"Making Torture Legal"

[Bob Hubbard]

The question here for me anyway is, how is GWB's actions re-Iraq any different from Lincolns actions re-the Southern Confederacy?

In both cases, the constitutional powers explicitly granted to a sitting president have been ignored, personal agendas pursued, soverign nations invaded and atrocities commited, all in the supposed name of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Other examples of abusive presidents are pretty much everyone between, with few exceptions.

One thing to remember, there is no single nation on earth that can possibly match us in a conventional war. Sadly, what those involved in Vietnam, and now Iraq have missed is, conventional warfare no longer exists. Guerilla combat is again the king, much like it was during the american revolution. We won that because we refused to play the 'lets line up n shoot at each other' game that the Brits did. The rules have again changed, and we will either change with them (something I do believe is happening, considering the light casulties we've taken so far), or pay the price.

GWB is riding high right now, oblivious to world opinion, isolated from public viewpoints, he sees himself as leading a holy crusade. Wether he knows of the abuses, ordered them, etc we won't know. That whole, the winner is rarely brought to trial.
Then again, neither was Jefferson Davis ever tried, and he lost.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As to the whole torture thing...now that its out int he open, you can expect 2 things.
1 - US direct involvement will be minimized.
2- Iraqis will take over the 'questioning' and given their experience with the previous regime, not be quite as gentle.

 

[Flatlander]

From the

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Article 131[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica]No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Article 142[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention.[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica]The denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council, which shall transmit it to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties.[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica]The denunciation shall take effect one year after the notification thereof has been made to the Swiss Federal Council. However, a denunciation of which notification has been made at a time when the denouncing Power is involved in a conflict shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with the release and repatriation of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated.[/font]

This protocol has not been followed, to the best of my knowledge.



Here is the door that these legal wranglings by the POS could possibly open:



from the Geneva Convention:

Chapter IX. Repression of Abuses and Infractions Art. 49. The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, arid shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following, of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.

Art. 50. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Art. 51. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Art. 52. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

As safe as he thinks he's made himself from US law, he's unable to get around the consequenses of the Geneva convention. But is any one prepared to hold him to task?

[/font][/font]

 

[GAB]

Hi Feisty,

That is the whole thing in a nutshell.

Pretty rediculous to have war in this day and age, we need, not to have it,
and if you do have it, it should be so horrible no one should want to go there.

Probably some of the younger generation, they will see it, it will be a terrible thing to behold.

I am just sorry that I have no other explanation, you kill one of ours we kill hundreds or thousands of theirs, that wont stop it.

Police actions by nations that are up to saving mankind, or we are history.

I just read a good book by Issac Asimov. We are closer to the brink then you think. If you want to believe in the Bible thought or Science, we better change our ways or else the life we lead now will be gone forever.

As for God sorting them out that is about as plausable as him saving us from ourselves. I am an Agnostic, so I guess that was sarcastic.

Regards, Gary