GW Bu$h's Torture Chambers and Rape rooms ...!

"You Know Who" wrote in message
s.com...
In talk.politics.guns (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

You Know Who wrote in message
ws.com...

What makes you think He was mythical?

It's a matter of faith.

Your faith makes you think He's mythical?

That woudl seem to be as good an argument as one's faith leading
one to believe he was not.

It sure would!

Yup.

"You Know Who" wrote in message
s.com...
In talk.politics.guns Ken Smith wrote:

You Know Who wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Yardpilot" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
e.com...
"Yardpilot" wrote in message
news:zCIkc.6606$kh4.445558@attbi_s52...
"Pooched" wrote in message

[snip]

Correction needed.... America has been routinely transferring
suspects to other countries to be tortured. A Canadian Muslim
recently went through this.

I somehow missed your reference, link, or citation on this. Would you
mind
posting it again? You DID post one, didn't you?

Jesus Christ!

Invoking mythical invisible friends won't help you.

What makes you think He was mythical?

A lack of evidence to support the Christians' most basic truth
claims. While no one actually disputes the erstwhile existence of ElRon
Hubbard, virtually no one outside the $cientology cult seriously
believes that he lived up to their collective biography of him.

Same with Jesus. There probably *was* a man upon whom the legend was
built, but there is no credible evidence that he was a messiah, or even
a reasonable facsimile of same. Therefore, "Jesus Christ" is a myth --
even as Pilate was a historical figure.

We're not discussing if He was the Messiah, we're discussing his
existence.

We are discussing both, actually. Your use of "He" as opposed to "he" rather
points that up. So does the name "Jesus Christ," BTW, as opposed to Jesus of
Nazereth or simply Jesus. There is the question of the physical existence of the
person, as well as the mythos surrounding said person. Have a little faith G.

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

BTW, are you aware of who it was
that set the wheels in motion on this matter?

Yes, the anonymous sources who released the photos, just like My Lai.
The wheels were going in circles befor that.

No, "Fred," that is not the case. The wheels were set rolling by a report from a
soldier.

On 4 May 2004 08:59:06 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor addresses a different issue, that
of the status of the detainees ate Guantanamo Bay
...
http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/gen...nvention3.html

Geneva conventions

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention,
are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:........

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed
distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms
openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.


There are several other categories of POWs but the paragraph you
cite above does seem to be the most relevent to the AL Queda
fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

No. It directly applies to "insurgents" Sic: "including those of
organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict
and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied,....."

It would
appear that they qualify as POWs. The only sitcking point might
be the part about 'having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable
at a distance;' but given that our troops in camos do not, we
had better not push that point too hard.

A unifomed soldier in a formal military unit qualifies
automatically under section 1. Section 2 gives irregular forces POW
status, but only if they are identifiable as combatants.

In any event, and this is a major point Mr *MORT* has missed,
torture is wrong.

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies. And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.

PHP

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..
On 3 May 2004 15:25:45 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

While everybody likes to cite them, international accords
about the treatment of prisoners only cover belligerents in uniform.

There are two relevent 'Geneva Conventions'. for the treatment of
prisoners. One is for captured beligerants, the other for captured
civiilans. The conventions require that all prisoners be accorded
the protections of one or the other unless a competent court or
tribubal makes a determination to the contrary.

With the exception of local militia forces rushing to the defense of
their country, any belligerent not in uniform is a "spy" and can be
legally executed in wartime. Psychological stress is sure a lot
less than this..


Certain actions, such as torture and summary execution are crimes
without regard to the choice of victim.

No decent person denies this.

Summry execution of suspected spies has been outlawed since at
least the 1907 Hague Conventions, which you can find online.

So much for your general knowledge.

--

FF

Rape Rooms, Torture Rooms are under new management.

"torresD" wrote in news:bSSlc.7143$V97.4572
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Rape Rooms, Torture Rooms are under new management

Your management, no doubt--listening to Air AmeriKKKa would fall
under the torture category, certainly.

--
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
--The Hon. Zell Miller

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies.

Since torture is wrong, it doesn't matter if the Geneva Conventions
for POWs or civilians apply or not. Consider the Nurenberg trials--
criminals were executed for crimes which violated no statute
or treaty. Rightly so, IMHO, they were tried and executed under
common law.

I also support the doctrine of command responsibility. While there
are, as of yet, only rumors that the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan
were ordered, there are accusations that the responsible officers
took no action to prevent the abuses, which leaves those officers
without a defense. Further, the public sentiments toward prisoners
expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld, clearly fostered the abuses that
have been publicised during the last two years.

Our leaders have failed to provide proper leadership. They are
rotten. They share the blame.

Summary execution of suspected spies has been explicitley outlawed
since at least the 1907 Hague conventions. It is also a violation
of the UCMJ--see 'murder'. Please don't make things up, or rely
on bad movie scripts for your information.

However, it would appear that convicted murderers are not punished,
they are rewarded with a free ticket home:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5038963

Army officials said the military had investigated the deaths
of 25 prisoners held by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
and determined that an Army soldier and a CIA contractor murdered
two prisoners. Most of the deaths occurred in Iraq.

An official said a soldier was convicted in the U.S. military
justice system of killing a prisoner by hitting him with a rock,
and was reduced in rank to private and thrown out of the service
but did not serve any jail time.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a private
contractor who worked for the CIA was found to have committed
the other homicide against a prisoner. [No information was
provided on the contractor's dispositon, perhaps he was reassigned
to Guantanamo Bay.]

I might be inclined to suppose that the soldier might not have
intended to kill the prisoner, but for now accept the use of
'murder' by Reuters.

Please note also that these were kept secret until now.


And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.


More than 'some sort'. The word 'competent', a legal term of
art, is used. Tribunals established by Presidential decree
would fail the competency test since the US Constitution
empowers the Congress to establish courts not the President
and past USSC cases have held that the Congress cannot delegate
authority to the President, when that authority is original
to the Congress in the Constitution.

--

FF

On 4 May 2004 14:39:30 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor wrote in message . ..

True, torture may be wrong, but unless the combatants qualify
as POW's, the Geneva conventions don't hold for them, although other
international conventions may. Thus, e.g., you can still shoot
spies.

Since torture is wrong, it doesn't matter if the Geneva Conventions
for POWs or civilians apply or not.

It does cound if you are citing the Geneva Conventions, since these
are only applicable to real POWs.

Consider the Nurenberg trials--
criminals were executed for crimes which violated no statute
or treaty. Rightly so, IMHO, they were tried and executed under
common law.

Quibble, common law never included the ancient sport of
"waging offensive warfare". True, the Nazis pretty much deserved
what they got.

However, the prosecution of Japanes generals generated some
scary precedents. For example, following the precident set by the
prosecution of General Yama****a, an area commander is responsible
for any abuses committed by the troops in his area, even if they are
not under his control and even if he has proved his reluctance to
commit atrocities.

I also support the doctrine of command responsibility. While there
are, as of yet, only rumors that the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan
were ordered, there are accusations that the responsible officers
took no action to prevent the abuses, which leaves those officers
without a defense. Further, the public sentiments toward prisoners
expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld, clearly fostered the abuses that
have been publicised during the last two years.

Google "Yama****a" and "Manila". Set a scary precident.

Summary execution of suspected spies has been explicitley outlawed
since at least the 1907 Hague conventions.

Not true. E.g., some German sabateurs were executed in WW2. If
you mean, you have to try them in a military court before execution,
this is correct.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5038963

I might be inclined to suppose that the soldier might not have
intended to kill the prisoner, but for now accept the use of
'murder' by Reuters.

Depends of the circumstances. E.g., supposed prisoners in Afganistan
revolted and killed severl US soldiers.

And yes, prisoners are supposed to get some sort of hearing
to determine their POW status.

More than 'some sort'. The word 'competent', a legal term of
art, is used. Tribunals established by Presidential decree
would fail the competency test since the US Constitution
empowers the Congress to establish courts not the President
and past USSC cases have held that the Congress cannot delegate
authority to the President, when that authority is original
to the Congress in the Constitution.

Actually, it can be a military tribunal.

PHP

On 4 May 2004 12:54:45 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Peter H Proctor

With the exception of local militia forces rushing to the defense of
their country, any belligerent not in uniform is a "spy" and can be
legally executed in wartime. Psychological stress is sure a lot
less than this..

Certain actions, such as torture and summary execution are crimes
without regard to the choice of victim.

Arguable. But what if "psychological stress" can save innocent
lives ?

No decent person denies this.

Say (e.g) you could have prevented 9/11 by using "psychological
methods" . I know what I woudl have done....

Summry execution of suspected spies has been outlawed since at
least the 1907 Hague Conventions, which you can find online.

The US and the UK were executing "spies" in WW2. Don't recall any
recent cases, but as far as I know, the provision is still there.
BTW, early conventions only appled to "civilized combatants", i.e,
Europeans and maybe the Japanese. "Savage tribes" were free game.

PHP