war illegally.
A loyal american doesn’t bust up a CIA company that’s specializing on WMDs, just because that company catches you trying to illegally ship in WMDs from turkey to salt the iraqis with WMDs to justify the war.
A loyal american doesn’t steal the election the way the republicans did in 2004.
A loyal american doesn’t sell WMDs to dictators the way Cheney and Rumsfeld sold them to Iraq under Reagan.
The only thing you’re qualified wwallace is a straightjacket!
November 18th, 2005 at 6:38 pmwwallace thought a chimp baby was a human baby, poor thing, and now he’s projecting that idiocy on me. You know wwallace, projecting your fears, insecurities on others is consistently republican, but it’s also psychotic. You really should be on anti-psychotic meds.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:39 pmwwallace,
I proved you wrong on the Geneva Conventions, so you have to attack me personally. Poor little pathetic loser – life must be rough for you to discover that all of these supposedly ‘loser’ liberals know more about america and american law than you do.
Why don’t you move to Iran or some other religious fascist nation more suited to your fascist ideals. America is a land of liberties and liberalism – as it always has been. You clearly don’t belong in a civil society.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:41 pmWhackoWallace claims that the terrorists aren’t POWs, because they aren’t soldiers. Here are the torture requirements on POWs.
Geneva convention:
Art 17): “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 unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”
However the 4th geneva convention covers everyone else and:
The Fourth Geneva Convention (”GCIV”) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war “in the hands” of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. This should not be confused with the more common Third Geneva Convention which deals with the treatment of Prisoners of war.
Art. 32. A protected persons shall not be have done to them anything of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination … the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment.
While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32.
So in otherwords, not only are terrorists ‘covered’ by the geneva convention (why the rest of the world is at an uproar with us), but what our liar republicans say isn’t torture – IS in fact torture by the definitions of the convention.
Republicans DO torture, and republicans lie about it!
November 18th, 2005 at 6:48 pmAll Ryan has proved is that a) he can’t tell the difference between a chimp and a human, by his own admission, and b) his tinfoil hat is on way too tight. :()
Ryan now: “wwallace thought a chimp baby was a human baby, poor thing, and now he’s projecting that idiocy on me”
Ryan then: “…Chimps look like humans…” Now he’s lying about it. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/27/podesta-miers/
:()
November 18th, 2005 at 6:51 pmRyan bin Ladin, #77: “The Fourth Geneva Convention (â€GCIVâ€) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war”
Terrorists, your allies, are not civilians. They are unlawful combatants not subject to Geneva Conventions protection.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:54 pmWe are getting way off topic with the chimps…
wwallace, you have stated that torture is illegal.
I will ask you again: Can we agree torture is illegal on ALL circumstances?
November 18th, 2005 at 7:09 pm#72, How do you say he is not pursuing the use of torture when that is what he is doing?
November 18th, 2005 at 7:46 pmYou argue for the same of argument — not because you make any sense or know anything at all.
#81, How do you say he is pursuing the use of torture when that is not what he is doing?
November 18th, 2005 at 7:52 pmCome on, wwallace! Stop ignoring my question. I am not asking a trick question or anything -it is transparent and simple.
I do believe that, whatever one’s belief system, torture should be abominable, barbaric, and abhorrent.
Whatever book, legal treatise, or convention you want to use to base your opinion on, that’s fine with me. Whether you use the Bible or the consitution of the US –I don’t care.
Agreeing with a “liberal” won’t get you cast into hell, you know?
November 18th, 2005 at 8:38 pmI’m glad you posted the link wallace to the other thread, I recommend everyone read it.
I said ‘you’ couldn’t tell the difference, that’s still true. The fact is you can’t tell the difference between a monkey fetus or a human one.. Just like you can’t tell the difference between torture and non-torture, or geneva conventions and civilized behavior and the behavior of a terrorist.
You say terrorists don’t deserve humane treatment, but ironically that’s the same argument osama makes about civilian americans. Clearly wwallaceBinLaden is a great example of republican terrorist values. You guys created AlQueda, so why am I not surprised your babies have your twisted immorality.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:16 pm““The Fourth Geneva Convention (â€GCIVâ€) relates to the protection of civilians during times of warâ€
Terrorists, your allies, are not civilians. They are unlawful combatants not subject to Geneva Conventions protection. ”
Bahaha, what a retard! First of all Terrorists are a REPUBLICAN creation, you guys created AlQueda to fight the russians – they’re your boys, and they have YOUR values.
See the problem is, you either have soldiers, or civilians, there’s no other category. Your desire to create a ‘third sex’ is right up there with the rest of whacko republican ideas.
As AvnerGidron explains:
The most authoritative interpreter of the Geneva Conventions, Amnesty International believes that those captured by the US in Afghanistan, in the course of an international armed conflict, and then transferred to a US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are presumed to be POWs. A careful reading of both the Third Geneva Convention and the First Additional Protocol, as well as the official ICRC commentaries on these instruments indicates that they should be interpreted broadly to give the greatest possible protection. If there is any dispute about the status of the prisoners, the US must allow a “competent tribunal” to decide, as required by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. An independent US court following due process can make this determination — not the Secretary of Defense or any other US administration official. The US is contravening its legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions by refusing to do so.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:22 pmwwallace you forget the part which says what I said, and discredited your lies yet again.
“In fact a chimp fetus looks virtually identical to a human one, and I bet you’d have a hard time telling them apart. ”
Like I said, wwallace can’t tell the difference between a monkey and a human – that’s why he always makes the monkey face :() – it reminds him of his image in the mirror. Poor little retarded republican.
November 18th, 2005 at 11:34 pmUnlawful Combatant is a voodoo term that isn’t real. It’s a fabrication out of the illusionary minds of republican terrorists and criminals.
From human rights watch:
Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as “unlawful combatants” or “non-privileged combatants, ” although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions. Such persons are still protected under the Geneva Conventions, but under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as “protected persons.”
WhackoWallace demostrates the lazy and hysterical views of the republican fools. They believe torture and WMDs are valid as long as it is against ‘terrorist’ targets. These evil and hateful people are completely unamerican. Wwallace you’re an embarrassment to our country and our heritage. YOU ARE TRULY A FOOL!
November 18th, 2005 at 11:42 pmI linked to what you said Ryan bin Ladin. You said you cannot tell the difference. Anyone can red exactly what you wrote, you lunatic. :()
“This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants”
November 19th, 2005 at 2:17 pmDo you really believe members of al Qaeda are “non-combatants” you loon? :()
Come on monkey boy wwallace :() – your party created AlQueda, I wouldn’t dream of taking the BinLaden surname from you and the rest of osama’s brides…
Anyone can ‘red’, that must be a freudian slip from all of you conspiracy theorist republican fascist morons.
You’re either a combatant or a non-combatant. Everyone is both, there’s no other option. You’re the loon for believing that a fabricated term that doesn’t even exist exempts this administration from international torture rules.
Either we’re at war with the terrorists – meaning they’re combatants. Or we’re not at war, and they’re civilians who are committing a crime. The idea that people who are at war with us, that don’t wear a uniform don’t grant international protection from terrorism is the mark of a terrorist state (something you clearly like).
Your irrational and hysterical stance to protect torture is consistent with what I would expect from Osama – you’re definitely a terrorists best girlfriend, you think just like him.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:38 pmAs the redcross, human rights watch, the UN and EVERY other respected international expert organization on law and torture says – NO ONE is exempt from Geneva Convention protections. Either you’re an official wearer of a uniform and you are to be tried in a military court, or you are not, and you are to be tried in a civilian court.
There is no ‘other’ exception as monkey girl (osama’s latest wife) claims. To claim otherwise is the actions of a rogue nation and an uncivilized (monkey) society – something republicans like wwallace seem quite comfortable in. Republicans are just waiting for the day when they can have planet of the apes – feudalism with big guns and hyper masculine brutality. Sorry, that’s your fantasy, rent a video if that’s what you get off on honey.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:41 pmAnd one more thing whackoWallace, I’m against ALL violence, and ALL torture. I was opposed to republicans when you guys created AlQueda to fight the russians, just like I’m opposed to them now. Whereas you and your republican fascist brothers not only created the terrorists, you advocate torture, the use of WMDs and the death penalty.
Everything you stand for mirrors what Osama wants for his new islamic empire – but yours would just be christian fascism.
It’s ironic you keep calling me bin laden, when in fact it is you who matches values perfectly. Clearly this is just another psychotic and childish projection from a man with ‘adequacy’ and ‘masculinity’ issues. You really should seek some therapy, your hatred of women, and your insecurity in your own masculinity are clear symptoms of a greater and more serious problem with your psyche. You are not a healthy person…
November 19th, 2005 at 4:45 pm“The Republicans created al Qaeda” is crazy talk. :()
“As the redcross, human rights watch, the UN and EVERY other respected international expert organization”
I don’t respect any of those organizations though.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:14 pm“And one more thing whackoWallace, I’m against ALL violence, and ALL torture.”
Talk is cheap. President Bush liberated the people of Afghanistan from the rule of the Taliban. President Bush ended the violence and torture of the murderous Saddam Hussein regime. One can easily guess that poor mentally-unstable Ryan here has done nothing of any significance, ever.
November 19th, 2005 at 9:27 pmwwallace, those organizations feel the same way about you. They don’t respect torturing terrorists either, that could be why you’re always defending their practices…
Talk is cheap, so’s sending others to die for you. You’re a cheap coward wwallace. If you really believed in what you say, you’d be in iraq.
Talk is cheap, and so are republican terrorists!
As for my ‘mental state’, well I’m guessing the APA is another organization you don’t respect since you don’t seem to respect anyone who’s actually credentialled. You really should go check it out, because they’d have lots to say about your whacko state of mind – and none of it would be good :)
As for ‘liberating’ people, lets talk about that. I’ve already corrected your whacko theories on this, but since you’re retarted and don’t learn, I’ll repeated it for your poor little braindead carcass.
1) The taliban has LOTS of elected officials in the current government.
2) Poppies, crime and more of a problem than before the war.
3) Womens rights are in decline once again.
4) Much of the country has never been secured, because the inept bush went into Iraq instead of finishing the job.
Now Iraq.
Liberated? Most iraqis say things are worse now than under saddam, and that they feel less safe.
Not only you are an illiterate boob, but you’re a delusional moron.
November 19th, 2005 at 11:10 pm““The Republicans created al Qaeda†is crazy talk. :()”
I agree, it’s crazy that the republicans were so foolish. I mean, whoever would think of the idea of recruiting bin laden to fight the russians, and equiping and training him? Well, that would be Reagan, Rumsfeld and the other retards who through their ineptitude and mismanagement created AlQueda.
Crazy is right, republicans like you seem to consistently be crazy. It must be genetic.
The saddest part is you’re also often just too retarded to even know how much crap you’ve disgracefully done.
November 19th, 2005 at 11:12 pmAnd wwallaceTheUglyMonkey,
Go read about this if you aren’t too illiterate to read more than the terse whacko things you write…
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Muhajadeen
It was Reagan and republicans that created AlQueda. You guys are such screwups at everything you touch!
November 19th, 2005 at 11:15 pm” President Bush ended the violence and torture of the murderous Saddam Hussein regime. “wwallaceTheWhackoRepublicanMonkeyGirl
First of all the Iraqis completely agree with you. Lets see, who do we believe, the iraqis, or wwallace the retard? I’ll go with the iraqis
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/14/iraqi-poll/
And FYI, apparently statistically Iraqis are more likely to be attacked, harmed or injured and even to die now than under Saddam. If you think bush has brought this to Iraq, then he’s even more inept at this than he is at everything else – because it didn’t work :)
So wwallace, once again, you’re all whacko nonsense, no talk, no facts, but lots of blowhard claims that aren’t substantiated.
In otherwords, you’re just another classic retarded republican fool :()
November 19th, 2005 at 11:21 pm“One can easily guess that poor mentally-unstable Ryan here has done nothing of any significance, ever.” wwallaceWhackyMonkey
Hehe, don’t project your own failures on me :()
November 19th, 2005 at 11:23 pmwwallace, calling us names won’t change the facts we have posted :()
November 20th, 2005 at 1:03 amBut it will show what a monkey’s ass wwallace is :()
November 20th, 2005 at 4:42 amKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 5:18 am