FlaSoxxJim Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards. The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines The humiliating and degrading thing has worked out so well for us up to now - especially when soldiers' cell phone images and videos make worldwide news - that it only makes sense to officially wipe our asses with Geneva detainee rules. :banghead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 2 points. First...how f***ed up do things have to get when people actually start caring about what sort of things wind up in military training manuals, which is basically what this is all about. I'm not sure if I should be uninterested or appaled. How much do people in the armed forces actually pay attention to those anyway? 2nd, this is exactly what Bush said he'd do in the signing statement he issued when McCain passed his last attempt at a "torture ban" bill a few months ago. Bush said he'd ignore it, and voila, the DOD is ignoring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 5, 2006 Author Share Posted June 5, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) 2nd, this is exactly what Bush said he'd do in the signing statement he issued when McCain passed his last attempt at a "torture ban" bill a few months ago. Bush said he'd ignore it, and voila, the DOD is ignoring it. I think this is an important step down the 'slippery slope' from the standpoint of the ABA investigation as to the overreach of the signing statements. Presumably a lot of the 750 laws GWB said he intended to ignore via signing statements have not yet been ignored. This, on the other hand, is taking it to the next level and acting on the threat to ignore the law enunciated in the signing statement. As far as caring what is in the FM, I think average people only care when things get so out of hand on the ground that you go to the FM to try to find some justification as to some of the soldiers' behaviors in some of the military scandals that have come to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 The problem with this story is that nobody can blame Clinton for it, so the GOP doesn't seem to be concerned. When things like this start to happen, the terrorists actually win. Because our principles changed, our values changed, and the very things that we hate about terrorists we're becoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 How many times guys? How many times are you people going to apply rights to a bunch of terrorists who don’t deserve them? The Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY to terrorists. Terrorists don’t win when we mistreat them. Terrorists win when people like you guys lose your will to deal with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 5, 2006 -> 05:20 PM) How many times guys? How many times are you people going to apply rights to a bunch of terrorists who don’t deserve them? The Geneva Convention DOES NOT APPLY to terrorists. Terrorists don’t win when we mistreat them. Terrorists win when people like you guys lose your will to deal with them. The lawmakers say that differing standards of treatment allowed by the Field Manual would violate a broadly supported anti-torture measure advanced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last year pushed Congress to ban torture and cruel treatment and to establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for treatment of all detainees. Despite administration opposition, the measure passed and became law. Edited June 6, 2006 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 And I will argue that McCain's APPEASEMENT POS legislation is unconstitutional. McCain is a f***wad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 07:47 AM) And I will argue that McCain's APPEASEMENT POS legislation is unconstitutional. McCain is a f***wad. Briefly lay out this argument for me so I can better understand it. Not the argument for him being a f***wad, the argument for the unconstitutionality of the anti-torture legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Breifly, how can you guarantee someone's rights if they are not a US citizen as applied in Guantanamo? Now, the part about our conduct in battle, etc. and trying to tie it to existing accords, no, that's not unconstututional. But, I think that you can't write a law for combatants already captured and then turn around and say they have rights that they don't under the constitution. I may have drawn the wrong paralell. Dang I can't spele today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 08:36 AM) Breifly, how can you guarantee someone's rights if they are not a US citizen as applied in Guantanamo? Now, the part about our conduct in battle, etc. and trying to tie it to existing accords, no, that's not unconstututional. But, I think that you can't write a law for combatants already captured and then turn around and say they have rights that they don't under the constitution. I may have drawn the wrong paralell. Dang I can't spele today. I see the line of reasoning, but I don't think it holds up. The protections for detainees afforded by the law do not claim to derive from the Constitution. (a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. And the law says as much, so as not to confuse things. © CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States. The law does not grant forien detainees any Constitutional rights they did not have prior. And, of course, you are correct that that soldiers' conduct is guided by laws and accord both Constitutional and supraconstitutional, and they specifically ban detainee punishment that is . . . prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 That makes sense. I won't argue the fact that these people should be treated 'humanely', whatever that means. At the same time, the detention and treatment of these people are far better then what they probably had for a living in Afghanistan, but yet, we have to politicize this and say that they deserve "CONSTITUTIONAL" rights, and I do not think they deserve that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) That makes sense. I won't argue the fact that these people should be treated 'humanely', whatever that means. At the same time, the detention and treatment of these people are far better then what they probably had for a living in Afghanistan, but yet, we have to politicize this and say that they deserve "CONSTITUTIONAL" rights, and I do not think they deserve that at all. Who said anything about Constitutional rights being granted? You keep harping on that, but no one here has suggested that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I've said they ought to be treated fairly and humanely. I've said that we ought to treat them as we would anyone else in our custody. Not because they're deserving of constitutional rights but because it's the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 02:33 PM) I've said they ought to be treated fairly and humanely. I've said that we ought to treat them as we would anyone else in our custody. Not because they're deserving of constitutional rights but because it's the right thing to do. And I said that. Uh, oh, we agree on something. Who said anything about Constitutional rights being granted? You keep harping on that, but no one here has suggested that. I said about 5 posts ago that I might have intertwined something that I didn't mean to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 10:36 AM) And I said that. Uh, oh, we agree on something. I said about 5 posts ago that I might have intertwined something that I didn't mean to. How does that keep happening? We've agreed on more than we disagree on lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 6, 2006 Author Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) How does that keep happening? We've agreed on more than we disagree on lately. Hello?!? End of THE WORLD today. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) Hello?!? End of THE WORLD today. Duh. Good point. SEE?!?! We agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 09:23 AM) Who said anything about Constitutional rights being granted? You keep harping on that, but no one here has suggested that. Terrorists dont have rights under the Constitution. Terrorists dont have rights under the Geneva Convention. Terrorists dont have rights under the laws of war. There is no document or treaty that grants rights to terrorists or the organizations they are a part of. Terrorists have no rights other than to be mowed down by machine gun fire from our soldiers or to rot away in Guantanamo and thats how it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Except most of the people in Guantanamo aren't or weren't terrorists to begin with. So that's one major hole in your theory. And secondly, when we change how we deal with other human beings to fight the terrorists - when we stoop to their level which you clearly advocate - you become the terrorists. If this is about protecting our way of life, its about making sure that we don't change our values to do it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 12:50 PM) Except most of the people in Guantanamo aren't or weren't terrorists to begin with. So that's one major hole in your theory. And secondly, when we change how we deal with other human beings to fight the terrorists - when we stoop to their level which you clearly advocate - you become the terrorists. If this is about protecting our way of life, its about making sure that we don't change our values to do it either. When it becomes the stated policy of our forces to target innocent people...... When it becomes the stated policy of our nation to wipe out a nation because of their religon ( think Iran vs Isreal ).......... When it becomes our stated policy to indiscriminantely bomb civillian buildings.............. When it becomes our Standard Operating Procedure to kidnap people and mutilate them on television for all to see........ ..........THEN we have stooped to their level. Until then, all this whining and complaining about terrorist s***bags getting roughed up during interrogation is just that. When it becomes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 01:26 PM) When it becomes the stated policy of our forces to target innocent people...... When it becomes the stated policy of our nation to wipe out a nation because of their religon ( think Iran vs Isreal ).......... When it becomes our stated policy to indiscriminantely bomb civillian buildings.............. When it becomes our Standard Operating Procedure to kidnap people and mutilate them on television for all to see........ ..........THEN we have stooped to their level. Until then, all this whining and complaining about terrorist s***bags getting roughed up during interrogation is just that. When it becomes So in other words, your argument is that it's ok to do almost anything, no matter how evil or wrong or sadistic, as long as on some level we're better than Osama Bin Laden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 08:43 PM) So in other words, your argument is that it's ok to do almost anything, no matter how evil or wrong or sadistic, as long as on some level we're better than Osama Bin Laden? *sniff, sniff, ... wwwwaaaaaahhhhh ... almost brings a tear to my eye to think that these people deserve and have so much respect... *sniff, sniff* ... /blows loogey... *sniff, sniff* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) *sniff, sniff, ... wwwwaaaaaahhhhh ... almost brings a tear to my eye to think that these people deserve and have so much respect... *sniff, sniff* ... /blows loogey... *sniff, sniff* There's a difference between giving them respect and being able to respect ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 I know. At the same time, though, it amazes me the amount of attention the acts of a few get over the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 6, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) I know. At the same time, though, it amazes me the amount of attention the acts of a few get over the whole. Urge to link to Nuke's other thread...growing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts