02-05-2010, 07:59 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
I said "no rights" in the context of what is "okay" (your word) for terrorists to do to captured American soldiers. Why should we grant that terrorists are permitted to do anything at all? Merely holding them as POW's by itself is outside their right to do, much less waterboarding them. The reason that terrorists we capture aren't executed, tortured, or any number of other unpleasant things is because they are protected by American law. We are within our rights to do whatever American law says we can do, and if the people don't like it, they can change the law. Welcome to a democratic republic. But I don't understand why that has any bearing on what is "okay" for terrorists to do.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 02-05-2010 at 08:01 PM. |
|
02-05-2010, 08:06 PM | #22 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
In what way is a captured terrorist protected by American law?
|
02-05-2010, 08:17 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
There are rules that outline what is permissible to do with enemy combatants.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
02-05-2010, 08:25 PM | #24 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
|
02-05-2010, 08:32 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Let me turn this around a little: are you alleging that there are no laws at all governing the treatment of enemy combatants?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
02-05-2010, 08:41 PM | #26 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Yes, it's very clear you are not a lawyer.
So, I'm puzzled. I thought you were saying that the entire basis of us being allowed to water-board or otherwise torture a captured terrorist was because of who has and who has not signed the Geneva Convention. But now you are telling me that the rules governing their treatment are actually in actual laws, but you do not know what those laws are, or what they say, other than you think they do or did allow waterboarding and torture. Is this a correct summary? |
02-05-2010, 09:51 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
If an enemy who is a lawful combatant--say, a uniformed German soldier--is captured on the field, he gets Geneva protections, because the United States and Germany have both ratified those agreements and have agreed to follow those rules. If an enemy who is an unlawful combatant--like KSM--is captured on the field, he gets no Geneva protections, because he represents no group who has made any promise to follow any rules of war. Does that mean we can pull his fingernails off, and pour hot wax down his nostrils? No, because there are a separate set of laws--American laws--that govern the treatment of prisoners, no matter the distinction. Those laws as interpreted by the Bush admin do not preclude waterboarding. The Obama admin has obviously interpreted them differently. That is the right of each, as the chief executive. I should note here, too, that if Congress wanted to prevent waterboarding as a technique it could at any time legislate against it. So far, it hasn't. Now, can I cite you these aforementioned existing laws? No, I can't. I'm not an expert, and I haven't memorized legislation. However, I'm guessing that if you crack open John Yoo's book or Marc Thiessen's book, you will find plenty of citations that can direct you to the texts you're seeking. In his Stewart interview, John Yoo specifically talks about looking at the various pieces of Congressional legislation to determine what was permissible and what wasn't. Or, you can try your luck with Google. Part of the problem is discussing this with you--and it probably contributes to your puzzlement--is you continue to conflate torture and waterboarding, using the terms interchangeably. You are welcome to your belief that they are one and the same, but if you expect to understand (and be understood by) others who have a different belief, you're going to have to adjust your terminology to accomodate.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
02-05-2010, 09:55 PM | #28 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Waterboarding is torture.
It's just that for some reason, there are people who have decided to deny the obvious. |
02-06-2010, 01:08 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
No, I am not suggesting you are morally bankrupt. The right's position on torture (which you do not hold), however, is. |
|
02-06-2010, 01:09 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|