Impeach President Bush Now

[solarbird]

Impeach

President

Bush

Now

The part that really says "petulant jackass who doesn't actually give a rat's ass about anything other than power" is the part where he threatens to stop all CIA interrogations of suspects if he doesn't get to torture people. And the "clarity" bullshit has to stop. There's been 50 years of work on understanding, very clearly, what does and does not violate the Geneva conventions on this issue. It's very clear now. The idea that this legalisation of torture effort is some sort of attempt to "clarify" anything is a giant lie. Do not let that abuse of language, history, and American principles stand. It was torture when the Soviets did it; it was torture when the Hussein regime did it; it's torture if we do it. Period.

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

You do realize that the Geneva convention does not apply to anyone in Gitmo, right? Furthermore, what you consider torture, what Bush considers torture and what the accords consider torture are all different things? I have no problems with the torture that Bush wants to allow. Considering the police in the US can legally do worse things to you, I'm all for it. While I'm against extreme physical torture, I am 100 percent behind harrassment, humilation, sleep deprevation, and minor abuse (things that leave no marks or do any damage) for anyone who does not fall under the accords.

[solarbird]

Oh, I'm aware of your opinion; I read the things you post and follow almost all of the links, too. I know there are a lot of other people who support your side of this debate. But I stridently disagree with it. If we're supposed to be the "shining city on the hill," that's one thing - but this sure ain't how to do it.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I disagree with that sentiment as well. We're fighting a war. They torture and murder any of our people they catch, regardless of their status (soldier, civilian, etc). Saying that we 'cannot torture them because we're better' when what we are talking about barely rises to the definition of 'torture' is ridiculous. Further citing the Geneva convention which does not apply here, is so off topic as to be ludicrous.

What I cannot for the life of me understand is your point of view: That we should treat barbarians better than we treat our own, and provide them protections they do not deserve even though it often means that many of our own will die hideous and painful deaths.

You call that 'civilized'? A 'shining example'? I'm not for anything close to what they do to us, but interrogations and the kinds of 'torture' (it really doesn't even deserve to be called that) our military wants to do works, and it saves lives. If these people followed the Geneva convention, then they would be entitled to its protections, but giving them those protections when they do not honor it are not the actions of a civilized society. They are the actions of cowards who are afraid to do the hard things that must be done to protect a civilized society.

Civilized societies do not extend the rules of civilization to those who do not honor them. Unless they no longer wish to survive. I'm not for bringing out the tools of the inquisition, but the methods being debated here are reasonable and should be allowed.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

I don't think the police can do a lot of this sort of thing (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007974.html#007974). (Water boarding? Inducing hypothermia? Standing chained for interminable periods of time?)

I do not buy that the so-called minor stuff will not lead to permanent impairments.

[banner.livejournal.com]

We're not talking those things (waterboarding, standing chained). They can keep you awake, they can lie to you, they can keep you cold, they can rough you up (a little), and they can threaten you, demean you, and harrass you.

[solarbird]

We're not talking those things (waterboarding, standing chained).
Um, yeah, we are. That's the kind of thing this is about.

[banner.livejournal.com]

No, it's not. Waterboarding has been banned at this point. They're talking about much milder things now.

[solarbird]

It's been banned for the moment because the Bush administration lost its court case before the Supreme Court. The bill they're trying to get through Congress is specifically about getting around that ruling (by "reinterpreting" the treaties) so they can resume previous practices.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Ah, thank you. I wasn't sure what had been officially banned, at this point.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Waterboarding doesn't violate any treaties that we're a party too as long as the people it is done to fall outside of the protection of those treaties. Such as terrorists. And while I'm not a big fan of waterboarding, I think it should remain legal to be done to terrorists, but only when higher authorities have approved it, and it is done by experienced interrogators.

When it comes to saving the lives of civilians, and yes even soldiers, from the actions of terrorists and madmen, I have no problems at all with waterboarding or similar techniques that scare the living hell out of those people. Remember the people this treatment is reserved for are murders and party to future murders. They are not soldiers practicing their craft, they're cold blooded killers. How far would you go to save innocents from terrorism? While I don't think I could ever go as far as the terrorists themselves, (nor do I think we as a country should go that far), I think things like waterboarding are just fine.

[avram]

Remember that the people this treatment is reserved for are anyone who looks like a terrorist, or was standing next to someone who looked like a terrorist, or who had some long-standing grudge with a neighbor and got accused of being a terrorist, or who got named at random by someone who was being tortured and was just lying to get the torture to stop.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Ummm, no. The people in our Military are just not that stupid.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Maybe not, but the people in the CIA have proven their incompetence multiple times and they've played a key role in the waterboarding interrogations.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Good point.

[avram]

Try telling that to Maher Arar. Or the Tipton Three. Or Sean Baker.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

I'm confused. Do you mean to say that you believe that they can't do waterboarding and other such techniques in Guantanamo Bay? Or do you mean they can't do them for other people "arrested" in the "war on terror"? Or... well, anyway, what do you mean?

[banner.livejournal.com]

Water Boarding has been banned. That is no longer what they're talking about. Now they're going on about sleep deprevation, slapping (not beating) a prisoner or grabbing their shirt. Playing loud music (rock and roll), threatening them, humilating them (verbally), lying to them, verbally abusing them.

You know, the kinds of things frats do during initiations.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

OK. See, I thought that it hadn't specifically been banned yet. I in fact thought that the recent brou-ha-ha was partially about the limits of interrogation.

Could you point me to a specific article that talks about what the current limits are? I'd appreciate it.

(That said, I do stand by the part where even supposedly "minor stuff" can lead to permanent impairment. Grabbing and shaking someone, particularly if they're already impaired, can lead to permanent brain damage and death. Sleep deprivation has been known to lead to psychotic breaks. And so on. It really does not compare to fraternity initiations.)

[avram]

You do realize that the Geneva convention does not apply to anyone in Gitmo, right?

Bullshit.

First, it's the Geneva Conventions, plural. While the Third Convention is the one that's getting most of the attention, the Fourth Convention covers people other than traditional prisoners of war. It specifically mentions the treatment of spies, saboteurs, and other un-uniformed hostiles, and does make some exceptions for them. (Spies, for example, forfeit some of their rights of communication.) It does say, however (article 5) that "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."

[banner.livejournal.com]

You do not know what you are talking about. You are not bound to follow the convention if the enemy does not follow it.

[avram]

The International Committee of the Red Cross says otherwise: "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."

[banner.livejournal.com]

It does not matter what the International Red Cross says. They are not the police. What matters is what treaties the US has signed and agreed to. The rules clearly state that if one side does not abide by the rules, the other is not bound to abide by them. Furthermore the Conventions are agreements between states, and only states. If you belong to a non-state organization you are not covered by them at all.

[avram]

It does not matter what the International Red Cross says. They are not the police.

The ICRC is the organization created under the Geneva Conventions for the purpose of monitoring compliance of warring parties with the Geneva Conventions. So as far as Geneva Conventions compliance is concerned, yes, they are the police.

If you belong to a non-state organization you are not covered by them at all.

Wrong yet again! Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention extends POW protection to (4.1.3) “Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power” as well as (4.1.4) “Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof” and (4.1.6) “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units”.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Wow, I have never seen a greater lack of comprehension in my life. It's really impressive how you're completely bending or misreading the words and trying to make them fit someplace they don't even come close to. Let me guess, you're a lawyer or a politician, right? Because everything you said there is really a lot of bull and makes no logical sense at all.

Regular armed forces wear uniforms, so that one is out. Persons who accompany the armed forces do not engage in combat, they also must have armed forces i.e. a regular army, to accompany; so that one is out too. As for number 3, they have had time to organize, so that one doesn't apply, obviously. Also that rule does not apply to attacks against an occupying force.

And again, you are NOT bound by ANY articles of the Geneva convention if the enemy does not abide by it. What part of that don't you understand? That rule has been in there since day one to try and force both sides to abide, because otherwise, the side that does not abide has an advantage over the other.

[avram]

Wait, we're discussing what is essentially a legal matter, and you're saying that if I was a lawyer I'd be a less reliable source than a layman? Jeez, who do you go to when you need legal advice?

[solarbird]

Harlan Ellison, of course. Who else?

[avram]

He's bugfucktastic!

[banner.livejournal.com]

It's not a legal matter. It's a treaty matter. And possibly a UCMJ matter. People outside of our country are not covered under US laws. Neither are people who are at war with us. This is not a legal matter.

[avram]

Hold on. While the Bush administration does say that that al Qaeda fighters aren't covered at all under the Conventions, more than four years ago, the White House declared that Taliban fighters among the Afghan war detainees are covered by the Geneva Conventions. And there are Taliban operatives at Gitmo.

[banner.livejournal.com]

The Taliban members who wore uniforms and followed the rules of war are covered by the Conventions. Those that did not wear uniforms or follow the rules of war are not covered.

However, that has no bearing on their being at gitmo. They're prisoners of war, and until something can be decided on what to do with them (I personally think they should just hold military tribunals and punish the guilty and release the innocent), that is wear they are going to stay.

[avram]

That's pretty impressive. Your very first comment, starting off this whole argument, began "You do realize that the Geneva convention does not apply to anyone in Gitmo, right?".

Now you're admitting that you were wrong, but stating your admission as if it were a correction of the very people who've been pointing out that your were wrong to begin with. You're just shameless.

[banner.livejournal.com]

You are saying that there are people in Gitmo who were uniformed members of the Taliban, who fought following the rules of war. Or at least implied that. If those people are there, then yes the conventions apply to them. Personally I do not believe that any of the people there fit into that classification. If the President decides to extend convention rights to people who do not deserve it, well that's his perogative.

So if you can show me evidence that there are people who deserve convention protections there, I'll agree that they deserve it and admit I was wrong on saying that everyone in Gitmo doesn't deserve those protections. And that's deserve it as per the treaty, not what other people or organizations claim. But by and large I think it's a safe bet that the vast majority of people in Gitmo (over 90 percent) do not fall under the convention at all.

[avram]

First, I'm not syaing it, I telling you that the Bush administration said it. And not just "some" -- in general, Taliban fighters qualify as POWs under the 3rd Convention.

Furthermore, the Geneva Convetions explicitly say that detainees are to be considered POWs until proven otherwise, not that you have to prove that they deserve it to consider them POWs.

[risu.livejournal.com]

How do we determine which detainees have been faithfully following the Geneva Conventions?

[banner.livejournal.com]

It's not about the detainees, it's about the state/organization they are a member of.

[risu.livejournal.com]

Hm!

I'm too emotionally involved in this discussion. I'm stopping it here. Apologies for starting a conversation thread and then dropping it. ^_^

[uniquecrash5.livejournal.com]

Holy crap, I can't believe you really said that. Because the enemy tortures people, it's okay if we do? No, it's not. Really, it isn't.

Further, these people can now never be tried in a court of law (a real one anyway), and they should be. Justice should be seen to be done. I'm not gonna take a 'trust me' from our goverment on this one.

Mostly though, it's simply not as effective as other means of interrogation. And that's a fact.

[banner.livejournal.com]

You also have no idea what you're talking about.

And I didn't say that, I said that you don't have to honor the convention if the enemy doesn't.