1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Torture"

Discussion in 'The OT' started by GeneralDisarray, Sep 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tom in TX

    Tom in TX Icon

    714
    0
    Jan 22, 2004
    Yet you also say: "Of course the framers did not pretend they could extend the 'blessings of liberty' to everyone around the globe"

    Which is it Jonstad? Sounds like speaking out of both sides of your mouth! Can't have it both ways, buddy!

    Bottom line: Citizens of foreign countries ARE NOT, and should not be afforded the rights of U.S. Citizens!

    Can you at least admit that? Or are you gonna still want it both ways? :confused:

    Tom in TX
     
  2. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the described [1903] areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during thr period of occupationby the United States of those areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within those areas with the right to acquire [under conditions to be agreed on later] for the public purposes of the United States.....

    So the Gitmo provisions survive until the US and Cuba agree to change them. And Cuban courts have no jurisdiction to intervene. The federal courts saw the above not as a contradiction nor as implying "jurisdiction" meaning constitutional as it was carefully constructed and worded to leave that out. Shrewd them old guys, heh.

    Your welcome to your own interpretation but the word "jurisdiction" with out the caveat of the "and the laws of" or 'under the laws of" apparently does not mean, in the court eyes, constitutional law, which takes it out of the Judicial and the Congressional purview.
    Because in the second treaty of 1934 the inclusion of the stipulation as a Naval station re; the abrogate clause, puts it squarely in the executive an thus, better still, the Commander in Chief of the United States' jurisdiction and control.

    You can argue it shouldn't be but it is what it is. A military base with its own military laws , which by the way is not the same, as you know, as the constitutional laws within the confines of a sovereign nation that has no jurisdiction by treaty on the leased land.

    I hope that clears it up but somehow I think this is not the end :nono2: :)

    To add to what Tom in TX just said. In order to bring any detainee from Gitmo into the US we would have to patriot them before we could put them on trial. Yes but true.


    Bear!
     
  3. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    But they ARE!

    Non-citizens who are charged with crimes under US judicial systems are afforded the same rights and protections as US citizens. The only substantial difference is the option of deportation before, during or after a period of incarceration upon a guilty verdict or plea.

    As for the question of Guantanamo vis-a-vis Cuban or US "jurisdiction", I am pretty well done debating the minutia. But I'll leave it with one more comment.
    http://www.lawandterrorism.com/posts/1123597186.shtml
    (bold and underline added)

    So while there may be numerous legal interpretations, ambiguities and loopholes involved here, as well as a storied, tumultuous and currently antagonistic relationship between Cuba and the US, the treaty allowing the US access to Guantanamo appears to rather unambiguously state the usage to be for "coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose."
     
  4. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Basically, I don't disagree here. But I would say that we have not abandoned our own laws in dealing with these nuts. Most of what we have is opinion that something is torture. We all know classical torture when we see it. And many US POWs experienced real torture at the hands of Japanese (Bataan death march, just as a one of many examples), Germany, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

    I will agree though that we are conciously greying the line on torture. We have been greying the line for decades - from the actions taken to control organized crime, to surveilance, to internment camps for potential enemy combatants during the 40s... etc. We live in an uncivilized world, one being run by the barbarians more each day. The age of chivilry and honor died a long time ago. If anyone, the US has been holding that standard high longer than anyone. I see it slipping gradually. I see both political parties contributing to that erosion. The let them shoot first philosophy is noble, but usually a bloody affair for the noble. What bothers me is that most of the same people crying out against something that likely is not really torture at worst, and definitely something a whole lot better than the way the adversary treat our people, is that these same people denouncing Bush for the policy are the same ones who denounced him for not doing enough to prevent 9-11, and would denounce him tomorrow if our since of fair-play resulted in the deaths of innocent Americans tomorrow. You guys cannot have it both ways.
     
  5. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I am not one of the people who want it both ways. I do not blame the Bush (current) administration for 9/11 nor do I blame President Clinton either. To blame either of them is to admit and accept that these men would have knowingly allowed such a horrible thing to occur without trying to prevent it... and even though I dislike both men as it happens... I do not believe that they are capable of that kind of failure to the country.

    I do, to some extent, blame the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations for their part in funding, training, and befriending Hussein and Iraq (who we have now declared retroactively as evil even during the time he was our friend)... but I wouldn't blame them for the recent terrorism either.

    I can fault some of our security holes for people that just simply are not exercising common sense (like when the FBI and CIA refuse to share info and get territorial rather than collaborate and perhaps solve a problem jointly) and for the airlines being lax in security too... but I wouldn't go so far as to blame them for 9/11 either, since I know they would not have knowingly enabled such a thing if they really thought it would have happened.
     
  6. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    It was illigal and still is to a lot lesser degree for the CIA to share info with the FBI as it was for the NSA to anyone.. Yes the agenys where not even allowed knowingly to co-mingle,even in a social setting. The FBI agents where not allowed to read a newspaper in the office if it included international news. Intel info had to be "Stove Piped" to the NSC, so no one could connect the dots to what was relavent in real time.

    Example; NSA intercepts message from Pakastan to some guy named Mohamad in Germany about a possible bomb plot in the USA. The CIA not knowing about NSA intel, questions a son of the brother of Mohamod's in Germany and finds out that Abdul's uncle Mohamad a pilot is traveling to the USA next week, maybe Georgia. The FBI in the USA uncover information about a big fertilizer buy in Atlanta Georgia by unknowns, possibly mid-eastern looking, about the same time. And the FAA finds out that a small plane has been stolin from a small airport outside of Atlanta.Georgia a few days before Mohamad is due to arrive. The TSA has Mohamad on a low priority watch list but has clearance by his visa bought in Germany thru the US Embassy aka the State Dept. The local police are investigating a large 1 ton van stolen the day before the fertilizer buy.

    Looks simple enough to stop unless no one is allowed to share. BOOM.

    Bear!
     
  7. s8ist

    s8ist Banned User

    74
    0
    Aug 21, 2006
    There is a dinsctinction between being capable of extending rights around the world and neglecting to do so given the circumstance. The point isn't whether or not the Constitution grants rights to individuals outside the United States. The Constitution was obviously written as a testament to our democratic principles and values- which are undeniably written with reference to US.
    The question is whether or not we genuinely believe in those values. If we do, then we should practice what we preach. If we are selling Democracy to the Middle East, which Bush has stated they are in such dire need of, then we should be capable of demonstrating that we understand why those values aren't exclusive to our culture. To not be able to apply those same fundamentals in the international realm is hypocrisy.

    Take for instance the idea that religion was an early substitute for modern law, having certain principles in it that dictate justice and equality. Should "do unto others" translate only to interactions between followers of the Christian faith? The distinction here being that perhaps the contradictions in that dogma that have allowed historical atrocities to be carried out have cancelled the benevolent origins, but the core of the argument remains the same. Can you still call yourself a patriotic American if you do not believe the values of Democracy are universally applicable?

    I think that's really the crux of the argument from the opposition including not only "liberals" that are so unflinchingly smeared, but ironically Powell and McCain who I notice no one has accused of being liberal, naive, or treacherous.
     
  8. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    Bear!
     
  9. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2385634,00.html
    Saddam's men filmed murder of two soldiers
    But.... I thought they paid attention to the Geneva Conventions. How can this be?
     
  10. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    But.... I thought they paid attention to the Geneva Conventions. How can this be?

    We have laws in our own country, but people still rob, rape and murder each other. How can this be?

    Are you suggesting we should ignore all laws because SOME groups don't abide by them?
     
  11. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Apparently you missed the standard maternal admonition of "Just because little Billy jumps off a bridge doesn't mean that you have to too!"

    C'mon Richard, this is about the lamest and most desperate excuse there is. That because our enemies do evil things, that justifies us doing evil things to them in return. Or that what we do is not as "bad" as what they do.

    But despite its inherent lameness, it appears to be about the only excuse offered for our own behavior. You're better off just offering no excuse. This one makes you appear to be grasping at straws!
     
  12. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
     
  13. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    The Geneva accords are a great standard - but one that would be hard pressed to document where our enemies have abided by. The ones we could count on abiding by the Geneva accords? - France, England, ... To my knowledge we are not likely to invade France, and in fact our only invasions of France was to liberate them from another occupying army. So what exactly do the Geneva accords do? They hold a high standard for US servicemen and servicewomen to follow while our enemy gets the baseball bat and hits us in our family jewels. And not just in the middle east. Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Japan, ... The last civilized war may have be WWI, don't know. Go figure. Civilization indeed!
     
  14. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    pjmrt

    Well, I'm not sure how civilized mustered gas was. But you are right about who the Geneva Convention apply too. It almost like the Keotto {sp?] accords. Applies only to the US. [If we would have signed it]
     
  15. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    No, our enemies haven't abided by the Geneva conventions. But after the war are done, it because of THEIR violations that they are held accountable. The Nazi's, Milosovic, Saddam... all will pay for the crimes they committed.

    Do you want to add US servicement to that list, and have our troops up there after the wars are done?

    We don't abandon our own laws because some criminals flaunt them. We bring them to justice.
     
  16. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Exactly... Do we want our police to behave as the criminals they are trying to stop? Or do we want our police to be better than that? Similarly, we should want our military personell to be better than the enemy... and as a people, as a nation, we should behave better than those we say are the bad guys.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page