shadowrelm wrote:
gbaji, have you ever read even parts of the convention?
Yes. More parts then you apparently.
Quote:
it doesnt need to spacifically define "torture".
The UN convention on torture does. But you've apparently confused this with the Geneva Conventions. Close but not the same thing.
Quote:
it spacifically states that questioning of ANY TYPE beyond the purpose of identification is ILLEGAL. which makes ANY TYPE of "coersion" ILLEGAL. regaurdless of weather its spacifically defined as torture or not.
Only if by "it" you mean the 3rd Geneva Convention, where it's talking specifically about those who engage in military activities in a manner in accordance with that convention and therefore qualify as "lawful combatants" and gain POW status.
Normal civilians do not gain that protection. Their rights are defined in the 4th Geneva Convention and are completely different. Also, those who take up arms while under the civilian status specifically fall under article 5 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which states the following:
Art5, 4th Geneva Convention wrote:
Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Note that they "shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention...". That includes such things as not being interrogated, right to a trial, habeas corpus, etc. Note also that they can be "regarded as having forfeited rights of communication..." as well. The choice of these losses are given to the "occupying power" (that's the US government).
While they regain those rights if they are charged with a crime and a trial is set, there's no requirement that they must be charged or tried. They can be "held for the duration" if the holding power so chooses.
Oh wait! You were talking about how I haven't read the conventions? Funny that...
Quote:
its the right wing fan club that wants to cloud the water with spinn on the semantics to try and get people to loose sight of the big picture.
the big picture. the questioning itself was in direct violation of the geneva convention.
No. It's not. It's in direct accordance with the Geneva Conventions. You're just reading the wrong one. A common mistake. Most people's entire understanding of the Geneva Conventions consists of what they learned watching re-runs of Hogan's Heroes and you're apparently no exception.
Quote:
the big picture, OUR suppreme court ruled the prisoners ARE ENTITLED to protection under the geneva convention.
Yes. And they're being treated exactly in accordance with the conventions. The problem is that there are a whole lot of ignorant people who think that the entirety of the conventions consists of the 3rd Convention. That one deals only with "soldiers". It's the reward for military forces who fight in accordance with international law. When you hide out among civilian populations to conduct attacks, you fall under the 4th Convention (treatment of civilians), and specifically are covered under article 5 of that convention.
Quote:
we violated it. that is undeniable. the torture issue is just a smoke screen to get people to not look at that FACT. we committed war crimes by questioning them at all. the torture issue is just a measuring stick to the severity of our violation, not a determing factor if we committed war crimes. we did.
No. It's not. The torture issue is legitimate, because the article I quoted does state that they must be treated humanely (basically similar wording to the UN Convention on Torture). Thus, they cannot be tortured. It's certainly correct for us to make sure that's not happening, and is exactly why McCain has correctly questioned the activities at Gitmo. His concern is to make sure we aren't engaging in torture there. Sadly, most people's primary purpose on this issue is to simply attack the Bush Administration and just see this as ammunition to use, thus muddying the waters. There's a kernel of legitimacy to this issue surrounded by massive layers of rhetoric...
It's also why the question of waterboarding is relevant. Which I thought most of the people involved in this thread already kinda understood.
Quote:
and they should all be turned over to the world court for trial on it. from bush all the way down to every general who had working knoledge of the act. all of them.
we should show the world that we are a land of laws. not a good ole boys club where laws only apply to who we say they apply to.
Lol. You're kidding right? No. You probably aren't...
