Originally Posted by 911pcars (Post 4047360)

Stuart,
I also reviewed that same page and arrived at the same conclusion.

As for what the GC says about torture:
"Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

The current administration's attempt, via the US Military Commisions Act (2006), to narrowly define an enemy combatant, is to circumvent humane treatment and suspend the right of detainees and prisoners of war and thus make it legally acceptable to use methods of interrogation widely defined as torture. That an estimated 70% of the countries do not adhere to the GC (according to Wiki) is irrelevant. If we as a society ascribe to its policies, we should adhere to them as well.

Sherwood

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 4047362)

You ought to write copy for al Jazeera.

Originally Posted by 911pcars (Post 4047375)

Rick,
I guess you don't subscribe to the principles of the Geneva Convention. Let's hope you don't become a detainee under this administration or it's narrow interpretations.

Sherwood

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 4047362)

You ought to write copy for al Jazeera.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 4047384)

Even if I did subscribe to the ideals in the GC, I would not expect to be covered by it if I were a terrorist. If terrorists are entitled to GC protections, who is not? Why bother even defining who's covered, if terrorists wearing civilian clothes, hiding bombs beneath their clothes deliberately target civilians are covered by it? What's the point?

Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 4047393)

You ought read al Jazeera.

You might have a different view of the world.

Originally Posted by 911pcars (Post 4047375)

Rick,
I guess you don't subscribe to the principles of the Geneva Convention. Let's hope you don't become a detainee under this administration or it's narrow interpretations.

Sherwood

Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 4047311)

I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between waterboarding (or any other like activity) conducted by the US military on other members of the US military for training purposes and waterboarding (or any other like activity) conducted by the US militarily on its captives. There would be a realistic assumption on held by members of the US military undergoing such training that they will, in fact, not be murdered by their employer.

The same cant be said for captives of the US military.

Originally Posted by Dottore (Post 4046752)

Couple of points:

The Geneva Convention also doesn't define "illegal" combatant - and the law on this is incredibly muddled.

But I agree, that known terrorists should be treated as illegal combatants - and not have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

The best statement I have found on the reasons for this follows:

Quote

The ultimate reason to have legal rules defining combatant status is not simply to ensure that the right of combatants to employ vicarious violence is respected, but simultaneously to ensure, as far as possible, that such violence is not directed against civilians. The essence of combatant status is to be liable, at any time, to deliberate attack. The essence of civilian status is to be immune from deliberate attack. Any legal norm that expands the rights of civilians to function as combatants is certain to erode that basic immunity. In legal terms, what is good for the guerilla must inevitably be bad for the civil society within which he hides.

A terrorist or other "illegal combatant" who trades upon his adversary's respect for the law is, in effect, using the law as a weapon. He cannot simultaneously use it as a shield...

Unquote

Originally Posted by 911pcars (Post 4047039)

I'm not aware the Geneva convention describes any distinction between "illegal" and "legal" combatants - it's a legal loophole definition created by our Justice dept. I'll recheck the Wiki waterboarding link to confirm.

Sherwood

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad (Post 4046472)

As a physician I can tell you that as little at 10 cc of water actually in the small airways (past the carina) is enough to cause major distress if not pneumonitis if not suctioned out. We see aspiration pneumonitis all the time mainly from aspiration of vomitus or food and it's amazing how little it takes.

I can definitively say that someone who says that "quarts" of fluid get into the lungs is full of it, unless those people are directly admitted to ICU after waterboarding.

Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 4047643)

By what altered state of conciousness can you get that from my post?

I asked you- what a a bout a non uniformed combatant fighting an occupying army IN HIS HOMELAND. Or the British citizens grabbed, held for considerable time in Cuba the released, never charged with a thing? And on and on.

Your are choosing to be obtuse, I think.

Originally Posted by FOG (Post 4047798)

Nathan’s Dad,

I’m obviously no MD. Just wanted further clarification that quarts (or pints, cups, etc.) of water in the lungs is bad. Probably not an efficient way to kill somebody nor to keep them in condition to answer questions.

Kind of makes one wonder about the rest of the individual’s narrative and expertise.

S/F, FOG

Originally Posted by stuartj (Post 4047393)

You ought read al Jazeera.

You might have a different view of the world.

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad (Post 4047613)

There is no way on God's green earth that you can make a case that a terrorist is provided the protections of the Geneva conventions. It is stated very clearly in the posts above the requirements that must be met in order to have those protections as a POW.

Call it lawful, unlawful, illegal, legal, whatever the hell you want, the rules are there and the terrorists don't meet those rules by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course don't let fact get in the way of your preconceived notions, this discussion is going the same way as the "Iraq is an illegal war" discussion. Complete ignorance of the facts of the matter.

Originally Posted by 911pcars (Post 4048297)

Rick,
Detainees are detainees. Why assume all detainees are "terrorists"? They're not. Of course to label them as such makes it simpler to consider them illegal combatants without rights as POWs, then torture is just the next optional step. Your mind at ease - the bad guys are not your worry.