Hide Comments
What a terrible idea. Now the anti-American nutjobs at the ACLU and elsewhere have another club to beat on us with in their efforts to undermine the war and make Americans less safe. Ick. No wonder the administration is resisting. Though frankly I wish they had the balls to state flatly that the scum we're fighting by virtue of not wearing uniforms nor fighting for any actual government could quite legally be shot dead on capture anyway. Ugh.
Posted by Brent Michael Krupp at October 6, 2005 04:28 PM
Two points:
Instead of looking at the terrorists/insurgents to justify torture, beating, etc. why don't we look at ourselves to realize why that isn't what we,as a nation, stand for.
Second, if torture doesn't produce reliable intel, does damage to our message of a society based upon freedoms and laws, and (I would argue) harms the soldiers that participate in it, then why do it? Why not come out and say these things will not be tolerated.
One thing I keep hearing over and over is that soldiers aren't clear what is expected of them in this regard. Isn't it time to make it clear, at least for their sakes.
Posted by Greg at October 6, 2005 04:53 PM
This is a politicians way to make an issue go away.
Q What about detainee abuse?
A We passed a new law
Q Isn't it the same as existing rules
A We passed a new law
Q What changed
A We passed a new law
Posted by Soldier's Dad at October 6, 2005 05:50 PM
Being taken prisoner is a cruel and degrading thing. Why take prisoners?
Posted by Richard Heddleson at October 6, 2005 06:20 PM
If you support the Geneva Conventions as a treaty that was meant to make war and combat more civil, rather than as a weapon to bludgeon the US, then you would obviously not extend the treaty to cover people that violate every single tenet of that treaty. It is extremely disingenous and undermines the Conventions. Regardless of how the "detainees" are treated the Geneva Conventions shouldn't even be a part of the discussion until:
A. The terrorists name their patron state.
B. They wear uniforms of that military and honorably seperate themselves from civilians.
C. Seek to avoid unnecessarily killing said civilians.
The Geneva Conventions were explicitly written to decrease civilian casualties.
As for what our nation stands for this is a much more important issue than the Geneva Conventions which are only being applied to one side. This is a long discussion which nobody politically seems interested in having. This is probably because of the atmosphere created by a biased media machine and a leftist movement that hates this country.
I am a firm believer in responsibility. The scum that people want to protect with the Geneva Conventions need to be held responsible for the way they operate. Islam and Muslims in general need to be held responsible for the tacit support of these scum. That doesn't mean being treated as well as they are being treated in our detention facilities.
In the end the discussion is between doing everything you can and need to do to win and being nice. The right thing falls somewhere in the middle of those. In Iraq, is your priority winning, preserving a newborn level of freedom? or is it international goodwill and due process for all? Tough call but we need to have that discussion in a less partisan atmosphere, and that is up to the press and the Bush haters.
Posted by Collin at October 6, 2005 06:43 PM
Interesting that in responding to claims that the Army has failed to provide guidance to soldiers the Senate has endorsed the published Army guidance to soldiers as the definitive response.
Whats even more interesting is that many members of the military seem to be the Administration most fierce critics.- Even at the cost of their careers.
In a real sense the movement toward this legislation has been brought forward and pushed by veterans, and active duty members of the military. It's something to be proud of, as are such things as the memos I reference below by JAG officers protesting the changes in "torture" policy undertaken by this Administration.
The legislation is not a slap or criticism of the military. It is instead the affirmation of it's values of honor, dignity, decency.
The civilian leadership at the Pentagon and in the White house has let the military down. But if you want to say it's just another tirade against Bush, fine. But I think its extremely difficult to make that case with a 90-9 vote in the Senate.
It does challenge the President, but only because he has threatened to cast the first veto of his presidency over this. And I find that of all things that he could have vetoed, that this is a curious line for him to draw in the sand.
I am loathe to admit this and will type this through gritted teeth, but I'm grateful to Senate for taking a stand. The Congress is for once actually exercising true moral leadership. The conscientious hard road instead of the easy one of moral convenience. Remember this moment, as it's unlikely to occur again in your lifetime.
Posted by Patrick (Gryph) at October 6, 2005 07:12 PM
This is the link I meant to give in the previous post.
Yes, its from the ACLU. But they are links to actual Military and FBI documents and reports, not anything created by the ACLU.
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=torturefoia
Posted by Patrick (Gryph) at October 6, 2005 07:21 PM
I'm so happy that the Senate has nothing else to do but come up with more convoluted laws to protect terrorists and filthy murderers. This word goes especially to McCain who gave us the wonderful McCain-Feingold Election Clusterbomb. Does McCain have nothing else to do? Why doesn't he go back to concentrate on baseball and roids. That's real important too. Blech.
Posted by Toni at October 6, 2005 08:15 PM
Does this mean that FM 22-102 (Wall-to-Wall Counseling) is an approved set of "interrogation techniques"?
Posted by LongTabSigO at October 6, 2005 08:34 PM
Why take prisoners? These scumbags want to die anyhow. Killing them on the spot reduces the waste of oxygen and yields a cleaner gene pool.
Posted by Andreas Brecht at October 6, 2005 08:41 PM
Not to worry.
Our plan is to train the locals where ever we go.
It is up to them how they wish to treat those they detain. I have heard reports from Iraq that harsh measures are being used. Even against innocents.
The truth of those reports? Well who knows. It is something to keep an eye on.
Posted by M. Simon at October 6, 2005 08:44 PM
I say we let Martha Stewart work them over.
Once we decide if crescents are a good symbol to carve in an outhouse.
Posted by M. Simon at October 6, 2005 08:53 PM
Yeah, Brent Michael Krupp, Sen. John McCain hates America. Or maybe, having been on the receiving end of torture himself, he thinks this is something the United States shouldn't be doing. Imagine that.
I suspect the politburo at Fox News will climb on board the bandwagon, and soon this blog will be filled with postings supporting the prohibition on torture.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 09:02 PM
How nice, Wilson Kolb thinks that the United States is just like Communist North Vietnam and US military personnel are just like terrorists! Great analogy!!
FWIW, I don't think he hates America (nor did I say or imply it -- reading comprehension is your friend), but I do think he only loves himself and will grandstand on any issue if it gets the liberal press fawning over him, no matter the effect on his alleged party or the country.
Posted by Brent Michael Krupp at October 6, 2005 09:09 PM
"The...exposure to unpleasant...treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government."
GWOT? What war? WE GIVE UP!
Posted by Orson at October 6, 2005 09:50 PM
Very nice. Very nice.
Could you then tell me what do you think about the US law which tells that only US courts are legal to judge American soldiers charged with accusation of war crime? Miloshevic is in International justice court of United Nations in Haag, you know. But I guess I will be satisfied when Bush goes to jail for couple of decades when the legal system of Uncle Sam starts to work.
Posted by Sinke at October 6, 2005 11:57 PM
"As for what our nation stands for this is a much more important issue than the Geneva Conventions which are only being applied to one side. This is a long discussion which nobody politically seems interested in having. This is probably because of the atmosphere created by a biased media machine and a leftist movement that hates this country."
Colin
Hey Colin, you will be Bush's cellmate. You can talk your rubbish to him as he tells us all his all the time.
I want to have discussion why are liberal democracies standing for right now. Surely you are not afraid of me?
Again, I ask a question nobody dares to answer, including Westpoint diploma owners and University of Justice diploma owners.
Can you icecreams give me the correct legal term in military rhetoric, definition, ethic and philosophy what is happening in Iraq? It's not war. War needs to be declared to the country through diplomatic process. Without war, there is no occupation- which is control of the territory of the enemy state. Iraq and USA are not enemies, not in diplomatic way and the way Blair says, Iraq loves NATO soldiers.
And here we are talking about war in Iraq and occupation.
Until you give me the term, I will tell you the conclusion. The US troops stationed in Iraq can be legally defined as terrorists. If you are astonished, give me the legal and common sense breaking of the link that these troops have right to be there as much as Chechenian terrorists were in that school few years ago.
Posted by Sinke at October 7, 2005 12:09 AM
What's happening in Iraq isn't that complicated Sinke, the coalition, a group comprised of Iraqi and American soldiers and smaller contingents of troops from other allies, are fighting a battle against al Qaeda terrorists and former regime loyalists who seek to destroy any hope of a future Iraq has. These terrorists' tactics include car bombing children, beheading international aid workers, and assassinating government officials. A free, strong, and secure Iraq is their worst nightmare, and the inevitable result of our victory there.
Posted by Greyhawk at October 7, 2005 12:40 AM
Man, Greyhawk. I thought we attacked them because we had hundreds of photographs of their 70 meter nuclear rockets. You need to be a special kind of icecream not to find 70 meters of weapon of mass destruction in the country where 700 tons of weapon of mass destruction actually has left tracks in sand where it was driving. People were not talking about terrorism when they were preparing the mentality of American nation for the war. If this is not true, give me the concrete proof which was given that Saddam is behind terrorism in US.
There were thoughts about just invasion of Iraq before it happened. These thoughts said that Saddam is not behind 11/9 and that people who claim he has are not people who should be listened to when they give their opinions of invasion.
Mr. Greyhawk, you seem like a reasonable man. I am very sorry for my rhetoric but since I can't cope with the fact that millions of pages of US laws are not and were not citated when the invasion happened, I am taking my free speach and freedom.
And I must reply, you didn't gave me the correct answer. If coalition forces invaded Iraq, somebody should have given US the proofs that this regime is supporting terrorist organizations. This was not done. And there is a reason for it. There was no proof. Because of that, we told people that nuclear weapons were there.
My question is this: from the official literature of students in Westpoint- give me the definiton of the situation where one nation's army occupies the whole country without legal declarations which would contextualise their efforts.
As for strong Iraq for Iraq people given by America, remember when on 9/11 we had people in arab countries celebrating horrible deaths in New York? I think you do, and I think you know my point.
We can't win war in Iraq. The United States of America lost the war in Iraq the moment we started invasion on that country. We lost the war because we still today don't know what are we doing there. All the letters of the American law not only don't support our soldiers and our president, but they openly and directly tell against our actions.
And the most tragic casulty of this war is democracy.
Not the Iraq democracy.
America's.
Posted by Sinke at October 7, 2005 01:13 AM
"our president"? Surely not. Not yours, at any rate. When exactly did you become a US citizen, Sinke?
Because I missed that part...You know, the part about your being a citizen of this republic?...the one that elected "our president"? Hmmmm?
That...that was the part I missed, the part about your status as a United States citizen... that would allow you to accurately opine about "our president"
Posted by Tommy G at October 7, 2005 01:36 AM
?
Yeah. Bush is not my president.
Thank God!
Since I live in country under great influence of Bush, I can aswell call him my president.
The problem is, he is your president.
What are you going to do about it?
Posted by Sinke at October 7, 2005 01:55 AM
"without legal declarations which would contextualise their efforts"
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1483.pdf
Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development Fund for Iraq
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 02:33 AM
FWIW, I'm probably a lot more disturbed by the torture/abuse/whatever you want to call it than most of this site's readers. But I try to see the forest for the trees.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 02:35 AM
Knemon, it is not "torture/abuse/whatever." It is torture, plain and simple, and it is not a series of isolated incidents but the result of an explicit policy that authorized and ordered it.
Brent Michael Krupp, there is no need for you to lie about what I have written or about what I think. I do not think, nor have I ever said or implied, that "the United States is just like Communist North Vietnam and US military personnel are just like terrorists."
North Korea is one of the most, and possibly the most, odious regime on the planet. It is under the sway of a lunatic; it operates concentration camps no different than Stalin's; thousands of its citizens are confined underground and enslaved there; it has refused food shipments at a time when its people are starving.
I have explicitly rejected the argument made on this website by Sinke, a lunatic, that U.S. military personnel are "like terrorists." Some members of our military have become torturers as the result of orders and policies promulgated by Donald Rumsfeld and transmitted by senior military offiers.
They, and the commander in chief, should be tried for war crimes under the principles set at Nuremburg in 1946.
It is terribly sad that George W. Bush and his senior leadership have chosen to betray their country's principles. I think it's a matter of treason. And it is sad that you, Mr. Krupp, hate everything that America ever stood for in the world.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 03:42 AM
"It is torture, plain and simple"
The Abu Ghraib stuff, yeah. The loud music, stress positions, etc., nah. Or rather, I don't know.
[American guards and interrogators were accused of similar actions at Nuremberg itself, oddly enough. Joseph McCarthy exploited the issue in his (mercifully brief) rise to the top of the political heap.]
"it is not a series of isolated incidents but the result of an explicit policy that authorized and ordered it"
That's quite a bombshell. Back it up with some actual proof and you'll make Hirsh look like a piker.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 03:49 AM
The stress positions, noise, sleep deprivation, nakedness, withholding of rations, uncomfortable temperatures, use of dogs, etc., were straight out of Stalin's playbook. If you don't think those were torture, then there's not a lot to talk about. The very same things are detailed in Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago."
Before we go on to discuss the orders that set it all into motion, we should decide the issue of what constitutes torture. Proving that there were orders to implement it is duck soup. But, see, there is a whole group of right-wingers who piously declare that they oppose torture but in fact approve of it under other names.
You think you're being clever, but in fact what you're doing is par for the course throughout history. There are relatively few governments or organizations that have explicitly declared that they use or approve of torture. If that's the proof you're looking for, you're engaging in the most transparent of Republican dodges.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 04:07 AM
"The stress positions, noise, sleep deprivation, nakedness, withholding of rations, uncomfortable temperatures, use of dogs, etc., were straight out of Stalin's playbook. If you don't think those were torture, then there's not a lot to talk about."
"Torture", OED:
The infliction of severe bodily pain as punishment or a means of persuasion
"Stress positions" arguably fits that defintion. Depending on just how "uncomfortable" the temperature is, that might as well.
I don't think I'm being clever. I'm aware of the troubling parallels. I've read the GULAG Archipelago, The Great Terror, histories of the SS, etc.
As I said in my first post: this troubles me more than a lot of other people around here. If the conclusions I draw are different from yours, or if I'm not sure what conclusions to draw - I suppose that makes you a better person than me. Congratulations.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 04:14 AM
"The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law"
Things you can no longer say to a prisoner you are interrogating if this passes, by my interpretation:
"Why did you kill those children, you bastard?" (insult)
"If you don't tell us where you've hidden the bodies of the people you beheaded we'll throw you in jail" (threat)
"Tell us where you hid the bomb-making material or we'll take away your chair and make you stand up" (unpleasant treatment)
"Who else is in your terrorist cell? *grabs shirt*" (use of force)
"Tell us where the hostages are or you'll go to hell, you infidel! You're no Muslim, you scum!" (mental torture?)
Is it just me, or are these all things that police are authorised to do in free countries all over the world? Isn't it the basis of interrogation? How do you get someone to give you information if you can't insult them, threaten them or make them even slightly uncomfortable?
If it said "no torture", I would be OK with that. I don't want to see anyone getting electrocuted or thumbscrewed or whipped or anything like that. But that's not what this is banning. This is banning interrogation!
Why is that acceptable and being defended?
Posted by Nicholas at October 7, 2005 04:33 AM
Because many people are afraid of the slippery slope. I'm afraid of it too. "Wilson Kolb" has a point - though it'd be nice if he expressed it in tones slightly less smug.
"Exposure to unpleasant treatment" is pretty broad. Being locked up is unpleasant in itself.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 04:36 AM
If there's a middle position between thinking McCain is a traitor and thinking Bush and Rumsfeld are war criminals - that's where I'd like to be.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 04:38 AM
Look, children, I divide you into two groups. One of you is a group of unrepentant fascists, and the other is a group of good Germans desperately searching for an excuse. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth. Torture is wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it and what they call it.
Lying about what constitutes torture is part of the ritual. In some cases it provides a fig leaf for the torturer. In others it actually worsens the effect of the torture by connecting horror with everyday imagery. In any case, it's a descent into savagery, and anyone who advocates that this country do it or denies or minimizes it is just as guilty at the perpetrators.
But the most guilt is borne by those who ordered it, or who transmitted the orders, or who failed to use their power and position to stop it. That's why in a just world, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and the senior military leadership of this country would be on trial for war crimes.
------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f2
Excerpt:
"People never talk about what is really going on, but use euphemisms for their crimes and nicknames for themselves and they don't call torture or killing instruments by their real names. All of this is to conceal the truth from others and from themselves. They convince themselves that their victims are doomed anyway. The victims are no longer seen as human beings. They are dehumanized, insulted, treated as beasts ..."
-------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f6
Excerpt:
According to investigators, the interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it.
They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog. He was kept in solitary confinement for 160 days, and interrogations for 18 to 20 hours a day, for 48 out of 54 days.
Schmidt's investigation concluded that was not torture, which involves inflicting physical pain or withholding food, water or medical care, none of which took place, he said. All of the techniques that were used were authorized by the Pentagon.
---------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f8
Excerpt:
One of the virtues, if you can call it that, of the Abu Ghraib scandal is that we've been offered a window into the realm of government decision-making having to do with interrogation and torture. And so we enter this -- one has to call it Orwellian, to use a much overused word -- realm of euphemism in which keeping somebody awake for 72 hours, or making them stand on a box and telling them they'll be electrocuted if they move, or handcuffing them high up on a cell door so that they lose all feeling in their arms, are somehow "sleep adjustment." You have this panoply of euphemism in which procedures that are painful, psychologically damaging, and physically debilitating are described in ways that suggest they are not harmful and they're simply "enhanced interrogation techniques." Some of the news media have adopted these euphemisms and refuse to call things what they are. It's a general harshening of the public perception and the public sensitivity to what should be an appreciation for human rights.
----------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f3
Excerpt:
Name: Removal of clothing; sexual humiliation
Source: CIA KUBARK manual; plan of instruction for various military schools
Description: Guards at Abu Ghraib used various kinds of sexual humiliation to break down detainees. According to the Taguba report, such acts included "photographing naked male and female detainees; forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions … ; forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed." Detainees were frequently paraded around Abu Ghraib without their clothing, often wearing hoods. An October 2003 visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross found a number of detainees held in solitary confinement who were naked.
At least one female interrogator sexually humiliated detainees on her own at Guantanamo, according to U.S. government reports and the statements of former detainees. After learning that one detainee was a devout Muslim, she stripped off pieces of her uniform and writhed on top of him. She also reached down into her pants and pulled her hands up covered with a reddish substance that she said was menstrual blood (but which was more likely paint). She then smeared it on the detainee.
Physical, Psychological, or Other Effects: Sexual degradation is a particularly effective tool for attacking the personalities of devout Muslims, because of their taboos concerning women and overt sexual behavior.
Locations Used: Iraq, Guantanamo Bay
Legal Opinion: Sexual humiliation tactics violate the Geneva Conventions. When the military learned of the female interrogator's actions at Guantanamo, it launched an investigation. Sexual pranks may also violate the UCMJ's criminal provisions relating to cruelty and maltreatment of detainees.
----------------------------------
http://w3t.org/?u=6f7
Excerpt:
Torture is the infliction of severe (Click link for more info and facts about physical) physical or (Click link for more info and facts about psychological pain) psychological pain as an expression of (A cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering) cruelty, a means of (The feeling of being intimidated; being made to feel afraid or timid) intimidation, deterrent or (The act of punishing) punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or ((Roman Catholic Church) the act of a penitent disclosing his sinfulness before a priest in the sacrament of penance in the hope of absolution) confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 05:06 AM
"Torture is wrong. It's wrong no matter who does it and what they call it."
Did our torture of Nazis at Nuremberg invalidate our larger mission?
Call me a child. Call me a Nazi. Call me a Stalinist. Watch me stop listening.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 05:22 AM
Your posting is the first I've ever heard of torture of Nazis at Nuremburg. You say that Joe McCarthy made the allegation? As I recall he made a bunch of other false allegations, too.
So, just to see who else has made such allegations I did a Google search. I found this allegation that Julius Streicher was tortured. Of course, it comes from the Journal of Historical Review. It is published by the Institute for Historical Review, which also denies that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred.
http://w3t.org/?u=6ff
Speaking of Nazis, in my research I found that in 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, argued against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel called the Geneva Conventions "obsolete." Sound familiar? U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg didn't buy it; they cited it as an aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946.
Oh, and here are some more allegations of the torture of Nazi defendants. They come from that estimate organization, "Jew Watch."
http://w3t.org/?u=6fj
Or maybe you prefer the version from Radio Islam?
http://w3t.org/?u=6fk
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 05:49 AM
Mr. Greyhawk, you seem like a reasonable man. I am very sorry for my rhetoric but since I can't cope with the fact that millions of pages of US laws are not and were not citated when the invasion happened, I am taking my free speach and freedom.
-Sinke
Here you go-
A summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
And the relevant document:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
The bit specifically authorizing the use of force is this-
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Sorry your local media failed to inform you of this, but the facts are that the invasion was entirely in accord with US law, and President Bush is in no danger of going to prison over this.
Posted by rosignol at October 7, 2005 07:16 AM
On this site I have not had a descent answer to my arguments, but these last few were the bottom of the worst trash I have ever had in my University career. I live in democracy, I study, and the only worst suckers then I am are the people who woke up in Iraq today in case this is the best what their legal protectors are giving me.
Would somebody please stop sending me Resolution 1483 or extracts from Force authorization and give me the legal name of the current occupation in military terms? I want military literature, not the R1483 which even today is mocked by University professors of United States of America. ( Where did I heard that.... I can't remember....was that in.....uhhhhhh..... )
As for this last Authorization, I gave it to my black friend who studies diplomacy. He kindly
(not like me, I would stuff your face with it) asks to dig up the official reply of the UN allowing the brute force.... or rather, allowing thousands of kids to become Bush's cannon fodder.... to Iraq. This paper is still somewhere lost, it appears.
Or you are saying that R1483 is that? You do? Well not, the R1483 is R1483 and the document needed for legal force is something with completely other "serial number" Ha ha ha hah ha ha ha, oh, man, I have to write this to my mentor in USA. HE will kill himself laughing. He already did when I post this blog to his mail. The only thing he can do is kill himself laughing since nobody listens intelectuals in US. Why should you? You have Bush to think for you!
American warriors,now I ask last time. I am little fed up with your chovinism and lack of any practical knowledge of situation in Iraq or even better- In United States of America. If you want to legalise your presence on Iraq soil, you will have to give me the copy of war declaration which was given to Iraq ambasador. After that, war declaration would have to be processed on the security council of the UN. If the council agrees to arguments, the action would be legalised and I would feel like marshmallow. Until then, you are considered as unknown force which destabilised the government and is still present at it's territory and will be until you retreat and proclaim victory or die all in bombing and proclaim victory. I can call you terrorist if I want. But that is not only that I want.
For the last time, I want you to proove me that you are not.
Posted by Sinke at October 7, 2005 08:38 AM
Sinke, I gave it to you. Resolution 1483. Here it is again:
"Until then, you are considered as unknown force which destabilised the government and is still present at it's territory"
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1483.pdf
This resolution recognizes the "coalition of the willing" as the occupying authority of Iraq.
Posted by Knemon at October 7, 2005 02:43 PM
Mr. Korb,
Every single one of those items you quoted above, I have experienced as part of college pranks, besides having ice cubes shoved up my butt, and feces thrown on me, and women making fun of my male inadequacies. None of it qualifies as torture.
The only difference between what you claim our troops do as an institutionalized method, and what the Soviets did to their own people is the THREAT of bodily harm. No bodily harm came to any of our prisoners under legal detainment. Yes, there were detainees killed by our troops. No, it was not legal nor were the killings to go unpunished.
But torture REQUIRES bodily harm to occur. Breaking a leg or arm, putting out an eye, cutting off toes or fingers, mentally damaging a person so bad that they cannot function in normal society, a beating so bad it leaves physical marks unmistakeable from torture.
The threat of torture is not torture. And no amount of your rhetoric insisting it is so, can make it so. I respect that many opinions here disagree with this position. Until you hold your dead child's body in your hands, killed by a homicide bomber, or have suffered torture yourself at the hands of a totalitarian regime, I believe all of us are unqualified to judge the true nature of torture.
Therefore, I will support Sen. McCain in his effort to identify what is torture and repeat our prohibition against it as a country. But I will also note that the standard he has named is the standard in use today and has been in use since 1992 in its latest version and since WWII in its previous forms. And not once has that standard ever been abridged or repealed by this or any other administration.
Therefore, all complaints to the contrary seem to be nothing more than spin and posturing for publicity for one side's or the other's political agenda.
I know my troops. They don't torture people. And no amount of MSM or liberal bleating will EVER convince me that they deliberately set out to maim, kill, or destroy captives in their custody. And Americans who believe that, should be ashamed of themselves, and evaluate whether they truly understand what it is to be American.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at October 7, 2005 04:07 PM
Some college you went to.
If you actually experienced all of what's been described, not only are you one kinky Republican, but there's still a difference: You could have walked away at any time.
Torture does not require physical anguish. The infliction of mental anguish can be torture. This is recognized in American and international law.
By supporting torture, you have declared your hatred for this country and all it stands for. Any claim you might ever make for being patriotic is a joke. There aren't a lot of things that would cause me to say that, but torture is one of the places where I draw the line. And yes, it's just my opinion. But it is my opinion.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 04:53 PM
Sinke, your comments on this website have been outrageous. When you wrote that all American troops have to look forward to is coming home in a box, you lost me, and when you called them terrorists you lost me. You're delusional. Keep posting, but it's going to be for comic relief only.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 04:55 PM
Two other things, Subsunk. Just to be clear, I have not accused YOUR troops of torturing anyone. But some American troops have engaged in torture. Not my word, but the word used by the Red Cross and the FBI. You say that Americans who believe the facts should be ashamed of themselves. I say that Americans who turn away from the facts are Americans in name only -- and that includes you.
Second point, which is purely housekeeping: I won't be responding to your response because I'm going out of town for 10 days. So feel free to lie and distort at will from here on out. I'm sure you will.
Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 05:15 PM
Wilson, on this board, you are my favourite opponent. It is true that nobody answeres my questions, including you, but I must admit that itis my outrage's fault.
YOu know, Wilson. USA soldiers are coming home in boxes. And Vietnam vets are living in boxes in parks. If that is outrage, kill me, since it is true. One of your terrorist soldiers will sooner or later do so. When you get killed, they send you back in box, and in ten years if you don't send reinforcements, all of your ilegally placed troops will come back in boxes. I guess that is when President Nixon Bush The Second will say that crusade is over and that democracy has been established in Iraq in 2015.
The mockery I do here is nothing compared with what your president is doing to you and your glorious troops. Thank you for delivering me from Nazi, glad people, many lives were lost and I will never be able to repay them to you and families of the lost.
As for R1483 I have asked a person with knowledge of law. He said it is true that this is valid document, but in order to justify invasion you need ten more boxes of documents and resolutions like that one with singature and approvement of UN Council. More or less they are same as this one, but they are required anyway. He mentioned that there was a huge crisis in some European Countries in the East ( members of the ex-communist block ) but as well as some other Western European countries who have a strict law of economical sanctions. These laws prohibit and immediately stop any trade or any other kind of threaty with the country which doesn't pass the test of just war in the legal system. Ofcourse, these laws don't recognize the Iraq war as legitimate defense.
This person also said that Bush can't put his foot on Belgian soil because their laws would require his arrest and his sending to International Court For War Crimes.
When I asked this person what is the military term of the occupation, something what American soldiers never dared to talk about here, he said
" Illegal occupation by International Military and Civil laws."
When I asked him about calling American soldiers terrorists, he said they are certainly not terrorists. I felt bad. But then he said they are legally described as "war criminals" under every definition of this term mentioned in UN documents signed by USA decades ago' and I didn't feel bad.
Posted by Sinke at October 8, 2005 12:52 AM
Dear Willie,
You are correct. Opinions are like assholes. You have yours. I have mine. I love my country, my college and my troops. I don't choose to find only that which is bad in any of the above. I also don't ignore the flaws and scars. And I think the flaws and how they are handled by my country, my college and my military are what makes America a better place than any other in the world. You choose to believe the fact that bad things happen at all makes America evil and bad.
One position is realistic, patriotic and optimistic. The other position, in my opinion, is wrong. Since it is your opinion, you may choose whichever position you want. I have made my choice. I am comfortable with it. And I will always love the country I have given most of my life to, even when she spurns or chastises me occasionally. Because I know what true love means. And it isn't beating her over the head with her flaws.
Subsunk
Posted by Subsunk at October 8, 2005 05:14 AM
Subsunk,
Can you tell me the flaws of your country? Explain me the first one , the toughest, in more detail.
Posted by Sinke at October 9, 2005 02:00 AM
Most of you are missing the point entirely: The Senate is asserting Congress' right to exercise authority over the President's conduct of military affairs. Some of the legal memoranda provided Bush by now-AG Gonzalez and others asserted that ANY restriction on the President's conduct of military affairs was an unconstitutional infringement on the President's power as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Senators, in particular, were offended by this specious legal analysis and the McCain amendment got such broad-based support for that reason.
Article I, sec. 8, clause 14 expressly gives Congress the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Clause 10 of the same section gives Congress power to "To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations."
Therefore, the President's authority as CIC of the armed forces is constitutionally circumscribed by any rules, regulations, or laws enacted by Congress.
The fact that Congress (or, just the Senate at this point) has decided to exercise its authority is long-overdue.
Posted by Paul L at October 10, 2005 04:11 AM
Paul.
Sorry, my English is not that good. Could you elaborate your message?
Posted by Sinke at October 11, 2005 02:14 PM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(45) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
