BF2S Forums Waterboarding Is Ok...No Wait!!!

weapons are on the planes.  they are not in storage, they are beside us in our seats.  no ammo though.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

weapons are on the planes.  they are not in storage, they are beside us in our seats.  no ammo though.

Is the ammo put in storage? Or does it come back a different way?

Ilocano wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

weapons are on the planes.  they are not in storage, they are beside us in our seats.  no ammo though.

What about sidearms and knives?

sidearms will be unloaded as well, not sure about the knvies GS can tell you that.

Ilocano wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

weapons are on the planes.  they are not in storage, they are beside us in our seats.  no ammo though.

What about sidearms and knives?

knives, there is no rule about, but sidearms same deal.  no ammo on the planes.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-14 11:23:40)

No. Now that our lawmakers have said it's not acceptable, then it shouldn't be done. There are lots of things that aren't torture that people aren't allowed to do by law. The latest defense budget has a rider in it about this very thing.

Do you mind citing where you got that last bit? It helps when you use the quote function if you actually put something in there so the rest of us know where it's from.

I don't know what "US military manual" you're talking about...there are literally hundreds. If it was once public, then it's not secret now...classification systems don't work that way.

All US military manuals (and have been) are in line with the US's ratification of the Geneva Convention. We are trained on it every year, sometimes more often depending on our jobs.

Waterboarding sounds like epic funz0rs. Might give it a go.

Ben0 wrote:

Waterboarding sounds like epic funz0rs. Might give it a go.

Join the Marines and volunteer for SERE school then.  It ain't as bad as people are making it out to be, but whatever.

FEOS wrote:

I don't know what "US military manual" you're talking about...there are literally hundreds. If it was once public, then it's not secret now...classification systems don't work that way.
All US military manuals (and have been) are in line with the US's ratification of the Geneva Convention. We are trained on it every year, sometimes more often depending on our jobs

Here you go.
'FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation - Used to train interrogators in conducting effective interrogations while conforming with US and international law. Recently updated to include a 10-page classified section as a result of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_34-52_I … errogation
I guess you can look up the restricted sections we can't.
It seems it had to be made clear to the military what torture, inhumane and degrading treatment are.
Not too sure why as the Code of the U.S. Fighting Force supposedly contains this section:-
'It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information.'

Maybe you can help clarify the situation for us, obviously without revealing anything restricted.

in line with the US's ratification of the Geneva Convention

Those are weasel words, still hopefully this is an example of the US interpretation of the Geneva convention.
Again from wiki.
'In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor.[13] The charges of Violation of the Laws and Customs of War against Asano also included "beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward."'

Is it just the CIA who are using waterboarding then? Do they fall outside of the teachings of the military manuals? Because it's my understanding that waterboarding violates common article 3 of the Geneva convention.

The CIA are not apparently bound by military manuals, something Congress are trying to correct.
Articles 3 and 4 should cover everyone. Besides the Geneva convention there is the UN convention against torture. Not sure if the US signed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … st_Torture

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2007-12-15 19:24:48)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Here you go.
'FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation - Used to train interrogators in conducting effective interrogations while conforming with US and international law. Recently updated to include a 10-page classified section as a result of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_34-52_I … errogation
I guess you can look up the restricted sections we can't.
It seems it had to be made clear to the military what torture, inhumane and degrading treatment are.
Not too sure why as the Code of the U.S. Fighting Force supposedly contains this section:-
'It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information.'

Maybe you can help clarify the situation for us, obviously without revealing anything restricted.

FM = Army Field Manual. So not authoritative guidance for anyone but the Army. However, since they have the bulk of the interrogators, it does provide the bulk of the guidance on military members interrogating prisoners. CIA, however, isn't bound by it.

I'm sure it was rewritten in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib to make sure there was no question in anyone's mind what is allowed and what is not allowed.

As to the Geneva Convention, see my response to Braddock. If you investigate a bit, you'll see that ratification does not mean you accept all language in a given convention/treaty without interpretation. That is the case with the Articles in question.

Dilbert_X wrote:

in line with the US's ratification of the Geneva Convention

Those are weasel words, still hopefully this is an example of the US interpretation of the Geneva convention.

Just WTF do you mean by that?! You say we have to follow the Geneva Convention, then you call something being in line with what you want us to follow "weasel words"?! Make up your mind, Dilbert.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The CIA are not apparently bound by military manuals, something Congress are trying to correct.
Articles 3 and 4 should cover everyone. Besides the Geneva convention there is the UN convention against torture. Not sure if the US signed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … st_Torture

As stated before, CIA and the rest of the intel community have their own rules and regulations that they follow. They would not be governed by military regs, as they are not part of the DoD.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you investigate a bit, you'll see that ratification does not mean you accept all language in a given convention/treaty without interpretation

Exactly my point on weasel words, so a country can sign up to a convention or treaty, and then re-write their own interpretation to mean whatever they want. I'm aware the rest of the world does this to varying extents.
It seems the US is hypocritical on this, prosecuting Japanese for war crimes while allowing the CIA to do what they want. The US can't have ratified it in two different ways.

It's called sovereignty. You're talking about a case in 1947...the world has changed a bit in 60 years. Perhaps countries' interpretations of the language of a treaty/convention can change in that timeframe as well.

Dilbert_X wrote:

As stated before, CIA and the rest of the intel community have their own rules and regulations that they follow. They would not be governed by military regs, as they are not part of the DoD.

I'm aware of that, the CIA should have rules in place which recognises the fact the US has signed the Geneva convention and the UN convention on torture. It seems they don't. How so?

Why does congress have to force this on an unwilling govt? Why has it taken congress five years to remember the US has international obligations on human rights? (The point of the OP)

Actually, the point of the OP was the hypocrisy of the lawmakers screaming for heads to roll now for something they themselves knew about, approved of, and asked if it was "tough enough".

Dilbert_X wrote:

See what the rest of the world thinks of the US.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi … rebuke_us/

This is the best the US govt can come up with.
'''We acknowledge that there were very serious incidents of abuse," State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III said. ''We've all seen Abu Ghraib. There have been numerous other allegations. There have been other incidents. We have investigated those. We've held people accountable. But as I said at the time, you know, clearly our record has improved over the last few years."'

A UN study does not equate to the non-US portion of the world's population. However, I'm not arguing whether the image of the US has taken a hit internationally due to policies of the current administration. I'm pretty sure that our government could provide a free AIDS vaccine to Africa and it would still be criticized for it by most of the world for some damn reason.

The key in your quotation is that the incidents were investigated and people were held accountable. If it was sanctioned by the government (as you imply), then that wouldn't be the case, now would it? In talking about waterboarding specifically...again...CIA did it, not the military. The military is bound by the Geneva Convention. CIA is (was?) not, due to the interpretation of the status of the detainees.

But you keep forgetting that countries ratify under certain conditions. They don't necessarily ratify or accept the language verbatim. It's not only the US that does this.

No country should EVER let international agreements take precedence over their own laws and their own interests. If you want to let the UN decide what your interests are, then you can go ahead and let them determine your tax structure, wage requirements, provincial boundaries, trade agreements, etc. as well.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But you keep forgetting that countries ratify under certain conditions. They don't necessarily ratify or accept the language verbatim. It's not only the US that does this.

Read my post please. 'I'm aware the rest of the world does this to varying extents.'

No country should EVER let international agreements take precedence over their own laws and their own interests. If you want to let the UN decide what your interests are, then you can go ahead and let them determine your tax structure, wage requirements, provincial boundaries, trade agreements, etc. as well.

Then there is no point in signing international agreements is there? If you sign and ratify a treaty you're required to write it into your own laws, thats the whole point.
If you negotiate and sign a treaty and then don't bother youself over observing it you've wasted everone's time and goodwill.
Don't expect the rest of the world to observe treaties either.

Otherwise just close your borders, marry your sisters and become one huge version of Utah.

so there is no point to countries.