Surfs up. Christopher Hitchens goes waterboarding

[911pcars]

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

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

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

You ought to write copy for al Jazeera.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

You ought to write copy for al Jazeera.

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

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

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

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?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

You ought to write copy for al Jazeera.

You ought read al Jazeera.

You might have a different view of the world.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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?

Leaving aside the question that raises about the presumption of basic human rights- you seem to saying its OK for a nation state to sanction torture if a person is deemed a "terrorist". One man's terrorist is anothers.....but lets park that question.

What about some poor schmuck (like the four Brit citizens) grabbed out of an airport in Pakistan and "rendered" to Cuba. or the Canadian citizen, recently hugely compensated, grabbed while returing to Canada through the US?

What about a non uniformed Afghani fighting an invading and occupying army in his own homeland?

You can laugh off Hitchens and the practice of waterboarding, or using dogs, or stress positions- or just good old beating people to death all you want. The damage the US has done to itself in world by condoning or legitimising these practices is enormous and very possibly irrepairable.

[Nathans_Dad]

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.

[stuartj]

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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by stuartj

You ought read al Jazeera.

You might have a different view of the world.

Really? You think they could make me sympathize with terrorists like you and Sherwood do? I doubt they can convince me. Call me stubborn.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

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

During the American revolution the british fought a gentlemen's war. Marching in line, standing out in the open, not firing on officers.

The revolutionaries started firing from behind trees and targetted officers. The British though that was barbaric but it worked. Similar comparisons could be made about the viet cong and the americans.
The terrorists do not fight conventional battles. If we say we are above that and need to be "gentlemen" we will lose.
F that.
War is hell and should be fought to win. Period. I'd prefer we don't lose a war because some bleeding freaking heart liberal insists that we worry about making terrorists comfortable or playing nicely. That's a loser's strategy and history has proven it too many times.

[FOG]

Originally Posted by stuartj

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.

Stuart,

Yes there distinctions between the two groups. Due to the general health and fitness of the U.S. military members the interrogators learned to go to a certain level, and injuries still occur as in any training. What has been found is that enemies held are unable to sustain the same level of interrogation w/o injury so the interrogators have had to dial things back.

S/F, FOG

[FOG]

Originally Posted by Dottore

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

Dottore,

Thank you for bringing in the prime reason for the distinction between legal and illegal combatants. As you’ve probably researched this concept dates way back and illegal combatants have always been treated very harshly, and with good reason.

There are other conventions, treaties, etc. dealing with the subject.

S/F, FOG

[FOG]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

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

911,

The concept of legal and illegal combatants pre-dates the USA. The treatment of legal and illegal combatants was addressed during and post both world wars, and the legalese is mostly European in origin as it relates to the Geneva, Hague, etc. conventions.

S/F, FOG

[FOG]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

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.

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

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by stuartj

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.

No, I am answering your question. None of the above would be afforded the protection of the Geneva convention. It's pretty simple, you can wage war however you like...but if you get captured, don't expect the protections of the Geneva convention. A terrorist does not qualify whether they be on Iraqi, British or US soil. Neither does a covert operator from a nation, whether that be the US or anywhere else.

You are trying to make a case, it seems, that the terrorists are really freedom fighters or an organized resistance. That's fine. If they want the protection of the Geneva convention they must follow the rules. That means differentiating themselves from the general population, carrying arms in the open and following the rules of war as set in the conventions. If al Qaeda in Iraq wants to start doing that then they will be afforded the full protection of the conventions.

Until that time, though, they are illegal combatants and are not afforded the protections. It's pretty simple, Stuart.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by FOG

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

Exactly my point. If a guy will stand up in front of Congress and testify that "quarts" of fluid were poured into someone's lungs, then the rest of their testimony is immediately suspect.

[911pcars]

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.

At Gitmo, most detainees (terrorists per your definition) have been released after charges were never filed they were a terrorist or charged with a terrorist act; sometimes years after they were arrested.

Is this guy a terrorist? I don't know, and in many cases the interrogators didn't know either or perhaps didn't care. After all, like many of our security forces (e.g. Blackwater and others), interrogators are contractors and aren't held to the same standards as US Military. Do you know what happens in the detainee camps in the Ukraine or Romania that the administration denies exist? No. I don't either. Do you know there's a reason the govt. doesn't have detainee camps in the CONUS?

Is this your America or your Gestapo? Don't allow facts to cloud your belief system.



Sherwood

[Mule]

Originally Posted by stuartj

You ought read al Jazeera.

You might have a different view of the world.

Is that what happened to you?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

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.

Lefties never let reality get in the way of what they think!

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

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.

Sherwood you are confusing two completely separate issues. The first deals with what Stuart is talking about, those people arrested or captured in theater. They are not afforded the protection of the Geneva conventions.

You are talking about people detained either here or abroad on suspicion of aiding or abetting terrorism outside of the theater. They are ALSO not afforded the Geneva conventions.

International terrorism is a police matter. It is not a military matter. The people who undergo rendition do so at the command of the CIA, not the military. The two issues are completely separate. The reason the US has been able to keep these people without charges is because they are in a legal no-man's land.

Whether extraordinary rendition is right or wrong is another debate completely, but the facts of the matter are clear. Neither combatants (since you seem to like that term better than terrorists) inside or outside of Iraq are afforded the protections of the Geneva conventions as POWs because they do not meet the requirements set forth in those conventions. It really is not complicated.