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)

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.
– - -
CAN’T HIGHLIGHT THIS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!

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?

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.

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,

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,

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’ !!!!!

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…

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”.

Odd. Sorry for taking up so much space.

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.

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.

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?

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?