ABC News aired a bombshell interview on Monday: Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou appeared on camera to give details, for the first time, about the capture and waterboarding of al-Qaida detainees in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
In the interview, Kiriakou appeared to still be wrestling with the morality of waterboarding, which he said he now believes is torture but was "necessary" at the time and successful, he said, in extracting information and foiling several emerging plots.
"What happens if we don’t waterboard a person, and we don’t get that nugget of information, and there’s an attack?" Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself."
If that’s the loose standard, then why not torture when you capture any terrorist suspect? Why not pull out their fingernails one by one? This is the slippery moral slope the CIA has gone down.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
79 Comments
Waterboarding leaves no permanent injury.
Also, we are using this practice selectively. We have not used it against anyone who had full, Geneva Convention POW Status.
Also, we have not allowed military personel to use this method.
Other countries have no power, under treaty or otherwise, to tell us how to handle terrorist criminals not covered under the Geneva Conventions.
Not one mention of the Foreign Policy which is creating this madness.
How about dealing with the reasons for 9/11 rather than going around in circles about the results.
I watched all seven videos of the interview and the CIA agent’s testimony was curious.
Evidently, the CIA agent was part of the capture but moved on to another job and was not involved in the interrogations when the water boarding happened.
Several times the CIA agent mentioned he wasn’t involved, but oddly enough gave details about what happened.
Is the CIA putting a little “Hollywood” performance on for us?
Who knows?
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
Hooking electrodes up to terrorist testicles doesn’t leave permanent damage either. Personally I like breaking on the rack and hot irons. And why aren’t we killing off the families of terrorists? Raping the wife or Daughter of a terrorist then slitting her throat or a good disemboweling while he watches could get us a wealth of info. As for so called POW terrorists if they got info let them suffer the same fate. At least take away their Korans, free health care, and feed them ham sandwiches. and remind them that they are cowards and failure for becoming prisoners in the first place.
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
Posted by: Kansas | December 11, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Thank goodness Kansas still has power at his house so he can blog all day.
“Econ101″ offers –
“Waterboarding leaves no permanent injury.”
Neither does rape.
Guess you think that shouldn’t be illegal either…
So Eon’s standard is leave no permanent injury? That would leave open hypothermia and the aforementione electrical jolt,sexual assaults, and anykind of fear inducing techniques or psychological assaults. We could even use that microwave device that gives the sensation of burning.
Ed
“Not one mention of the Foreign Policy which is creating this madness.
How about dealing with the reasons for 9/11 rather than going around in circles about the results.
Posted by: Ed Friedemann | December 11, 2007 at 01:14
—–
9-11 was caused by crazy people who want us dead.Lets kill those crazy people. That way they can not kill us.
PhantomDont put words in my mouth.There are several questions to ask, in determining whether some action is “torture” or not.Permanent injury is only one question to ask, out of many.
Hillary supports torture:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm
We must torture everyone because everyone is a possible “crazy person” who might go off the deep end. We can’t have people like the kid in the Omaha mall or the guy who did the church shootings in CO getting the chance to do that stuff anymore. So we should waterboard or whatever it takes to all people, we’ll get them to talk. We have the means but do we have the balls to make sure none of us are capable of commiting bad stuff. We need all people to realize that our government is not playing games and that we’ll even torture Americans in order to insure the safety of Americans.
Other countries have no power, under treaty or otherwise, to tell us how to handle terrorist criminals not covered under the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: Econ101 | December 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Unfortunately not !But we have the moral obligation to condemn it …
Econ, Hillary and all the others who think torture, whether it leaves marks or not, are wrong. Torture is something that should be left in the middle ages. It is not something this country should use under any circumstances. It is wrong and totally against what this country stands for.
We don’t need to torture anyone, I was j/k. We ought to offer the Islamic (soon-to-be or wanna-be)martyr’s 75 virgins for talking instead of the lame 72 for suicide.
But then again, I’m “one of them” that doesn’t believe that 20 arabs based out of a cave in Afghanistan superceded our trillion dollar military. And I don’t buy into the whole “Islamic-fascist” thing either. Oh crap, here comes the “blame America first, Sean Hannity parroting”.
Econ1zero1:
I told you Americans don’t like torture, and they believe waterboarding is torture.
How does it feel to be in a minority? A seriously disturbed minority?
Suspects break silence on torture- AAAAAAAUUUUGGGHHHHHH!
Poster Boy
I dont give a rip.
I know I am right. I will stand alone if I have to, when I know I am right.
Actually, the public is fickle, just like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
We are only 1 attack away from the vast majority of people deciding I am right.
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1161
Actually, I have a great deal of support on this issue:
“If a snap election between George W. Bush and torture were held today, torture would win in a romp. As writer Bob Harris notes in an article on the Iraq war mood swing, recent polls show more Americans supporting the use of torture than approve of the president’s job performance. A Newsweek poll conducted November 10-11 has the president’s approval rating at 45%, while 58% of Americans would support the use of torture ” if it might lead to the prevention of a major terrorist attack.”
The depth of support for torture varies according to the questions asked. In the Newsweek poll, a total of 62% said torture is either often (17%), sometimes (27%) or rarely (18%) justified; 33% said it never is. But in the same poll, 57% of respondents say they wouldn’t support the US use of torture if it made the torture of Americans more likely, a proposition that seems to be if not a slam dunk, at least more probable than not.”
Perhaps this is a view into who we are, Oh well we claim to be all that right and just. But when the pressure is on we revert to using torture and being amoral. Turn to the “other guy “ defense stating that the other guy does this or the other guy does not do that. That they can not tell us what we should do, well that leaves it up to us on what we do. To decide how we treat prisoners and since the other guy is amoral and believes in being inhuman it is OK for us to act the same. Tit for tat and the like, we are totally justified if we make a video of beheading the terror suspect then! After all there is not difference between us and them, why pretend there is?
Torture is wrong. Always.
First, I do not consider “waterboarding” to be “torture” — however, consider the following hypothetical:
A terrorist is captured in New York City.This terrorist has information concerning a nuclear device, planted somewhere in the city.
In this case, waterboarding, alone, should not be the limit of what we could do, morally, to get the information needed in order to save millions of lives.
Law enforcement should be able to shoot the guy in the foot, or do anything else, to get the information out of him.
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of John McCain, on this point.
I believe that both of them have indicated that a Presidential Pardon, in the event of extreme action, by an interrogator, might be appropriate.
I would suggest to you that you might not have the courage to even face such a situation. If that is the case, I am glad you are not in law enforcement or in charge of our National Defense.
I see no moral dilemma here at all.
So then can I take it you will be voting for Hillary since you agree with her Econ?
Torture obtains lousy and useless “information.” People say anything under such conditions. And in the present case, it is extremely dubious whether Kiriakou had any legitimation whatever for his claim that waterboarding obtained useful, actionable intelligence.
However, torture *does* allow Econ101 to feel maybe not so powerless, and it allows him to participate, if only by proxy, in rituals of dominance over people he doesn’t like. Perhaps this is what’s driving his now-customary, supreme confidence in his own convictions.
You’re welcome to your convictions, Econ101. Have at ‘em. But the rest of us are well aware of how often you blow smoke and yammer away emptily, bereft of understanding.
CF2KI just posted opinion polls that clearly indicate that a majority of Americans often agree with me, on this issue, depending on the circumstances.
You seem to have the need to moralize and look down on others, from your exaulted throne.
Fine.
Judge all you want.
I am very thankful that the nation will NEVER put its security in the hands of someone like you.
By the way:
“people I don’t like” is a rather stupid statement, for you to make.
Does this mean that you, CF, WOULD like a person that planted a nuclear device?
To be clear, I love my children dearly, and I doubt one of them would ever engage in terrorism.
However, I would shoot my own child in the foot, if it prevented a thermonuclear attack on American soil.
Econ101,
Funny how you’re willing to consult opinion polls when they mirror your beliefs, while dismissing those which cut against your pre-existing views. Nevertheless, the real point here is the obvious: torture doesn’t deliver as promised. That’s the case whether the public agrees with it or not.
Ask the professionals, in particular, the military–those who bear responsibility for the security of this country. They object strongly to the use of such techniques, and have stricken them from the list of approved interrogation techniques. The rules of war forbid precisely the techniques for which you’re arguing; and any invocation of the ‘lawful/unlawful’ combatant distinction is completely beside the point.
You seem to feel the need to justify the unjustifiable.
Fine.
Justify all you want.
Just don’t drag the rest of us down into your barbarity and subhumanity.
That has been a problem all along, acting on pure hypotheticals “if they have this” or “they might be doing that!”. Even today I watched Bush foaming at the mouth talking about how Iran is still building Nuclear weapons. That he does not trust the agencies that he gets his reports from, he will act on what might be instead of what he knows. SO we better be preparing for that Martian invasion that H.G. Wells was talking about. America is under a real possible, kind of, maybe, might if you squint one eye and turn your head to the left it might resemble a bunny rabbit looking cloud. Threat from little green men!
Unfortunately, torture, waterboarding, or any other extreme interrogation technique is only justifiable in hindsight. If they had good info, it is justifiable (at least according to people like Econ). If it turns out they had no good info, then, well, maybe we should not have been so hard on them.
Unfortunately, without the ability to see the future, we do not know who should be tortured to get info and who should not be.
I read something about the regular CIA interrogators refused to torture (waterboard) the suspects, so it was done by retired CIA contractors. Would that be our buddies from Hal.?
I think too many people have been watching ‘24′ and Fox News…
Emminent threat my ass.
Phantom,
Employed as contractors by the Government, they would be covered by the Patriot act to do whatever they were hired to do, and not encumbered by any moral code that military officers may have to question whether they think something is legal.
AIPACers and PNACers and their “other crazies” are all fired-up tonight.
101 is painting his shit with a broad brush and the beat goes on.
The Gatekeeper at Hell must have fallen asleep again..somebody wake him up…the little idiots are everywhere…
See http://www.wen2k.com/tell.php?Id=1771 Tell me, is this a fair technique too use on American POW’s?? Our enemies have the same rights we have. They can use the same techniques as us. They can use the same treatment guidelines we use. Picture an American Soldier in this video. Picture your family or yourself in this situation. Thanks again Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist, west.herb@yahoo.com
Hillary supports torture:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212006/postopinion/editorials/hillarys_torture_exception_editorials_.htm
Posted by: Econ101 | December 11, 2007 at 02:20 PM
I could tell that just by looking at her.
She can’t wait to torture us all!
Those Cons sound like moral relativist when it comes to torture or war.
Any man, who straps on an arsenal of dynamite to blow up American Men, women, and children p in support of a vague goal is a rabid animal.
Any man, who walks into a mall, school, or public building and blows up children and women – is not deserving of the rights according to a prison under the Geneva Convention.
If I can extract information, which will save the life of YOUR child, or YOUR family – by any means available.
God Bless me.
beak, that’s the thing about being American. We have a thing called justice for all. That’s why we have the laws and policies that we do, so people like you don’t go off half cocked thinking your brand of justice is somewhat more deserving than the guy who just went and blew up kids.
Hey libs:
My POINT, once again, is that there is NO law that forbids the following:
“Waterboarding” a enemy illegal combatant, or criminal, in other words, who is NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions. This would mean that the criminal was not in uniform, was not following the rules of war, and was not in the chain of command of any state-controlled military unit.
The “waterboarding” can not be done by a member of the U.S. Armed forces.
This would NOT be a military matter, as far as military procedure and protocol is concerned.—–You say that this is a “slippery slope” and that it opens the door for other countries to treat our POW’s in the same way?
That is nonsense. Our military strives to follow the international rules of war. We wear uniforms, we do not target civilians, we punish those who break those rules.
If an American citizen becomes a terrorist, targets civilians and does not follow the rules of war, I don’t care if he gets waterboarded. Such a person is NOT covered, as a POW, by the Geneva Conventions.
It is you liberals who are establishing the “slippery slope” and starting a very bad precedent.
The international rules ow war were written in such a way as to encourage combants to wear uniforms, to take due care of civilian life, and to follow the rules of warfare.
Those countries who follow the rules of war are granted protection under the Geneval Conventions.
If you grant Geneva protections to these barbaric criminals, why should any country, or any terrorist group, pay any attention to the rules?
We grant everyone Geneva protection, no matter how they behave, and they will behave much WORSE.
They have no incentive to improve their behavior — you have already given away the store!
Paul wishes he could have been a public relations guy for the Nazis and excuse their war crimes.
Paul thinks it’s absolutely great that kidnapped American contractors can be tortured by Iraqis. Brave Paul must be eagerly signing up with KBR so he can either go be tortured or gang rape some American women.
Hey Paul, have you ever thought America should be a guiding example to other countries? Or should we hold ourselves to the same standards as countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria?
You are a cowardly sick bastard.
the best torture method I know is to make them read or listen to opinions by Randy Scholfield, CapnAmerica, and JR.
Waterboarding is for sissies; force them to read all of Pall’s posts and they’ll be on their knees begging for death inside a day!
Hard to say whether a capturee is better off being tortured and inprisoned indefinitely, or being killed.
They showed a some of the waterboarding on a prisoner, and after I got a glimpse of it, I had to cover my eyes. I could not even watch the torture of a fellow human being. I don’t see how anyone can condone this.
And Paul, you were the one that threw out there waterboarding doesn’t leave any permanent damage. If your point wasn’t that it wasn’t torture, then why even say it doesn’t leave permanent damage.
TDTWaterboarding is a very mild method, if employed against a person who has information that could save lives.There are several things I would ask, concerning any interrogation method.Permanent physical damage should be avoided, don’t you think?Do you honestly wish to put “waterboarding” in the same category as breaking bones or burning with acid or any of the other methods used, by our enemies?—–By the way, folks, those who are out of uniform, and attack our fighting forces, can be EXECUTED, legally, under the Geneva Conventions.
How about we get them all to sign a form saying they don’t want be be executed, and would prefer to be interrogated, instead?
Paul, my point is that just because it doesn’t leave any permanent PHYSICAL damage does not mean it isn’t torture. There is no way to convince me that emotional and psychological torture isn’t as bad as physical torture, if not worse. The physical body has a way of healing even the most terrible trauma, but psychological will stay with people for the rest of their lives.
“We grant everyone Geneva protection, no matter how they behave, and they will behave much WORSE.”Posted by: Econ101 | December 12, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Because we are Americans and do not stoop to the barbarian’s level. Welcome to the red white and blue.
Econ101,
Methinks you revealed more than you intended. To wit:
“If an American citizen becomes a terrorist, targets civilians and does not follow the rules of war, I don’t care if he gets waterboarded. Such a person is NOT covered, as a POW, by the Geneva Conventions.”
Really. So who gets to decide which American citizen is a ‘terrorist’, Econ101? You? George Bush? Dick Cheney? James Dobson?
This is why civilized nations eschew torture: what one starts out doing to one’s external “enemies” always ends up being redirected against one’s internal “enemies”–where it was intended in the first place.
I no more trust your commitment to democracy and an open society, Econ101, than I trust that of the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden. The last thing people like you need or deserve in your toolkit is waterboarding or any other method of torture.
Your unconcealable thrill at such methods shows their real allure for you.
CFCheomthearpy does not “thrill” me.
Radiation therapy does not “thrill” me.
However, such treatments have saved lives, in the past.
My point, again, is very clear:
The Geneva Conventions specify who is covered by those rules.
Illegal enemy combatants are NOT covered. We do not HAVE to treat such people as POW’s.
The government determines, today, who is a US Citizen and who is not covered, as a Citizen.
The government determines, today, who is a combatant and who is not.
The government also determines who is a criminal, and who deserves POW protections.
This is ALREADY in the “government toolbox”.
Tough.
Policy pretty much reflects MY views, not yours.
Also, it looks like Hillary and Pelosi agree with me.
Nothing will change.
Thank God!
The U.S. government considered a Canadian citizen a terrorist and had him sent off and tortured. According to Paul this was fine and acceptable since this citizen, who wasn’t wearing a military uniform when he was connecting a flight in the States, can be declared an enemy combatant at will.
Next thing Paul will be demanding more people be dragged off the streets and tortured by the Bush gestapo in order to instill more fear in the public to protect us from….
I wonder if Paul gets sexually aroused bye the thought of people getting tortured. seems that way.
DougYou are mixing apples and oranges.
What happened to the Canadian that you mention is regretable.
However, the United States did not interrogate that person, an foreign government did that.
Nothing being debated, now, in Congress or even in the media, would prevent the United States from deporting someone to a country that openly practices torture.
In fact, if you liberals make it impossible for the United States Government to conduct reasonable interrogations, deportation to foreign goverments might actually be the result.
No, what happened to the Canadian wasn’t regrettable, it was criminal and you excuse this behavior as acceptable. Now I know you are ignorant so you aren’t just playing stupid when you think the U.S. government had no role in taking a person outside of their country and sending them to a foreign country for torture. The U.S. is perfectly capable of interrogating someone without torture so they sent him somewhere where he could be tortured for the sake of being tortured.
Contrary to what you believe, torture is not a reasonable interrogation.
Do you believe that when the Japanese tortured Americans, for which they were tried and executed, that they weren’t actually committing a crime? According to you all the Japanese have to do is strip the soldiers of their uniform then they don’t qualify under the Geneva convention. You are a small, petty child.
Doug if you were a flaming red head and I shaved your head, would you no longer be a redhead? That would be the same thing as stripping the uniform off an American soldier. He would still be a soldier and covered by the Geneva Convention.
DougYou are not attempting to change minds, apparently.
As I already showed you, I have a rather large number of people, even a majority, that agrees with me, on this issue.
I would feel the same way even if I were in a small minority. I know that I am right.
However, since you ARE in the minority, it seems to me that you might not want to insult everyone that disagrees with you.
That is usually not a good method to use, if you are trying to get someone to change.
You need to get millions of people to change their minds, if you wish to change policy.
Try playing nice.
It is amusing to me, in watching these liberals.
They do not seem to know how to engage in civil ciscourse, yet they presume to tell others how to fight wars and how to interrogate criminals.
Jerks for Peace!
Funny ksgrm, America took soldiers off a battlefield and didn’t consider them soldiers since they didn’t have an official uniform and tortured them. Nice analogy, but it’s not practiced in real life.
bushco actually invented a new category they called Enemy Combatants as that group wasn’t covered under the Geneva Conventions. A CYA move so they could avoid being prosecuted for the war crimes they commit.
Oh yes, if the majority believes it to be okay then it must be okay. So Paul, in your great wisdom, if a people decides that a small population of people, Jews or Muslims, should be identified by wearing a badge then that would be okay despite the fact that it would lead to persecution? Would rounding up all Japanese Americans and putting them into concentration camps be acceptable? Would sterilizing retarded children because it’s believe they won’t pass on their retarded genes be acceptable?
The majority has approved of many stupid things in the past. I see you happily include yourself in the majority of the stupid.
lindaBush did not invent the term, the Geneva Conventions invented the term.
Doug, it was the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who wanted to sterilize those she felt were “unfit” — she belongs to you liberals, not to my side of the debate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/is-george-bush-guilty-of-_b_26669.html
“The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes violation of parts of the Geneva Convention a crime in the United States.”
So the Bush administration announced the creation of a new category of captured prisoners. Instead of being “prisoners of war,” suspected al-Qaeda members or sympathizers would be “illegal enemy combatants.” Since this designation was not mentioned in the Geneva Conventions…”
LindaThe Geneva Conventions clearly spell out what is legal, and who is covered, by that treaty:
“combatant status
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
See wounded combatants for a list of protections.
Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)
Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)
For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)
See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)”
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
If you are a combatant that does not qualify for protection, you are either a “mercenary” or you are an “illegal combatant”.
Either way, Geneva does not apply.
Should have said:
“Either way, Geneva POW status does not apply”
My post at 1:10 p.m. should have read:
bushco actually invented a new category they called Illegal Enemy Combatants as that group wasn’t covered under the Geneva Conventions. A CYA move so they could avoid being prosecuted for the war crimes they commit.
Sorry, I left out the word “illegal” the first time.
Homeland Security guy says U.S. biggest threat now homegrown. Is he setting the table to move some of bush’s ‘terrorist’ classification to Americans?
PhantomAn American citizen who attacks America, on American soil, is still a citizen.
Tim McVeigh, for instance.
YOU are trying to give full citizenship to terrorists who are not citizens, and who are not POW’s under Geneva.
The majority of Americans do not condone torture and consider waterboarding to be just that.
Econ1zero1 may feel like he/she has a majority, but I do not believe that is the position of most americans, liberal or not.
Any way you look at this subject bushco have instituted whatever is needed to avoid being charged with the war crimes they have committed.
LindaWar crimes?
Please state the crimes, the statutes violated, the names of the victims, the status of the victims, and the authority by which those “crimes” should be prosecuted.
Pall,Bush pulled an end run around the treaty that wouldn’t stand up in any reasonable court; that’s why Guantanamo.To quote an old lawman, “Some things is legal what ain’t moral, and some things is moral what ain’t legal, and what’s a poor sheriff to do?”
Paul,
You can use “the” google as well as I can and IF you were inclined to consider that bushco is guilty of anything you might look. You and I both know you would have another side of the story to anything I might list. I’m not one to argue. I don’t feel a need to state my opinions in several different ways because I think I could make you agree with me if only I could say it more clearly. I don’t believe I could ever say anything you would agree with no matter how clearly I might state my opinions. And I guarantee nothing you could say would cause me to change my opinions either.
A FEW areas I think bushco are guilty of crimes would include:
The Bush administration has tried to replace the constitutional rule of law with the power of the Executive branch to disregard both the laws established by the Legislative branch and the judgments of the Judicial branch.
NSA wiretapping, military commissions, the detention and treatment of ‘enemy combatants,’ habeas corpus, and the power to declare war.
Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data. Be sure you include research in the Downing Street memo here. (yeah, like that’s ever gonna happen!)
It’s really an exercise in futility to go on, isnt’ it? This and much more has been argued here often and no one has changed their mind.
The only positive is we are nearing the end of this very corrupt administration. Not to say we can relax because bushco is capable of much more and we must be vigilant.
LindaI take that as a surrender, on your part.(Liberals are good at that, aren’t they?)
You can not tell me what law was broken.
Therefore, there was NO crime.
Your laundry list of “offenses” shows clearly that there was NO CRIMINAL offense.
You have no specifics, you just don’t like Bush.
It must also hurt that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi agree with me, more than they agree with you.
JedTreaties are signed by countries.
Terrorists have no country.
Terrorists are not covered by any treaty.
I surrender! I’ll say whatever you want Paul your highness, please stop the torture of your posts, I can’t take any more. I surrender, whatever you say, whatever you want, please, please…
Ya know?
I like to live in a country that I feel is just a little worth defending.
NOT torturing people is one of the few things left that made this country respectable.
Well bush is nothing if not thorough. He’s almost entirely eliminated anything about America to respect.
A Republican Senator brought up this scenario while questioning a military attorney for Guantanamo Bay. I paraphrase:
Imagine if a U.S. pilot crashed his airplane within the Iranian border and was taken prisoner. The Iranians are fearful of a possible attack by the Americans and need to query the pilot in order to know if it’s necessary to take military action to prevent a possible military or nuclear attack.
Would the Iranians be justified in torturing the American prisoner because there is a possible eminent danger and the solider was captured outside a period of declared war? Would it be hypocritical for America to demand Iran not to torture enemy combatants while America happily does?
The question was asked by Senator Graham but he specifically asked if Iranians used water boarding on the pilot if that would amount to torture. The person asked, General Hartmann, refused to answer the question.
If it’s not torture then why avoid the question?
DougIn the scenerio that you listed, there are several issues that would put the matter squarely within Geneva Convention POW guidlines:
A uniformed pilot, a member of a recognized military unit from a specific country is involved.
In the pilot scenario, that you and Sen. Graham bring up, NO, Iran should not use anything other than the standard POW procedures allowed under Geneva rules.
However, if a private US citizen, not answerable to any military chain of command, and out of uniform, committed a terrorist act against Iran — Iran would be free to waterboard that person.
Not every deserves the protections of the Geneva protocols.
If the Geneva Conventions covered the entire world, if everyone was to be treated like a POW, if captured, what was the purpose of spelling out, in the Geneva Articles, what was LEGAL combat, and who is covered by the Geneva Conventions?
Not everyone is covered. Otherwise, the Treaty would say so, would it not?
Good ol’ Paul admitting he has no problems with Americans being tortured. And the conservatives claim the Democrats hate the military and won’t support the troops, yet we don’t want to see them tortured.
Go figure.
Doug
Timothy McVeigh was not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Yes, he was a US Citizen and covered by the Consitution. However, the Geneva Conventions did NOT cover him.
If am American Citizen, not in uniform, not in the chain of command of any military unit, went to Iran and targeted civilians, and otherwise broke the rules of war — that person would NOT be covered by the Geneva Conventions.
What I have stated here is the current interpretation of the law, and is current policy, as near as I can tell.
POWs can not be treated like criminals, under Geneva. In that case, they are to be treated the same way as other criminals under the laws of the country involved.
Non POW’s, such as “illegal enemy combatants,” do not have to be treated as POW’s. Such people can be prosecuted under criminal law.
Such people can also be executed.
Again, why do you want to reduce the value of following international rules of war?
The Geneva Conventions exist as a treaty signed by Nations.
Individuals who claim no country as their own, who are not in the military, who do not wear a uniform and who target civilians should not be rewarded with POW status that they do not deserve.
I need another cup of coffee, sorry:
“POWs can not be treated like criminals, under Geneva. In that case, they are to be treated the same way as other criminals under the laws of the country involved.”
Should have said, POW’s can not be treated like criminals, under Geneva. ONLY NON POWs can be treated as Criminals. In that case, they are to be treated the same was as other criminals under the laws of the country involved. This would usuually be the laws under the country in which they were captured.”