Another Abu Ghraib? - Page 12




 
--
Boots
 
March 19th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
I think that you should study a little more yourself there slick. Just because you (or Amnesty International, the EU, or the UN) WANTS or THINKS something should be a certain way doesn't mean that it is going to be that way, no matter how big of a tit fit you throw because you run into a country that is not going to be bullied into sacrificing the safety of its citizens just to poll better in the public opinion of some college student in Europe. And your ideas about what a "civilizated" country should or should not do would suggest that it is you living in a "wonderland" where drastic measures never need be taken. It has already been established that your ideas of torture are ridiculous, under the staurofilakes system of interrogation I'm assuming that if a written confession isn't mailed to the authorities, no arrest would be made in the first place, let alone any containment.

And reading comprehension generally helps in a discussion (as you yourself have said several times here), "majority" does not mean "all."
March 19th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
I think that you should study a little more yourself there slick. Just because you (or Amnesty International, the EU, or the UN) WANTS or THINKS something should be a certain way doesn't mean that it is going to be that way, no matter how big of a tit fit you throw because you run into a country that is not going to be bullied into sacrificing the safety of its citizens just to poll better in the public opinion of some college student in Europe. And your ideas about what a "civilizated" country should or should not do would suggest that it is you living in a "wonderland" where drastic measures never need be taken. It has already been established that your ideas of torture are ridiculous, under the staurofilakes system of interrogation I'm assuming that if a written confession isn't mailed to the authorities, no arrest would be made in the first place, let alone any containment.

And reading comprehension generally helps in a discussion (as you yourself have said several times here), "majority" does not mean "all."
I am gonna tell you a secret, I did not write the Geneva Convention, it was wrotten in 1945, a log time ago... If US do not wanna follow the rules that you already accepted may be you should leave the UN. But I guess that many times you need it to legitimate the actions you do...
March 19th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
[quote="staurofilakes[list=]"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Yes and it falls under Article 5 GCIV. Any more silly lawyer games[/list]you care to try?




b) As you said, the GCIV is relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and a prisioner of war is not a civilian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But any way, all the protection for CIVILIANS is resumed here. People fighting are NOT civilians!!

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.



It would occur to me that a law student would understand both literal and spirit interpretation of law and statute. Reread ^^^^^^^^ the above. Then go back and reread the GCIII and the GCIV LITERALLY. Not just the articles that appear to strenghten your argument.

Article 5 gives you clear circumstances of when a "civilian" as designated under the GCIV losses privileges of that convention. BTW the ruling of the District United States Court that the US could not envoke Article 5 as it pertains to Detainees is in appeal so it is moot. Until ruled on by SCOUSA.

As far as customs of war. If you want to try that argument then you must toss out your UNCAT argument. One or the other Consular. If your arguing as I am that a State (US) is involved in armed conflict with hostile forces (terrorists) then clearly the Geneva Conventions dictate the conduct of said actions.
--
Boots
March 19th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by staurofilakes
I am gonna tell you a secret, I did not write the Geneva Convention,
I'm sure that that helped the readability of the document.

The rest of your post makes no sense, what is your point? It has already been shown to you (not more than 50 times) that we are not in fact in violation of any of these "rules that [we] already accepted," and are only in violation of those established by Spanish/Swedish college students and civilian organizations, which means absolutely nothing. Just because certain members of the EU or certain members of the UN (generally the same people in both cases) may criticize our methods, this criticism does not 1) count as any regulation binding our actions or 2) speak for the opinions of all members of those bodies.
March 19th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Ok, so if this is not torture, what is torture for you???

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to ********** themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and ***** to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.


GCIII and GCIV protects diferent kinda of people.The first one is for war prisioners(militars or people deffending their country from an invasion that did not have time for form as regular mili´tar forces) and the other one is for civil stuff. Torture is forbidden ALWAYS.
There are not any situation where torture is allowed. This use to happen with Adolf & Joseph, I guess now uncle George II allows it as well

By the way, the interpretation of a law is based in all this facts, not just the ones you said: Literal, sistematic,historic,gramatical and teleologic interpretation(this one is relationeted with the porpouse of the law, i guess that the porpouse of UN Convention Against Torture is avoid torture, but this is just a gramatical interpretation......)
March 19th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
A. Assault/Abuse= Punished under UCMJ

B. No not torture Humilation tactic

C. Humilation

D. Humiliation

E. Humiliation

F. Stressor/Humiliation

G. Assault /Abuse

H. Stressor

I. Humiliation

J. Humiliation

K. Rape/Sexual Assault=Punished under UCMJ

L. Intimidation

M. Could be Considered investigative. However if you choose to call it torture lets start rounding up all the photogs in country working for the media outlets

a. Humiliation. The Chemicals in Chem lights are non toxic. My daughter has made herself glow in the dark when not properly supervised.

b. Intimidation. Assault= Punished under UCMJ if critera is met by invetigation.

c. Depends on duration and circumstance.

d. Assault Punished under UCMJ

e. Intimidation

f. Depends on whether or not the solider had training as Medic Combat Life Saver, or civilian equivilent. However rendering medical attention cannot be construed as torture.

g. Sexual Assault =Punished under UCMJ

h. Asked and Answered


All the alledged violations are currently being tried in Courts Martial so what is your point. They won't be retried in a UN,or Hauge Court. Double Jepordy. The UN has no jurisdiction.


You still haven't read the conventions GCIII OR IV huh? Or don't want too.
March 19th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
[quote="03USMC"]A. Assault/Abuse= Punished under UCMJ

torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

You have a very particular meaning of the words stress and humillation!!!!


H. Stressor: Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and ***** to simulate electric torture; Let my just laugh



I.Humillation:l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee



stressor?? You are really sarcastic, but is not funny at all

You must be joking!! Take a look here: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Speaking with you is a waste of time. I just hope that not all US army guys are like you.

And I will repeat you one more time torture is NEVER allowed. I would like you to give an example of a law that let you torture.
March 19th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
So it is useless to talk to anyone who you can't convince to think like you? That's surprising.

I realize it is absolutely useless to say this again, but just for poops and giggles, the interrogation techniques that we do actually use and that YOU consider "torture" are not in fact torture simply because you say they are. (using a source from antiwar.com probably isn't the best way to convince us either)


Oh, and 03USMC isn't and never was (correct me if I'm wrong 03) a "U.S. army guy," he's a Marine.
March 19th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
[quote="staurofilakes"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
A. Assault/Abuse= Punished under UCMJ

torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

You have a very particular meaning of the words stress and humillation!!!!


H. Stressor: Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and ***** to simulate electric torture; Let my just laugh


I.Humillation:l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee


stressor?? You are really sarcastic, but is not funny at all

You must be joking!! Take a look here: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Speaking with you is a waste of time. I just hope that not all US army guys are like you.

And I will repeat you one more time torture is NEVER allowed. I would like you to give an example of a law that let you torture.

Was Current actually run thru any of the leads? Oh no wait to simulate. There by creating stress. So they lead him to believe that he might be connected to an electrical source but never actually shocked him. Stressor.

The use of unmuzzled K-9's in a Correctional Enviroment is standard practice and used as a form of intimidation and control. Not just in the US but many countries around the world. K-9 units are invaluable tools and use of them upheld in courts. Use of K9 is not torture ethier within a corrections setting or outside on the street. Method of control. (The K9 you chose to feature is in the control position not attack. He is restrained by a Denver lead and could only attack if released by the handler.)

Nice and unbiased site you linked to antiwar.com why would I expect less.

Speaking with me is a waste of time? Why? Because I don't blindly agree with you? Because I take the evidence you present and offer counter arguments? I thought you were going to School for exactly that.

Sorry I can't speak for the US Army. If they were like me they'd be Marines. (No offense Army. Just a clarifaction 8) ) But nice try at questioning my integrity.

I never asserted their were laws that condoned, permitted or espoused the use of torture. I questioned your definition of torture and still do. I'm sorry that I am not inclined to accept ethier your definition nor your interpretation of torture or the conventions. But you will get no warm fuzzies from me for your consistantly anti US rhetoric.
March 19th, 2005  
CavScout
 
staurofilakes,
Some times things happen in a conflict situation and some are not admirable ones and as a nation we take responsibility for those mistakes as we take credit for our successes. Is your country any better in it's history, be it shame in it's mistakes or pride in it's success? But these isolated events do not determine the normal policy for how the US military works. Harping on those mistakes and trying to make it sound as if it is "policy" to act in this manner,,, as you are doing,,, is incorrect and wrong. You point to references that you say support your thoughts, but most of them have been at best neutral, to the main being against US activities as a whole. You may very well harden many against your way of thinking simply because you are a common US basher, nothing more nothing less. Your prattling is a weak attempt at written subversion of the facts as you see them. It's people like you that create issues that never heal simply because you continuously pick at the wound, never allowing for a healing/learning situation. Look to your own life and start making the world a better place instead of someone elses.