 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
That is not right. I think G. said that al Qaeda does not have these protections. That is a whole different kettle of fish, is it not. For if the pres was not restricted as you say G. said, everyone, including you and me, would be subject to "torture."
|
You clearly have ignored the criticisms of Gonzales then. The Bybee memo says that the commander-in-chief can overrule any law that he believes to be unconstitutional, and Gonzales considers laws that restrict the "interrogation" of any enemy combatants to be unconstitutional. In particular, the Bybee memo stated that the Federal Anti-torture Statute, passed by Congress, is unconstitutional and should be ignored by the C-in-C.
See page 31:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...emo20020801.pdf
quote:
Also, even though al Qaeda was not subject to the protections of any of these documents does not ipso facto mean that he advocated "torture" or that the Senators who supported him also voted for torture. That is nonsense. |
By any reading of the law - the Federal Anti-Torture Statute and the Anti-torture Conventions, torture of even al-Qaeda members is illegal. Period. Asserting otherwise is equivalent to advocating torture (if I were to say, "massacring white people is definitely legal," when it clearly isn't, do you not think that's not a prescription rather than a description?). Voting for authoritarian douches like Gonzales is condoing torture.
Furthermore, how do you know that the enemy combatants are al-Qaeda members? The DoJ in general, including Gonzales, argued that the courts should have no jurisdiction over enemy combatants, regardless of where they were captured, regardless of whether they are citizen or alien. Even SCOTUS has gone along with that to some extent, placing the burden on the suspects to prove otherwise; you're guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
Also, even though al Qaeda was not subject to the protections of any of these documents does not ipso facto mean that he advocated "torture" or that the Senators who supported him also voted for torture. That is nonsense. |
By any reading of the law - the Federal Anti-Torture Statute and the Anti-torture Conventions, torture of even al-Qaeda members is illegal. Period. Asserting otherwise is equivalent to advocating torture (if I were to say, "massacring white people is definitely legal," when it clearly isn't, do you not think that's not a prescription rather than a description?). Voting for authoritarian douches like Gonzales is condoing torture.
Furthermore, how do you know that the enemy combatants are al-Qaeda members? The DoJ in general, including Gonzales, argued that the courts should have no jurisdiction over enemy combatants, regardless of where they were captured, regardless of whether they are citizen or alien. Even SCOTUS has gone along with that to some extent, placing the burden on the suspects to prove otherwise; you're guilty until proven innocent. |
The Fed statute is unconstitutional per the memo.
The international treaties do not apply to al Qaeda.
The memo seeks to define what torture is and what it isn't. It does not advocate the use of torture. That is propaganda.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
For the first time in the history of the USA, we have abonandoned the Geneva Conventions.
So YES, there IS something revolutionary about all of this.  |
We have not abandoned anything. Almost everyone agrees that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, but do apply to Iraqis. Now if this photo is of an Iraqi, which I presume it is, and the courts deem that this is torture, the people who inflicted the torture are criminals.
Now, let's review the facts.
The folks who did this at Abu Gharaib are under prosectution or have been convicted. There are investigations underway, everywhere, where there are allegations of abuse. This sounds to me like we are ADHERING to the Conventions, not abandoning them as the left contends.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The folks who did this at Abu Gharaib are under prosectution or have been convicted. There are investigations underway, everywhere, where there are allegations of abuse. This sounds to me like we are ADHERING to the Conventions, not abandoning them as the left contends. |
We already covered this a few pages ago. The leadership who set this up are NOT being held accountable.
Secondly, even in your Al Queda example, there are people who have or are being held at Guantanamo, without being charged, and had nothing to do with Al Queda. This is a fact. Which is why foreign governments, including our closest allies, have asked for those prisoners to be released.
This thing stinks at every single level, and you are buying this whole thing hook, line, and sinker, trying to blame it on a political agenda.
It has nothing to do with policitics, and has to do with doing the right thing and treating people with human dignity.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2005 04:15
I've given up (at least for the time being) and prefer to leave these inexperienced dweebs to their rich fantasy lives.
|