Re: Which one of you cared about the Constitution again?

by ziggy Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:15 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:It's all word games, Stephanie. And we ll know how much both Aaron and Bush hate word games- although they play them all the time.

I realize you have trouble with reading comprehension at times. What have I said here that is confusing to you. Perhaps I can clear it up if you let me know.

Aaron wrote:When did we start charging POW's with crimes?

And the Geneva convention covers torture.

And so, according to the Geneva Convention, is waterboarding torture?

by **Stephanie** Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:06 pm

Well, Ziggy......apparently the point is moot. They aren't POW's. Bush & Co. has made that clear. So in Aaron's mind, they must be charged and tried. This nation doesn't allow excessive force or brutality of prisoners.

by **SheikBen** Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:49 am

Well Steph, I don't give a rats ass (flying or otherwise) what the Geneva Convention says. Perhaps we should not be waterboarding, but not because of the Geneva Convention that is ignored by many and enforced by none.

The governing document over waterboarding should the US Constitution, and then the US law should come afterwards. If waterboarding is indeed deemed to be torture by clearly defined parameters of torture, then we should not be doing it. I've mentioned before that I would like to see exactly what interrogators can and cannot do discussed openly in this country, such that we know what is considered acceptable and why, and what is not, and why not.

As someone who has almost drowned, and as someone who has had my teeth drilled without novocaine, I can tell you that if waterboarding is torture, then every dentist is a war criminal:)

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:06 am

Michael,

I think you know I'm opposed to allowing the UN, or some "world court", or any internation organization infringe on US sovereignty. I did not bring up the Geneva Conventions. Aaron did.

I had a tooth drilled without anesthetic once. It wasn't very deep so I told Sandy to skip the needle and drill. It was ok, but it was a teeny tine cavity. I have always believed most dentists, doctors & nurses are sadists. pale

by Aaron Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:48 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:It's all word games, Stephanie. And we ll know how much both Aaron and Bush hate word games- although they play them all the time.

I realize you have trouble with reading comprehension at times. What have I said here that is confusing to you. Perhaps I can clear it up if you let me know.

Aaron wrote:When did we start charging POW's with crimes?

And the Geneva convention covers torture.

And so, according to the Geneva Convention, is waterboarding torture?

I don't know. I would imagine so but maye you should read it, find out and get back to us.

by Aaron Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:54 pm

Stephanie wrote:Well, Ziggy......apparently the point is moot. They aren't POW's. Bush & Co. has made that clear. So in Aaron's mind, they must be charged and tried. This nation doesn't allow excessive force or brutality of prisoners.

Maybe you should lose your biased based on hatred and ignorance and read exactly what I wrote Stephanie and then tell me what I think.

Pa-freaking-thetic. Rolling Eyes

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:06 pm

Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:So when the war is over, they'll be released? Has the President, or any member of his administration, or any US military leader called them POW's? I can't recall that.

What I have heard, repeatedly from the people listed above, is the GC don't apply to the "detainees" held at Gitmo. Now that I've heard a whole lot.

It they are not POW's as described by the Geneva Convention then they should be released. The Geneva Convention is pretty clear.

If the government has legitimate grounds to hold those 'detainees' then take them before a judge and charge them or release them. That's the way I see it.

That's what you wrote. Please explain to me how I misinterpreted that?

by Aaron Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:29 pm

Stephanie wrote:I did not bring up the Geneva Conventions. Aaron did.

I brought up the Geneva because the United States is a signatory to the document that governs warfare. It governs the treatment of POW's and what is and isn't supposed to occur to those captured during war time. Among other things, it is also the document that says the Red Cross, an international sign of a medical unit, can not be attacked in any way, shape or form.

It is not a court and in no way places any controls over the United States of America that the United States of America did not agree to. I don’t think whether another country abides by it or not should determine our actions. I believe we as Americans should abide by the Geneva Convention, first because we said we would but more importantly, because it is the right thing to do.

After all, didn't a great man once say...

"Do unto other's as you would have them do unto you!"

by Aaron Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:30 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:So when the war is over, they'll be released? Has the President, or any member of his administration, or any US military leader called them POW's? I can't recall that.

What I have heard, repeatedly from the people listed above, is the GC don't apply to the "detainees" held at Gitmo. Now that I've heard a whole lot.

It they are not POW's as described by the Geneva Convention then they should be released. The Geneva Convention is pretty clear.

If the government has legitimate grounds to hold those 'detainees' then take them before a judge and charge them or release them. That's the way I see it.

That's what you wrote. Please explain to me how I misinterpreted that?

You didn't read what I wrote. You seen I posted it and ASSumed...

If

if[1,conjunction]if[2,noun]

Main Entry: 1if
Pronunciation: \ˈif, əf\
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gif; akin to Old High German ibu if
Date: before 12th century
1 a: in the event that b: allowing that c: on the assumption that d: on condition that
2: whether
3—used as a function word to introduce an exclamation expressing a wish
4: even though : although perhaps
5: and perhaps not even —often used with not
— if anything : on the contrary even : perhaps even

or
Entries 1 to 10 of 11.

or[1,conjunction]or[2,preposition]or[3,conjunction]or[4,noun]OR[1,noun]OR[2,abbreviation]-or[1,noun suffix]-or[2,noun suffix]Bras d'Or LakeCote d'Or

Main Entry: 1or
Pronunciation: \ər, ˈȯr, Southern also ˈär\
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of other, alteration of Old English oththe; akin to Old High German eddo or
Date: 13th century
1—used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty
2archaic : either
3archaic : whether
4—used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare disjunction

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:29 pm

I didn't "assume" anything.

The White House says the men in Gitmo are not POW's.

Many of them have been "detained" for several years without any charges brought against them.

So, if they aren't POW's and the government can't or won't bring them to trial, they should be set free. That's what you said.

by Aaron Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:55 pm

Stephanie wrote:I didn't "assume" anything.

The White House says the men in Gitmo are not POW's.

Many of them have been "detained" for several years without any charges brought against them.

So, if they aren't POW's and the government can't or won't bring them to trial, they should be set free. That's what you said.

Yes, I said the should be tried or set free. But that's NOT what you said 4 or 5 post ago. There you stated that I said they must be charged and tried and that was it. You attempted to paint my point of view as something it wasn't, which some could view as a lie!!!

So what do you think should be done with them? Do you think they should just be set free?

by SamCogar Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:54 am

Now in that the United States only officially declared War upon Saddam, the Iraqi Military under Saddam's control and any Iraqi citizens that aligned themselves with Saddam or said Military, .......... then only the aforementioned, if captured and/or taken prisoner by the US Military, ...... can be classified as a Prisoner of War (POW).

Any enemy combatants fighting the US in Iraq, who are not Iraqi citizens and/or have/had not been conscripted to fight for the Iraqi Army under Saddam ....... and who might be captured and/or taken prisoner by the US Military .......... can not possibly be called or labeled a Prisoner of War (POW) because the US did not officially declare War on said insurgents from other countries.

I believe the standard protocol when said enemy combatants (insurgents) are captured is that they are subject to immediate "death by firing squad".

Likewise, when enemy combatants of those which War was declared upon are captured wearing the Military Uniform of the ones that capture them, they lose all rights associated with Prisoner Of War status and are subject to immediate "death by firing squad".

cheers

ps: Of course now, if those captured combatants were getting a "tax cut" ...... then ya can't call them "insurgents", ......... but if they were getting a "tax increase", then you could call them POWs. Razz

.

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:48 am

I think they should set those they haven't brought charges against free.

In the future, they should bring charges against them in a timely fashion, or set them free. We are Americans so our government needs to start conducting itself as such.

by Aaron Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:02 am

SamCogar wrote:Now in that the United States only officially declared War upon Saddam, the Iraqi Military under Saddam's control and any Iraqi citizens that aligned themselves with Saddam or said Military, .......... then only the aforementioned, if captured and/or taken prisoner by the US Military, ...... can be classified as a Prisoner of War (POW).

Any enemy combatants fighting the US in Iraq, who are not Iraqi citizens and/or have/had not been conscripted to fight for the Iraqi Army under Saddam ....... and who might be captured and/or taken prisoner by the US Military .......... can not possibly be called or labeled a Prisoner of War (POW) because the US did not officially declare War on said insurgents from other countries.

I believe the standard protocol when said enemy combatants (insurgents) are captured is that they are subject to immediate "death by firing squad".

Likewise, when enemy combatants of those which War was declared upon are captured wearing the Military Uniform of the ones that capture them, they lose all rights associated with Prisoner Of War status and are subject to immediate "death by firing squad".

cheers

ps: Of course now, if those captured combatants were getting a "tax cut" ...... then ya can't call them "insurgents", ......... but if they were getting a "tax increase", then you could call them POWs.

.

If they ARE wearing a uniform of a recognized country Sam, they are afforded all rights under the Geneva Convention, including POW status. It is those caught without a uniform of a recognized country that have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

IMO, the United States should take the forefront on how to deal with terrorist suspects and captured terrorist with a Geneva Convention style treaty. Part of that treaty should be basic individual rights such as habeas corpus. How can we fashion ourselves leaders of the free world if we are denying basic individual rights?

by Sponsored content