prosecute torturers!

[Billy Mays here FOREVER!]

I don't think it's relevant at all in terms of how captured Americans would be treated. Why not just say that we don't torture because that's just not something we do?

you one so intent on making this purely issue international law.

ever hear geneva conventions?

Only applies to uniformed combatants, which terrorists aren't. We could give them a summary execution as soon as we captured them as we wanted to

here go again, from other direction.  julie only mentioned geneva conventions because want cite example of international law ban torture.  american law also forbid it, period.

and you going have prove summary execution thing..

In WW2 we captured a bunch of german soldiers in american uniforms, who were promptly executed.
 We also captured a handful of German soldiers in civilian clothing who were once again, promptly executed

International Law, including the relevant Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, continues to recognize the fundamental distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. Only the former are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war when captured, and even then are subject to prosecution by the capturing party for violations of the laws of war. Unlawful combatants, on the other hand, are entitled to no such protections.

So how does international law define the two different categories? Lawful combatants, entitled to prisoner of war status, can be either members of the regular armed forces of a party to the conflict or members of other militias or volunteer corps they meet certain conditions that were initially adopted in Article I of the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention, namely, that they are 1) commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; 2) have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; 3) carry arms openly; and 4) conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Clearly the Al Queda network does not meet these conditions. Osama Bin Laden may be commanding his subordinates, but he is certainly not taking responsibility to ensure that they do not violate international law and the laws of war. Its members do not have a fixed distinctive emblem. They do not carry their arms openly--unless one considers hidden box cutters and tennis-shoe bombs as "open" arms. And most fundamentally, they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war, particular the rule prohibiting deliberate attacks on civilian populations such as occurred in New York, without warning, on September 11. Individuals who join such an unlawful force, therefore, are not entitled to prisoner of war status even if individually they did not violate the laws of war. Rather, they are to be treated as unlawful combatants, essentially members of an international criminal conspiracy of terrorists, and can be prosecuted as such before a military tribunal. Indeed, the old rule in international law, which has not been fully abrogated, was that such individuals could even be subjected to summary execution. A 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Convention provides that unlawful combatants be afforded certain procedural rights that were not previously required by international law, but the United States is not a signatory to that Protocol.

Considering that we never signed that protocol, we are not bound by its rules. The parts of the GC that we have ratified make a clear distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants, which terrors certainly fall into the later category. They are afforded no rights as POWs, and technically, we can pretty much do with them as we please



http://www.claremont.org/projects/pageid.1829/default.asp

[sheltron5000]

And the whole "Americans do not torture" relates to the Geneva Convention how? Just because we signed parts of it does not mean it is the sole source of law on this subject, nor does it mean we are ONLY limited by it.

[Billy Mays here FOREVER!]

We're foolish to think we don't torture. But then again, I'm pretty sure every nation ever has as well, so its kind of a moot point

[sheltron5000]

but does that make us foolish to expect us to TRY to avoid torture? Just because we expect that it happens (like any crime) doesn't mean we should let people get away with it.

[Billy Mays here FOREVER!]

It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

[Jamie Stringer]

It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty.  And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information.  So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture?  Just for shits and giggles?  Retribution?  Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

[Billy Mays here FOREVER!]

It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty.  And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information.  So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture?  Just for shits and giggles?  Retribution?  Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

The quote you bolded didn't really pertain to terrorism in general. I should have explained it better. I meant that more of a Spanish Inquisition type torture where they just go around and do it for the hell of it.

As for torture in general, I don't believe its the best way to get information, and is for the most part ineffective. However if it works 1 time in 1000, on someone who the evidence points to them most likely being a terrorist, then its worth it. My whole point wasn't really for or against terrorism per se, I just wanted to state my opinion that I could care less what happens to a partisan guerilla, which is what terrorists are.


Now its Lindy Nap time

[Julie Fern]

We're foolish to think we don't torture. But then again, I'm pretty sure every nation ever has as well, so its kind of a moot point

which, of course, why gump administration officials always claimed not torture.  lying, as well as public reaction olc memos, suggest it not moot point.

[Julie Fern]

It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty. And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information. So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture? Just for shits and giggles? Retribution? Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

not you hear?  republicans can look at prisoner and tell if guilty:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/republican-strategist-say_n_190141.html

[sheltron5000]

It doesn't make us foolish to expect us to try to avoid torture. Its foolish if we believe it will actually work.

On a side note, I am vehemently against torture of people who are innocent of crimes, or people who fight against us legally under the rules of war, but for people who are terrorists and are illegally fighting us i could care less what happens to them.

Somehow, I don't think we wait until there's been a jury trial and the person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we start to torture.

Then there's that whole pesky "found guilty now, but was really innocent" thing...

So I guess my (rather long-winded) point is that it's pretty difficult to guarantee that the person is 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty.  And even if the person was guilty, this goes back to HB's earlier point about torture being an ineffective method for obtaining information.  So if it's not for informational purposes, exactly what is the point of the torture?  Just for shits and giggles?  Retribution?  Either reason isn't acceptable, IMO.

The quote you bolded didn't really pertain to terrorism in general. I should have explained it better. I meant that more of a Spanish Inquisition type torture where they just go around and do it for the hell of it.

As for torture in general, I don't believe its the best way to get information, and is for the most part ineffective. However if it works 1 time in 1000, on someone who the evidence points to them most likely being a terrorist, then its worth it. My whole point wasn't really for or against terrorism per se, I just wanted to state my opinion that I could care less what happens to a partisan guerilla, which is what terrorists are.


Now its Lindy Nap time

Unfortunately, torture does work 1000 times out of 1000 at getting information. If 999 times out of 1000 that information is false and sends investigators down the wrong trail, is it still worth it to you?

Not to mention that the interrogators will tell you themselves that there are other better methods. the real problem is the lack of well trained interrogators.

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=623