Pages: 1 2
Not even remotely. I assume you are basing this on borderline torture methods, such as waterboarding. It can be argued that is subjective.FEOS wrote:
Inherently subjective. One can argue either way whether it has been violated or not.The Convention on Torture
ThisKmarion wrote:
Let's call them enemy casualties. .. the ones caught on the battlefield that is.
I agree. Ugly wars end. The tit for tat shit never does. We deceive ourselves into thinking wars can be bloodless and civilized when the enemy will must be decimated.Turquoise wrote:
True, but on the other hand... Just because the press is there doesn't mean we can't just do whatever we need to anyway.Kmarion wrote:
Used to be. When we were landing on the beaches of normandy we didn't have 24 hours a day cable news critiquing the event.Flecco wrote:
Wish procedure was so simple.
Hell, wish the insurgents would play by regular rules. The mess in Iraq and Afghanistan that our countries were/are involved in would be far more simple.
For example, say we decided to use our old WW2 techniques. The press makes a big deal out of it, and then Obama comes on TV and says, "Guess what folks? I'm authorizing the military to do whatever is necessary to win this. You might not like it, but after it's all said and done, you'll come to accept it."
In the short run, people would be pissed, but in the long run, they'd get over it.
UN is a P.O.S. Their resolutions are anything but useful. This image pretty much sums it up in my opinion(except #3, I can't figure what that one means).Dilbert_X wrote:
Its useless because the US has made it useless.Signed UN docs? They are about as useless as the UN is.
So now allegations are fact?Bertster7 wrote:
Not even remotely. I assume you are basing this on borderline torture methods, such as waterboarding. It can be argued that is subjective.FEOS wrote:
Inherently subjective. One can argue either way whether it has been violated or not.The Convention on Torture
People having incisions made in them with scalpels is torture under any ones definition - either that or surgery and you don't usually get interogated during surgery.
They are fact when the US decides someone is a terrorist and abducts and tortures them on the basis of that 'fact'.So now allegations are fact?
Lack of denial =/= factDilbert_X wrote:
They are fact when the US decides someone is a terrorist and abducts and tortures them on the basis of that 'fact'.So now allegations are fact?
Anyway, the US has denied none of Bertster has said, so yes.
The UN wasn't given the opportunity if you remember, the US promised to put forward a resolution but decided not to bother.FEOS wrote:
And when the UN doesn't resolve matters, every country has a right to act in its own interests. No country abrogates their inherent sovereign rights to the UN.
The definitions are precise, there is no argument.One can argue either way whether it has been violated or not.
Many outside observer, and multiple observers in the current admin including the Obama, say you're wrong, hence they've taken steps to prevent it occuring further.Article 5: subjective (see above)
Article 9: not violated
There aren't two sides to this argument, these people were tortured according to the definitions and the US has broken multiple treaty obligations according to the definitions as assessed by pretty well everyone apart from Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.I suppose if you only pay attention to a single side of an argument, refuse to acknowledge any other circumstance, say that any explanation is false (regardless of the facts), etc...then you'll likely come to the conclusions you come to regularly.
The point of argument is whether those things violated any treaties. They didn't.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US has admitted most of it, waterboarding, renditions, don't see what you're arguing about.
Yes. Let's put forward yet another resolution that Hussein could ignore with impunity. You have said yourself that the UN is worthless...yet you argue they should be gone through for everything.The UN wasn't given the opportunity if you remember, the US promised to put forward a resolution but decided not to bother.
The definitions are far from precise. Which you would know if you bothered to actually read something.The definitions are precise, there is no argument.
Given the CIA has admitted it has tortured people according to the definition, and the Judge presiding over Guantanamo has admitted people there were tortured according to the definition your view is irrelevant.
And many outside observers claim the Illuminati is behind everything as well. And I'm fairly sure the Obama administration has not admitted to violations of that treaty, since they haven't stopped any of the activities you are referring to.Many outside observer, and multiple observers in the current admin including the Obama, say you're wrong, hence they've taken steps to prevent it occuring further.
There are more than two sides to this argument...if you bothered to open your eyes and mind and quit focusing on your irrational hate.There aren't two sides to this argument, these people were tortured according to the definitions and the US has broken multiple treaty obligations according to the definitions as assessed by pretty well everyone apart from Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Of course you're not. Because that would be too damn inconvenient to your world-view. There is no debate about whether those still being detained have done something wrong. If you think there is, you need to get out a bit more. And read.I'm not interested in 'any other circumstances' or other weasel-worded excuses for abducting, torturing and murdering people, many of whom turned out to have done nothing wrong.
What "loopholes" do you refer to? Do you mean the text of the agreements (like the GC)? Neither of the things you point out above have been proven to happen; they are allegations.If you choose to actively seek out loopholes which allow you to suffocate people practically to the point of death or to cut them to pieces then you are level pegging with the Taliban and deserve what you get TBH.
Yes the did, already listed, as found by the US supreme court for a start.FEOS wrote:
The point of argument is whether those things violated any treaties. They didn't.
A resolution was required to make the war legal, simple enough.Yes. Let's put forward yet another resolution that Hussein could ignore with impunity.
I've said the UN is now worthless because the US has made it so, requiring everyone else to abide by it but not themselves or Israel.You have said yourself that the UN is worthless...yet you argue they should be gone through for everything.
They are precise enough for the CIA to admit they tortured, for whichever Judge it was at Guantanamo to find detainees there were tortured, pull your head out of the sand FEOS.The definitions are far from precise. Which you would know if you bothered to actually read something.
No, pretty sure he's stopped the coercive interrogations, waterboarding, renditions actually.Apparently, after Obama took office and was briefed fully, he's still doing what the Bush administration did with these people...and for the same reasons
Spurious and irrelevant, there is a problem, the US created the problem, the US can fix it.The countries screaming about the detainees at Gitmo aren't willing to take them into their criminal justice systems...even though they say that's exactly what should be done. So--again--your "everyone apart from" argument falls flat on its face.
As they have not been charged with anything we can conclude they haven't.There is no debate about whether those still being detained have done something wrong.
There are plenty of substantiated allegations, and the US has admitted much of it, not sure what your point is.What "loopholes" do you refer to? Do you mean the text of the agreements (like the GC)? Neither of the things you point out above have been proven to happen; they are allegations.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-03-20 05:01:37)
Allegations backed by substantial evidence from intelligence services involved in the interogation? Not exactly fact, but exceedingly compelling. Take the case of Binyam Mohamed, the evidence has not been publicly released, but the judges who have seen it say he was tortured and that his statements are accurate. His statements and numerous interviews have been released. He says he was cut with a scapel across his chest and penis and what the judges say supports that. This is the highest profile Gitmo torture case in the UK at the moment, but not the only one.FEOS wrote:
So now allegations are fact?Bertster7 wrote:
Not even remotely. I assume you are basing this on borderline torture methods, such as waterboarding. It can be argued that is subjective.FEOS wrote:
Inherently subjective. One can argue either way whether it has been violated or not.
People having incisions made in them with scalpels is torture under any ones definition - either that or surgery and you don't usually get interogated during surgery.
Yes, they did. Waterboarding is/was classified as torture under the relevant international treaties. The US was signed up to those treaties, therefore they broke them. I've been over this many times before. It's extremely clear cut. I'm not going to post all the excerpts from relevant treaties again - because it'll be the 3rd or 4th time I've done so.FEOS wrote:
The point of argument is whether those things violated any treaties. They didn't.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-03-20 09:20:43)
No, they didn't. Nor did the SCOTUS find anything like what you're implying.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes the did, already listed, as found by the US supreme court for a start.FEOS wrote:
The point of argument is whether those things violated any treaties. They didn't.
No, it's not. And if it were (it's not, btw), the existing resolutions were adequate.Dilbert_X wrote:
A resolution was required to make the war legal, simple enough.Yes. Let's put forward yet another resolution that Hussein could ignore with impunity.
Bullshit. It's worthless because it's the UN. Just like the League of Nations was worthless...and for the same reasons. Replace the US and/or Israel with the UNSC veto-holding member and your pet country of choice.Dilbert_X wrote:
I've said the UN is now worthless because the US has made it so, requiring everyone else to abide by it but not themselves or Israel.You have said yourself that the UN is worthless...yet you argue they should be gone through for everything.
Try actually reading things instead of picking out the pieces that support your argument. The CIA didn't admit people were tortured...they admitted to specific techniques that were approved by the law-making body that ratified the treaties in question. When those people give the green light, it's not illegal, as they are the law-makers who have jurisdiction.Dilbert_X wrote:
They are precise enough for the CIA to admit they tortured, for whichever Judge it was at Guantanamo to find detainees there were tortured, pull your head out of the sand FEOS.The definitions are far from precise. Which you would know if you bothered to actually read something.
Those were stopped before he got into office, actually. Except for renditions. He kept those going under the same construct as W.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, pretty sure he's stopped the coercive interrogations, waterboarding, renditions actually.Apparently, after Obama took office and was briefed fully, he's still doing what the Bush administration did with these people...and for the same reasons
The problem exists in the eyes of those countries...so no. Not at all spurious or irrelevant. Those countries have the problem. Let them fix it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Spurious and irrelevant, there is a problem, the US created the problem, the US can fix it.The countries screaming about the detainees at Gitmo aren't willing to take them into their criminal justice systems...even though they say that's exactly what should be done. So--again--your "everyone apart from" argument falls flat on its face.
As you haven't the slightest fucking clue under what conditions they were captured or what information led to their capture or was derived and corrobrated after their capture, you can't conclude shit.Dilbert_X wrote:
As they have not been charged with anything we can conclude they haven't.There is no debate about whether those still being detained have done something wrong.
Oh, do tell. Source or gtfo.Dilbert_X wrote:
There are plenty of substantiated allegations, and the US has admitted much of it, not sure what your point is.What "loopholes" do you refer to? Do you mean the text of the agreements (like the GC)? Neither of the things you point out above have been proven to happen; they are allegations.
Ah, I see. So other countries' intel services do something bad and it's the CIA's fault. Nice.Bertster7 wrote:
Allegations backed by substantial evidence from intelligence services involved in the interogation? Not exactly fact, but exceedingly compelling. Take the case of Binyam Mohamed, the evidence has not been publicly released, but the judges who have seen it say he was tortured and that his statements are accurate. His statements and numerous interviews have been released. He says he was cut with a scapel across his chest and penis and what the judges say supports that. This is the highest profile Gitmo torture case in the UK at the moment, but not the only one.FEOS wrote:
So now allegations are fact?Bertster7 wrote:
Not even remotely. I assume you are basing this on borderline torture methods, such as waterboarding. It can be argued that is subjective.
People having incisions made in them with scalpels is torture under any ones definition - either that or surgery and you don't usually get interogated during surgery.
No, it wasn't. Those treaties are vague and open to interpretation by the countries that signed up to them. If the US had continued to waterboard after Congress had deemed it contrary to those treaties, then you would have a point. The US didn't. You don't.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, they did. Waterboarding is/was classified as torture under the relevant international treaties. The US was signed up to those treaties, therefore they broke them.FEOS wrote:
The point of argument is whether those things violated any treaties. They didn't.
Who's closing whose eyes here? You repeating the same flawed argument, absent context and legal fact does not make your argument any less wrong.Bertster7 wrote:
I've been over this many times before. It's extremely clear cut. I'm not going to post all the excerpts from relevant treaties again - because it'll be the 3rd or 4th time I've done so.
You can close your eyes to these things if you want. But burying your head in the sand doesn't make your argument any less wrong.
What are you talking about?FEOS wrote:
Ah, I see. So other countries' intel services do something bad and it's the CIA's fault. Nice.Bertster7 wrote:
Allegations backed by substantial evidence from intelligence services involved in the interogation? Not exactly fact, but exceedingly compelling. Take the case of Binyam Mohamed, the evidence has not been publicly released, but the judges who have seen it say he was tortured and that his statements are accurate. His statements and numerous interviews have been released. He says he was cut with a scapel across his chest and penis and what the judges say supports that. This is the highest profile Gitmo torture case in the UK at the moment, but not the only one.FEOS wrote:
So now allegations are fact?
Or they accuse the CIA of doing something/knowing something/seeing something/thinking something bad and it's "exceedingly compelling". But the CIA says something counter and it's hogwash.
Nice double standards. Not particularly surprising, but nice.
They are not open to interpretation - on torture, perhaps a little, but the treaty obligations don't end with torture. They use the definition of torture as laid out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The practical definition has been made by legal precedents set in the European Court of Human Rights in cases against the British security services (which is perfectly valid, since it is a part of the international courts system responsible for this legislation). Not specifically for torture, but for inhuman and degrading treatment, prohibited under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.FEOS wrote:
No, it wasn't. Those treaties are vague and open to interpretation by the countries that signed up to them. If the US had continued to waterboard after Congress had deemed it contrary to those treaties, then you would have a point. The US didn't. You don't.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes, they did. Waterboarding is/was classified as torture under the relevant international treaties. The US was signed up to those treaties, therefore they broke them.FEOS wrote:
The point of argument is whether those things violated any treaties. They didn't.Who's closing whose eyes here? You repeating the same flawed argument, absent context and legal fact does not make your argument any less wrong.Bertster7 wrote:
I've been over this many times before. It's extremely clear cut. I'm not going to post all the excerpts from relevant treaties again - because it'll be the 3rd or 4th time I've done so.
You can close your eyes to these things if you want. But burying your head in the sand doesn't make your argument any less wrong.
Good news. One less terrorist nation in the world![TUF]Catbox wrote:
They are going to be called "Pesky Fellas" from now on so their feelings don't get hurt...lol
Reporting from Washington -- There will no longer will be "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Obama administration said Friday. Moreover, the new president no longer claims that his title as commander in chief allows him to order people deemed to be dangerous captured and held without trial.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 9816.story
Ramm should be elated... maybe we can send all these pesky fellas to his house...lol?
I bet the terrorists all around the world are laughing their asses off at what a pushover BO is...
And these guys were tried and released... except their country didn't want these Boy Scout leaders back...
"Boston lawyer Stephen Oleskey said the court process has proved frustrating. He represented six Algerian-born men who were arrested in Bosnia, taken by the U.S. military to Guantanamo in 2002 and held for six years. One of them, Lakhdar Boumediene, was the lead plaintiff in the winning case before the Supreme Court last year. In November, a federal judge ruled that the government could not justify holding Boumediene and four of the other Algerians and ordered their release.
Nonetheless, Boumediene and another Algerian ordered freed remain prisoners at Guantanamo, because the Bosnian government has refused to take them back. "Our judicial system has given them their freedom, but they are not free," Oleskey said. "It's very hard to explain that to them." "
Pages: 1 2
