Army Memo Reiterates Ban On Waterboarding To Clear Up ‘Confusion’ From Mukasey’s Testimony
Army Memo Reiterates Ban On Waterboarding To Clear Up ‘Confusion’ From Mukasey’s Testimony
On Nov. 9, the Senate voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, despite concerns about his consistent refusal to declare waterboarding torture.
The AP reports today that three days earlier, on Nov. 6, the Army issued a memo to “senior leaders” reiterating that the technique is prohibited by the Army. The memo was to be relayed to soldiers’ families and employees in order to “eliminate any confusion that may have arisen as a result of recent public discourse on the subject”:
The service issued a “strategic communication hot topic” alert to its senior leaders two days before the Senate confirmed Mukasey, asking them to make sure every soldier, family member and Army civilian employee understands the ban on waterboarding. Mukasey was sworn in Nov. 9.
“The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field,” the statement says.
The Army Field Manual specifically prohibits “waterboarding” in intelligence interrogations, along with “mock executions,” “using military working dogs,” and “inducing hypothermia or heat injury.” The CIA reportedly used waterboarding on three different prisoners before 2003.
Several former administration officials have attempted to eliminate or condemn the use of waterboarding. Inspector General John Helgerson quit in protest of the administration’s torture policies. Former acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was forced out by the Justice Department for his dissent on waterboarding.
Last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) introduced legislation requiring “that interrogations comply with the standards set forth in the Army Field Manual, to all government agencies.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe they should send the memo to the administration.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pmDiane, Chuck…when this dissembler reveals his true colors, we will hold YOU responsible. As the Army says, waterboarding is torture and is already banned. There is no need for Congess to pass laws outlawing something that is already illegal.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pmmilitary is a good start… add “all Americans in the US or abroad” to the criteria of who cannot waterboard… also add “anyone acting on America’s behalf,” which covers extraordinary renditions… THEN you have a real ban…
November 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pmMukasey, surf’s up, grab your board & jump in…
(Hope the water’s not too hot for you.)
November 13th, 2007 at 4:01 pmIt’s pretty sad that they are writing bills to laws that already exist. Gonzo calls the Geneva Convention “quaint” so therefore the current maladministration takes that to mean we can just do away with a treaty that we signed which became the law of the land.
It truly is amazing to see how much damage they have inflicted in such a short period of time.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pmMaybe they should send the memo to the administration.
Comment by Nature Rules — November 13, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
I hear they’ve been having some trouble with their TPS reports.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:05 pmIt is banned in the AFM because it is against the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, so by our Constitution is also US Law, as well as International Law.
This is why I say the whole torture “debate” is false and nothing more than a smokescreen to attempt to cover up criminal activity at the highest levels of our Government.
And “Drain the Swamp” Nancy is still table-impaired. =|
November 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pmOh, so continue with the status quo… the Army will continue to say that waterboarding is banned & the administration will continue to allow waterboarding. All cleared up now.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pmI think the point of legislation banning torture techniques is that it’s easier to just write and pass the legislation specifying what techniques are illegal than to go thru the legal process, which is much more time consuming. So long as the legislative language is vague, then Bush or any president can determine what is or isn’t torture. Specifying water boarding as torture ends the debate.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:08 pmMaybe they should send the memo to the administration.
-Comment by Nature Rules — November 13, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
I hear they’ve been having some trouble with their TPS reports.
-Comment by toasterhead
Lumburg, is that you? I think we can now call our WH ‘The Orifice’.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThat there is supposed uncertainty about what is torture and what isn’t, shows that there are some very, very sick people in this country. To anyone with a conscience, it’s very obvious what is torture.
Republican Party: The party of sociopaths.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pmComment by Beefeater
Wow, that’s just fighting dirty.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pmOh, so continue with the status quo… the Army will continue to say that waterboarding is banned & the administration will continue to allow waterboarding. All cleared up now.
Comment by Dave C — November 13, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
The government is doing what I was trained to resist. Things some evil f#ck on the enemy’s side might do to us if we were captured.
( waterboarding is fscking torture, it sucks, its terrifying. )
Now I see our Government becoming that which we were supposed to be fighting against.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:18 pmWilly, I don’t believe there’s uncertainty. I think people know full well what is torture, but they feel free to argue whether particular acts are specifically illegal. If it doesn’t inflict physical pain, is it illegal torture? If it doesn’t inflict pain comparable to major organ shutdown, is it illegal torture?
November 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pmIt’s trying to see what they can get away with legally, knowing full well it’s torture, but believing it’s the right thing to do in order to protect America.
As important as it is for army personnel to obey the Army Field Manual regarding waterboarding, it should be equally important that those in the army pay particular attention to 27-10 and Section II of the Army Field Manual which deals with Crimes under International Law. One hopes the assumption is that the army would like to point out to its personnel that trying to claim that they were only obeying orders while in a combat zone is never an excuse that a court, especially an international criminal court, will ever willingly accept as justification for war crimes that have been committed against civilians during a time of occupation.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm“Waterboarding is a rarely-used interrogation technique that simulates drowning to extract vital information from a terrorist.”
Comment by Beefeater — November 13, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
#
Or to extract whatever they will tell you to make you stop. We have released over 400 people from Gitmo after determining they were never a threat, and after holding them for years.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pmSpecifying water boarding as torture ends the debate.
Comment by Wilco
This has already happened. It happened during the Spanish Inquisition. It happened in WWI. It happened in WWII. It happened in Vietnam. It is contained in the GC. The acknowlegement that Waterboarding is torture is as clear as day. I still cannot believe we are even discussing this.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pmRegardless of what this administration says publicly, they are still waterboarding…and they are are probably using other forms of torture that we haven’t heard about (yet).
November 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pmbeefeater is just another repuke coward. nothing he writes has any relevance to the real world. shitcan him.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pmPerhaps a class action suit?
After all, we’ve been tortured for 7 years…
November 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pmThat doesn’t mean that the CIA and GW666’s secret security mercenaries aren’t doing it.
Italy has 16 warrents out for CIA personel who kidnapped and tortured one of their citizens.
A Canandian citzen has been trying to be heard in US courts about his kidnapping and torture, but being told that they can’t because of state secrets.
Britian has citzens who have been kidnapped and tortured.
There are many others, but you get the picture, the Army may indeed frown on this stuff, but the rest of these Fascist War Pigs think it is just peachy keen to torture.
Buck Fush
November 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmComment by StratRat
My understanding is there is no U.S. law that specifically lists water boarding as torture. If I am wrong, fine. I apologize for the entire post.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pmAnyone else notice ‘hits’ had the a.m., beefbeater gets p.m?
Kind of shows someone’s paying them to post.
Kind of shows someone’s ‘watching’, too.
Watched ‘V is for Vendetta’ again last night. Too real for comfort, too good not to see again.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pmComment by beefeater — June 13, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pmDUMMIE Underground claims 100,000 users (Maybe 2000 active, I know I post there under 4 names myself)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I guess that is proof that you are a serial troll.
(from article) “Ted Kennedy thinks I’m a clear and present danger to America,†said Mr. Mukasey, “but he didn’t have the guts to do what it takes to get the answer he believed would have protected our nation. A few drops of water in my nostrils and I would would have sung like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.â€
“Of course,†Mr. Mukasey noted, “perhaps Sen. Kennedy didn’t think waterboarding me would work. After all, he knows from personal experience that a man can nearly drown and still keep a secret.â€
Comment by Beefeater — November 13, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
OK — Mukasey is more of a sick individual than I gave him credit for. Apparently he thinks waterboarding is nothing but a game. Yes — there might have been value in waterboarding Mukasey, but only so he could decide for himself whether it constituted torture or not, not to make him come forth with answers. However, neither Kennedy nor anyone else ever seriously considered doing such a thing — not because they didn’t “have the guts”, but because it’s wrong.
And Mukasey’s bringing up a tragic event from 39 YEARS AGO was pointless and sick.
But he’s correct — torture gets people to talk. It’s considerably less effective at getting them to tell the truth or furnish useful information, as experts on the subject have always said.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:29 pmIf a Democratic administration had used waterboarding, there wouldn’t be a word of debate about whether it was torture.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:29 pmComment by beefeater — June 13, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
November 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmDUMMIE Underground claims 100,000 users (Maybe 2000 active, I know I post there under 4 names myself)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
How many names are you using here?
It’s satisfying that the Army Field Manual is the rule of law of our military; it’s greatly disconcerting that the highest attorney in the land has difficulty comprehending it all. What does that say for this guy’s level of intelligence? Or perhaps it’s nothing to do with intel since he knows if he tells the truth, dumkoff will be behind bars??
November 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmmissmolly, I don’t think that article is real. It’s like the right’s Onion.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmIf a Democratic administration had used waterboarding, there wouldn’t be a word of debate about whether it was torture. -Comment by Perry logan
Although the Rightards would have spent $44 million to make sure the board was polished.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmmissmolly: I’m beginning to believe that Mukasey is seriously mentally impaired myself. Isn’t it nice to know that our country is being governed by a Chimp, a Chump, and a Whimp??
November 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm“Ted Kennedy thinks I’m a clear and present danger to America,†said Mr. Mukasey, “but he didn’t have the guts to do what it takes to get the answer he believed would have protected our nation.
Comment by Beefeater — November 13, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
It’s always a little hard to understand what Beefeater is saying when his mouth is always full… but here goes…
Waterbaording was “invented’ during the Spanish Inquisition, or so I’ve been told. It was practiced by both the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese in WW II, and the Khmer Rouge.
Great company ya keep, Beefeater! What??? Can’t understand ya when yer mouth is full like that.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmALL Comments by Tubesteakeater –
Don’t you just have the maturity and sanity of these types?
They appear to be totally sick individuals.
Buck Fush
November 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pmOpps- “Don’t you just have to question the”*
November 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pm‘
my bad
Comment by John Kerry — November 13, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
“Oh God! Can’t you left nut libs give up on this waterboarding thing!”
– As long as there are people in this administration who won’t admit it’s torture — no.
“Who the hell cares?”
– We do. The people who remember when Americans were the good guys and would like to return to those days — we care.
“Did those nice little terrorist pals of yours care when they cut heads off?”
– Nice try, but terrorists who behead people on video are not pals of mine nor of anyone else I know. Furthermore, the beheadings were hostage/terror situations, not interrogation situations. The two are different. Even if they were the same, there is little to be gained by stooping to their violent and barbaric level.
“Be men!!”
November 13th, 2007 at 4:40 pm– Um…no thanks. I’m OK as a woman. Really. But I truly have to wonder about your definition of masculinity if you think torturing others is a sign of manhood.
missmolly, I don’t think that article is real. It’s like the right’s Onion.
Comment by Wilco — November 13, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Oh, thank God. If Mukasey had actually said such things and was never held accountable for them by the administration, the press, or the public, then I would just have to give up all hope for our society.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pmIf a Democratic administration had used waterboarding, there wouldn’t be a word of debate about whether it was torture.
Comment by Perry logan — November 13, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
You’re right. Democrats and Republicans would be united in condemning the administration for using it. As it should be.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pmot but a must see… John Edwards new health care ad:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/edwards-takes-on-congress-in-new-ad/
November 13th, 2007 at 4:52 pmHere’s a thought for Mukasey & Beefbeater,
“Life is like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass
November 13th, 2007 at 4:54 pmtomorrow”
Water boarding? What’s that?
November 13th, 2007 at 4:56 pmNo wait, I just got my top secret clearance and briefing.
I have been informed by top Civilian and Military ‘intelligence’.
Water boarding? What’s that?
Did those nice little terrorist pals of yours care when they cut heads off?
Be men!!
Comment by John Kerry — November 13, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
so you don’t know the difference between torture and murder? what a dumb shit you are. republcan, right?
November 13th, 2007 at 4:58 pmPeople torture for two reasons only: One reason is to extract some revenge for an imaginary (or not) wrong done to a member of the torturers team. The second reason is simple: they need to feel superior to others. To me this symptom is in the same category as rape. Most rapists will tell their therapists that the rape occured not because of sex, it was because of a power trip held by the rapist.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pmSubstantive reasons that Bush’s torture policy is illegal:
The Constitution equates international treaties with U.S. & state legislation, presidential edicts and Supreme Court decisions:
Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
. . .
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).
The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture.
Doesn’t matter if Bush tortures in Egypt, Jordan or Antartica.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. On that basis, torture is unconstitutional . . . (not that Bush gives a rat’s ass – He’s already decided that we do not have three co-equal branches of government, that the dictates of the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court are advisory at best, and a nuisence with with he must scheme to escape). Our forefathers provided that the Constitution rules, no president, state law or Supreme Court decision can abdicate U.S. treaties.
Where are our Constitutional lawyers. This is not a question that has arisen in the recent past but it is critical at this time. Despite the fact that Bush has neutered Congress and the Supreme Court, can he get past the question that our forefathers addressed point blank: What is the rank of international law in the scheme of the American Constitutional form of government. Apparently, treaties out rank Supreme Court decisions, state laws and conflicting federal statutes. If any (note the word “ANY” in Article Two) administration doesn’t like a treaty, get the advice and consent of the Senate and revoke it . . . otherwise that treaty . . . that Geneva Convention . . . rules supreme.
Where the hell is the Senate?
November 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pmBush is commander in chief, but he doesn’t observe the field manual.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pmMukasey doesn’t know what waterboarding is, or even if it is torture.
Give him a copy of the manual. But, as a Bush appointee, who was obviously given a “talking to” after his first day before the judiciary committee, Mukasey is inclined to defer to the Bush interpretation. Just like the laws that Bush signs, then makes his secret signing statement that excuse him from following the law.
Did they outsource it to Blackwater?
November 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pmArticle Four of the Geneva Convention (GC) addresses the possibility that some crafty politician might try to identify those subject to the GC as “enemy combantants”, terrorists, etc. and therefore,as by definition, not within its protections. The authors saw Bush coming and said, “bunk”:
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
The authors of the Geneva Convention included Americans. They saw the atrocities of war . . . they saw the victims. The victims were our own soldiers . . . why the heck do you think they drafted it?
Bush, Cheney, et al never put their lives on the line . . . McCain . . . lord knows.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:27 pmSo the army forbids waterboarding. That leaves a gaping hole in the remainder of the government to torture people. There’s the other three branches of service, the CIA and the FBI. And then there’s always Vice President Chaney. I wouldn’t put it past him to personally waterboard a perceived enemy.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pmFor all college students:
Read Flags of Our Fathers.
Pot is a gateway drugs, AIDS and death, pre-marital sec – your eyes will fall out if you take the pill or use a condom – abstinence is the only way, your only salvation, you sinner you (unlike the waterboardiing slippery slope which may be your destiny if you stray) . . . or read George Orwell’s “1984,” which reflects our current socio-political paradigm . . . Constitution interpretations keeps changing . . . stare decisis be damned . . . (”It will look the way it looks when we are happy with it “- See Rupert Murdoch’s take on the future of the Wall Street Journal) Lowly citizens look from one politician to the other . . . they all look the same . . . . pigs all. . . Oink. Their kids aren’t going, boots on the ground to war with the Marines, in that “finest American traditiion,” they all praise. Their kids aren’t dodging bullets in Compton or Philly. Their parents didn’t drown in the aftermath or get poisoned by Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
e in
Pork? . . . do I hear Pork? . . . our enemies are not our enemies, they are our friends . . . the only thing we have to fear . . . is the fear we create for you to fear . . . now, go seek shelter . . . hide, crazied terrorists everywhere, could be your neighbor, husband, wife, son or daughter . . .we’re serving armageddon tonight. . . you’ll find ignorance ever so satisfying. . . trust us. . . don’t read . . . we’ll know if you’re reading . . . don’t speak, we’ll know with whom you speak . . . just trust us . . . we would never do you harm.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pmWow, totally didn’t mean to post the guts of that last post twice. Suddenly, the “Leave a Comment” box disappeared and the post that I was working on and my prior post were melded together.
Odd. Sorry for taking up so much space.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pmSpecifying water boarding as torture ends the debate.
Comment by Wilco
Passing a bill defining waterboarding as torture will simply give Bush a pass for having ordered people to be tortured before the bill was passed. He’ll just say, “if you had to pass a law to outlaw waterboarding, it wasn’t illegal when I did it”.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pmMy understanding is there is no U.S. law that specifically lists water boarding as torture. If I am wrong, fine. I apologize for the entire post.
Comment by Wilco
The Constitution says treaties entered into by the US become the law of the land. The various articles (article 4) contained in the GC describe our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan as included in that definition. Bush, John Yoo, Dave Addington, Cheney, gonzalez, et al always try to re-defined our enemies as not being subject to the GC. A careful reading of the code makes their arguments specious at best, criminal at worst.
That is why the administration is still trying to cram retroactive legaility for this behavior. They are – at present – guilty of war crimes. Crimes punished after WWI and WWII. Again, I ask: Why do you think Bush bought a huge parcel in Paraguay? Before being elected, Bush never travelled anywhere. He had never been to Paraguay. Would you buy a huge piece of real estate in a foreign country you had never even visited? Of course, you wouldn’t. He chose Paraguay for very specific reasons, one being no extradition treaty with the US. Bush is very worried about the future and what it holds for him and his adminsitration. I also would be worried if I were in Bush’s shoes. He knows he is a criminal. He knows he is in trouble…
November 13th, 2007 at 7:12 pmLast week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) introduced legislation requiring “that interrogations comply with the standards set forth in the Army Field Manual, to all government agencies.â€
Why the hell is any new legislation needed? Why don’t these spineless DemoRats just ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS INCLUDING OUR TREATIES WHICH ARE ALREADY BINDING???
I am real phu(cking tired of these DemoRats and thier shcukin’n'jive’n’ !!!!!
November 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pmSounds like the end result is just a bigger fire. Round these parts we prefer to use water.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:32 pm#9 Wilco:
I think the point of legislation banning torture techniques is that it’s easier to just write and pass the legislation specifying what techniques are illegal than to go thru the legal process, which is much more time consuming.
Oh, garbage. If they ban waterboarding, some whiz kid in the maladministration will come up with orangejuiceboarding.
We don’t ban murder with a gun, with a bludgeon, with a fireaxe, etc.. It is the intent (malice) and the result (death) that are dispositive, regardless of method. There is no reason torture needs any further specification. The intent is to extract information (or just to really hurt the sucker) and the result is to cause “severe physical or mental pain” (pain incidental to incarceration or the execution of a valid sentence being carried out is not torture).
GC3, Article 17 bars coercion of any kind, and CA3 bars CIDT. And the Convention Against Torture bars the stuff mentioned above.
Cheers,
November 13th, 2007 at 7:49 pm#59 Wishes He Had Half The Balls Of Kerry:
And whoever that left nut case above is that thinks that your nice little terrorist pals aren’t torturing us is so wacked out on something.
VIVA GEORGE BUSH!!!
Musta missed you in the first go-round. Tell ya what, post your address and we’ll make sure you don’t get passed over next time. Or better yet, why don’t you go to Iraq?
Cheers,
November 13th, 2007 at 8:00 pmMusta missed you in the first go-round. Tell ya what, post your address and we’ll make sure you don’t get passed over next time. Or better yet, why don’t you go to Iraq?
Cheers,
Comment by zuch — November 13, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
as if FAUX Snooz would miss an opportunity to report on Al Qaeda torture of US troops, but not a word in the last 7 years. the only torturing being done is by the USA, now officially the Bad Guys, the SubHumans, no respect for life, etc., etc., all the cliches that were used in previous wars about the enemy now are turned back on us. Bush is no better than Pol Pot.
November 13th, 2007 at 8:23 pmAnd whoever that left nut case above is that thinks that your nice little terrorist pals aren’t torturing us is so wacked out on something.
VIVA GEORGE BUSH!!!
Comment by John Kerry — November 13, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
and not a bit of proof, nor even an accusation to that effect. You’re lying, again, or is it still?
November 13th, 2007 at 8:24 pmBilbo & Co.:
It isn’n necessary to parse the words and intent of our forefathers, those sages that crafted our Constitutiion:
Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
. . . . .
[Different Source]
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, . . . .
EVERYBODY LOOK AT THIS . . .!11!
even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:36 pm– - -
CAN’T HIGHLIGHT THIS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!
Get it over it. If an army of middle-easterners landed in South Carolina and started a Sherman type march to the Pacific . . . you are dam well thinking that we will defend our homelande. Yeah, so they came to free us from the “wrath of Bush” F*** You! I’d arm my kids.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pm(Typo’s intended . . . Im a S. Carolina hillbilly with W. Va. kin and great grand pappy creamated by Sherman . . . I am entitled to bad spellin’. SCHIP? Yeah, we like it with kechup & spuirl.
dub’ya . . . boy . . . ya never kilt nothin’ real . . jus blowin’ up frogs. Youse a mean boy. . . yo daddy tried to get yo ta face off wit an armaddila, but you ran hid hind the fence. Tho a fiur craker at it, but hell if you’d take him one, mano a-dillo. Damn if we woulda got yo to jump off da barn. Jeb done it. Yew jus had a terrore of flyin. sho had a time with Willie. He’ll never let yo fo get it.
Hey Dub’ya, neither will we. A Toot and a Piink Tie . . . Joanne is like . . well, high, but very successful & with a mind like an elephant. (Laura, you librarobot, you knew/know)
November 13th, 2007 at 10:54 pm