Do you think there are any rules in war?

[DeletedUser]

While the use of atomic weapons were not specifically mentioned in the previous versions of the Geneva conventions, the use of indiscriminate weapons against civilian target were definitively considered war crimes.

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[67]-^ "Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand.". U.S. News and World Report: pp. 68–71. 15 August 1960. Retrieved 9 July 2007. (republished at [1], reached through Leo Szilard page at [2])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#cite_note-66

 

[DeletedUser16008]

While the use of atomic weapons were not specifically mentioned in the previous versions of the Geneva conventions, the use of indiscriminate weapons against civilian target were definitively considered war crimes.

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[67]-^ "Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand.". U.S. News and World Report: pp. 68–71. 15 August 1960. Retrieved 9 July 2007. (republished at [1], reached through Leo Szilard page at [2])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#cite_note-66

No willy your wrong, civilians were not protected at all before the 4th Geneva addendum and exactly why is was updated after the war.

1949 Fourth Geneva Convention brings together the elements of the first three Geneva Conventions and adds rules to protect civilians during war.

You need to read up on a lot more of WWII. Indiscriminate bombing of Civilian targets were done on all sides, The blitz on the UK by Germany, the siege of Stalingrad, the bombing of Berlin by the allies etc etc.

During those 6 years or so humanity advanced about 100 years maybe more, as a result albeit indirect I expect many people have been saved because of advances and certainly improved, there are, however unpalatable they may be, real benefits when war happens on a big scale.

 

[DeletedUser]

No willy your wrong, civilians were not protected at all before the 4th Geneva addendum and exactly why is was updated after the war.

1949 Fourth Geneva Convention brings together the elements of the first three Geneva Conventions and adds rules to protect civilians during war.

You need to read up on a lot more of WWII. Indiscriminate bombing of Civilian targets were done on all sides, The blitz on the UK by Germany, the siege of Stalingrad, the bombing of Berlin by the allies etc etc.

During those 6 years or so humanity advanced about 100 years maybe more, as a result albeit indirect I expect many people have been saved because of advances and certainly improved, there are, however unpalatable they may be, real benefits when war happens on a big scale.

While I agree that civilians were not protected by Geneva convention at the time that was not what I was talking about.

If you read my quote the scientist responsible for the science that created the bomb they said "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

If you are asking if dropping A-bombs on civilian targets are considered war crimes by their very nature it would depend on who you ask. If you can see others point of view instead of what best for you and whats in your best interests the answer may change by what point of view you are looking at.

The problem with war crimes is the only way to enforce them is if the clear victor is not the perpetrator. Just look at the more modern example of Cheney. If the opposition was the victor, would his prosecution have taken place?

 

[DeletedUser30834]

I stand corrected, thank you both.

While Willy provided a questionable example (Hiroshima/Nagasaki), his base assertion is sound. To prosecute war criminals, it requires both evidence and motivation. Unfortunately it is rare when both those dependencies align. Cheney is a prime example, in that we finally obtained evidence, he finally confessed (after years of denial and a handful of subordinate ranks being convicted, court martialed, stripped of rank and incarcerated), and yet we still do not prosecute him.

Confessed to what exactly?

And who was convicted/ had a court martial for it.

The Obama gang rode into town claiming they were going to prosecute people but that was just a campaign promise to get him into office. To date, I'm not aware of any prosecutions for torture or claims made against Cheney unless they happened after Obama took office.

 

[DeletedUser]

Confessed to what exactly?

Seriously?!? Meh...

December 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6464697
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6464697&page=1#.T_C_8LVfFCg
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=6464919&page=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AINP_zEYN4

February 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9818034
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-di...-was-a-big-supporter-of-waterboarding/190386/

And documentation:
http://washingtonindependent.com/56175/the-2004-cia-inspector-generals-report-on-torture
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/
http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/10024-khalid-shaikh-mohammed
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090416_memos.pdf

• Investigation of two deaths at Bagram. Both detainees were determined to have been killed by pulmonary embolism caused as a result of standing chained in place, sleep depravation and dozens of beatings by guards and possibly interrogators. (Also reveals the use of torture at Gitmo and American-Afghani prisons in Kabul).
• Investigation into the homicide or involuntary manslaughter of detainee Dilar Dababa by U.S. forces in 2003 in Iraq.
• Investigation launched after allegations that an Iraqi prisoner was subjected to torture and abuse at “The Disco” (located in the Special Operations Force Compound in Mosul Airfield, Mosul, Iraq). The abuse consisted of filling his jumpsuit with ice, then hosing him down and making him stand for long periods of time, sometimes in front of an air conditioner; forcing him to lay down and drink water until he gagged, vomited or choked, having his head banged against a hot steel plate while hooded and interrogated; being forced to do leg lifts with bags of ice placed on his ankles, and being kicked when he could not do more.
• Investigation of allegations of torture and abuse that took place in 2003 at Abu Ghraib.
• Investigation that established probable cause to believe that U.S. forces committed homicide in 2003 when they participated in the binding of detainee Abed Mowhoush in a sleeping bag during an interrogation, causing him to die of asphyxiation.

Attorney determinations:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558
(other determinations available, but not going to post them as they include inappropriate photos)

And who was convicted/ had a court martial for it.

Abu Ghraib Torture

• Colonel Thomas Pappas was relieved of his command on May 13, 2005, after receiving non-judicial punishment on May 9, 2005, for two instances of dereliction, including that of allowing dogs to be present during interrogations. He was fined $8000 under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (non-judicial punishment). He also received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) which effectively ended his military career.
• Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan became the highest ranking officer to have charges brought against him in connection with the Abu Ghraib abuse on April 29, 2006. Prior to his trial, eight of twelve charges against him were dismissed, two of the most serious after Major General George Fay admitted that he did not read Jordan his rights before interviewing him in reference to the abuses that had taken place. On August 28, 2007, Jordan was acquitted of all charges related to prisoner mistreatment and received a reprimand for disobeying an order not to discuss a 2004 investigation into the allegations.
• Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, dishonorable discharge and reduction in rank to private. Graner was paroled from the US military's Fort Leavenworth prison on August 6, 2011 after serving six-and-a-half years.
• Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included forcing three prisoners to masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.
• Sergeant Javal Davis pled guilty February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
• Specialist Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to a bad conduct discharge and a reduction of rank to private, upon his plea of guilty.
• Specialist Armin Cruz was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.
• Specialist Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of five years. Harman served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.
• Specialist Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.
• Private First Class Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years. She was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to three years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to Private (E-1) and received a dishonorable discharge. England had served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.
• Sergeant Santos Cardona was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault, the equivalent of a felony in the US civilian justice system. He served 90 days of hard labor at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was then transferred to a new unit where he trained Iraqi police. Cardona was unable to re-enlist due to the conviction, and left the army in 2007. In 2009, he was killed in action while working as a government contractor in Afghanistan.
• Specialist Roman Krol pled guilty on February 1, 2005 to conspiracy and maltreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. He was sentenced to ten months confinement, reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
• Specialist Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, was under investigation but was never charged and testified against other soldiers.
• Sergeant Michael Smith was found guilty on March 21, 2006 of two counts of prisoner maltreatment, one count of simple assault, one count of conspiracy to maltreat, one count of dereliction of duty and a final charge of an indecent act, and sentenced to 179 days in prison, a fine of $2,250, a demotion to private, and a bad conduct discharge.

Bagram torture

• James P. Boland 377th MP
  Charged in August 2004 with assault, maltreatment of a detainee, and dereliction of duty for alleged conduct in connection with treatment of a detainee on December 10, 2002 at Bagram. He was charged with a second specification of dereliction of duty in the death on December 3, 2002 of another detainee. All charges were dropped. He was given a letter of reprimand and eventually left the Army.
• Spc. Brian Cammack 377th MP
  Pled guilty on May 20, 2005 to charges of assault and two counts of making a false statement, and agreed to testify in related cases in exchange for a dismissal of the charge of maltreating detainees. Sentenced to three months in prison, reduction to the rank of private, and a bad-conduct discharge. Cammack claimed he hit Habibullah because Habibullah had spit on him.
• Pfc. Willie V. Brand 377th MP
  Charged with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, simple assault, maiming, maltreatment, and making a false sworn statement. Convicted in August, 2005 of assault, maltreatment, making a false sworn statement, and maiming, charges involving Dilawar. Acquitted on charges involving Habibullah. Reduced to the rank of private.
• Sgt. Anthony Morden 377th MP
  Charged with assault, maltreatment and making a false official statement. Pled guilty. Sentenced to 75 days of confinement, reduction to the rank of private, and a bad-conduct discharge.
• Sgt. Christopher W. Greatorex 377th MP
  Acquitted of charges of abuse, maltreatment and making a false official statement.
• Sgt. Darin M. Broady 377th MP
  Acquitted of charges of assault, maltreatment and making a false official statement.
• Capt. Christopher M. Beiring 377th MP
  charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement.
  all charges dropped on 6 January 2006.
• Staff Sgt. Brian L. Doyle 377th MP
  Charge on October 13, 2005
  Acquitted of dereliction of duty and maltreatment.
• Sgt. Duane M. Grubb 377th MP
  Accused of assault, maltreatment and making a false official statement. Prosecutors said Grubb repeatedly struck handicapped captive Zarif Khan with his knees. Grubb testified that he had never hit the prisoner. He was acquitted of all charges.
• Sgt. Alan J. Driver 377th MP
  Charged with assault.
  Acquitted Thursday February 23, 2006.
• Spc. Nathan Adam Jones 377th MP
  charged with assault, maltreatment and making a false official statement.
  charges have all been dropped
• Spc. Glendale C. Walls 519th MI
  Specialist Glendale C. Walls II was charged in early May 2005 with assault, maltreatment of a detainee, and failure to obey a lawful order. The charges stemmed from allegations of using abusive interrogation techniques at Bagram, Afghanistan. One of the detainees interrogated by Specialist Walls in December 2002 died a short time later at the detention facility. At trial in August 2005, Specialist Walls admitted to abusing the detainee and was sentenced to a reduction to E-1, two months of confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge."
  Pled guilty on August 23, 2005.
  Received a sentence of two months imprisonment.
• Sgt. Selena M. Salcedo 519th MI
  Charged in May 2005 with assault, dereliction of duty, and lying to investigators. Suspected of stepping on Dilawar's bare foot, grabbing his beard, kicking him, and then ordering the detainee to remain chained to the ceiling. At trial Salcedo pled guilty and received a sentence of a one-grade reduction in rank, $1000 fine, and a written reprimand.
• Sgt. Joshua Claus 519th MI
  "Specialist Joshua R. Claus has been charged with assault, maltreatment of a detainee, and making a false statement to investigators for his participation in interrogations that led to the death of an Afghan detainee at Bagram in December 2002."
  Charged May 17, 2005 with assault, maltreatment and making a false statement.
• Pfc. Damien M. Corsetti 519th MI
  "Specialist Damien M. Corsetti remains under investigation for assault, maltreatment of detainees, and indecent acts related to abusive interrogation techniques used toward detainees at Bagram, Afghanistan. On 01 June 2006, PFC Corsetti was found not guilty of all charges. While serving at Abu Ghraib, SPC Corsetti allegedly forced an Iraqi woman to strip during questioning; he was fined and demoted."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002960310_ghraib29.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...acquitted_of_mistreatment_in_abu_ghraib_case/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6795956/
http://web.archive.org/20050916163705/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6482
http://web.archive.org/20050916090659/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6764
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.abughraib27jul27,1,4203503.story
http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_084120156.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html?ex=1268370000&en=a1828c1ff1c8119c&ei=5088
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E2D61639F934A2575AC0A9629C8B63
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/05/us-soldier-sentenced-to-3-months.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166060,00.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/us-army-reservist-found-guilty-in.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/05/army-charges-three-more-soldiers-in.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/09/army-reservist-acquitted-of.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/09/second-soldier-acquitted-in-afghan.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/09/more-army-officers-charged-in-afghan.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/charges-dropped-against-us-army.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/4337374.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE7DE143EF936A35752C1A9639C8B63
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005_11_04_indexarch.php#113113735498297950
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/09/new-charges-filed-in-afghan-prisoner.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/02/us-soldier-not-guilty-in-afghan.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/military-interrogator-pleads-guilty-to.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/us-soldier-sentenced-in-afghan-abuse.php
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/us-interrogator-demoted-for-assaulting.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164775,00.html

And then there's Cheney's initial denial, and his condemnation of those soldiers at Abu Ghiraib who we later find had been following his directives:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3806713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3810791.stm

Do note, this is a small sample. I didn't see the point of going all out and providing you full-on breakdown and an inclusion of all those charged with commission of crimes that were surreptitiously authorized by Cheney (denied at the time these soldiers were being charged, but later he confessed to having authorized their actions). There's simply too much evidence and many peeps charged and/or convicted for the actions Cheney authorized them to commit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Last edited by Hellstromm; Today at 16:57. Reason: removed dead links

So you're posting links as sources without reading them beforehand? Maybe people should pay more attention to your sources.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, this was information I earlier collected, as well as some from Wikipedia. I vetted the links after posting, as I noticed some had since disappeared (notably, the U.S. Army links, which I thought was -- interesting), njub. As it is, much of my debates rely on information I had obtained through previous research propagated by debates I had in the past.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Oh, so you are claiming that Cheney and George Bush as the head of the executive prosecuted people who mistreated POWs and detainees. I incorrectly gathered from your comment that you were claiming Cheney was somehow admitted to war crimes, admitted to ordering them and was somehow prosecuted which would be a lie to put it lightly.

As for dead links, do you keep a cut and paste file handy so you can troll on a moment's notice? I mean what you posted does not support what you implied by talking about war crimes then jumping to a sentence claiming Cheney admitted to war crimes. The dead links- how can something you source to support a claim be a dead link if it isn't an old stale link- seem to imply that you're holding onto relic hopes of the past that are politically motivated more then anything else and have no real legal bearing now just as they didn't before.

 

[DeletedUser]

I incorrectly gathered from your comment that you were claiming Cheney was somehow admitted to war crimes, admitted to ordering them and was somehow prosecuted which would be a lie to put it lightly.

Then you were clearly not paying attention to this thread. The ongoing discussion, and the assertion posed by Willy, was that war criminals get away without being charged/convicted. I was affirming his assertion. In my statement, I did say Cheney admitted (confessed), but made the point that he wasn't prosecuted.

It's unfortunate you can't focus enough to actually comprehend a rather straightforward post on my part.

As for dead links, do you keep a cut and paste file handy so you can troll on a moment's notice?

Is that relevant to this debate? Nope, but if you really want to know all about me, perhaps you should start out with something like, A/S/L.

I mean what you posted does not support what you implied by talking about war crimes then jumping to a sentence claiming Cheney admitted to war crimes.

Once again, it's pretty obvious you didn't even care to click on any of the links and read the transcripts provided in said links. He confessed to authorizing torture, to authorizing the very same actions that he had only 4-6 years previously claimed were criminal when the soldiers I listed were outed for the acts by the media, and then we later find he had authorized. So yes, by his own statements, back when these actions were outed (Abu Ghraib and Bagram), Cheney condemned their actions and called them, "a few bad apples."

Indeed, Cheney said even more, including, “The behaviour recorded in them was cruel and disgraceful and certainly not reflective of US Policy.” and, “Ultimately those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib were reprimanded, relieved of duty, and, where appropriate, prosecuted.”

In these comments, Cheney makes it abundantly clear the actions committed, which we later find he had authorized, were criminal. In addition to Cheney's confessions, the documents demonstrating his memos authorizing such actions, and the cover-up hereto demonstrated, the Senate Armed Services Committee reaffirmed:

“[The] authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in US military custody.”​

Additional research material for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/condoleezza-rice-cheney-a_n_190340.html
http://tamu.academia.edu/WallyHart/...nd_Justification_of_the_Bush_Torture_Policies

The dead links- how can something you source to support a claim be a dead link if it isn't an old stale link- seem to imply that you're holding onto relic hopes of the past that are politically motivated more then anything else and have no real legal bearing now just as they didn't before.

No, what it implies is that some information was archived, and thus 3 links were broken. As it is, I provided over 40 links there that affirm what I presented. Why don't you bother to click on the 40 available links instead of make drama about the three dead links I removed. Seriously, you're just trolling.



Edit: Here you are, the three links I removed from my previous post. They had indeed been archived -

http://web.archive.org/web/20050915220948/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6843
http://web.archive.org/web/20050916163705/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6482
http://web.archive.org/web/20050916090659/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=6764

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Then you were clearly not paying attention to this thread. The ongoing discussion, and the assertion posed by Willy, was that war criminals get away without being charged/convicted. I was affirming his assertion. In my statement, I did say Cheney admitted (confessed), but made the point that he wasn't prosecuted.

No, I paid attention. Well, as much attention as my phone would let me in the extreme boredom of no electricity. You see, Cheney never admitted to war crimes. He admitted to actions that you claim are war crimes, actions that were never defined as torture by the US or any specific treaty we have signed at the time they took place. Big difference and it all revolves around your ideology i8mposing beliefs onto you.

It's unfortunate you can't focus enough to actually comprehend a rather straightforward post on my part.

Its really sad that you cannot be intellectually honest with yourself and others. The only thing straight forward in your post was the fact that you wanted to accuse Vice President Cheney of something. But all your supporting evidence seems to show that the administration at the time actually prosecuted people for actions that were defined as torture by US law at the time.

Is that relevant to this debate? Nope, but if you really want to know all about me, perhaps you should start out with something like, A/S/L.

What debate. It looks like you are attempting to recycle canned arguments from half a decade ago that failed then and will fail now.

Once again, it's pretty obvious you didn't even care to click on any of the links and read the transcripts provided in said links. He confessed to authorizing torture, to authorizing the very same actions that he had only 4-6 years previously claimed were criminal when the soldiers I listed were outed for the acts by the media, and then we later find he had authorized. So yes, by his own statements, back when these actions were outed (Abu Ghraib and Bagram), Cheney condemned their actions and called them, "a few bad apples."

I looked and your links do not say that at all. Cheney said specific interrogation techniques were authorized but never claimed it was torture. That is all you and your demented mind. Why is it so hard for you to be honest and not rebrand everything presented to you in some neoliberal "Bush is teh evil" rose colored vision?

Indeed, Cheney said even more, including, “The behaviour recorded in them was cruel and disgraceful and certainly not reflective of US Policy.” and, “Ultimately those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib were reprimanded, relieved of duty, and, where appropriate, prosecuted.”

hmmm.. I guess you have some comprehension problems.. They did prosecute for abu ghraib....

In these comments, Cheney makes it abundantly clear the actions committed, which we later find he had authorized, were criminal. In addition to Cheney's confessions, the documents demonstrating his memos authorizing such actions, and the cover-up hereto demonstrated, the Senate Armed Services Committee reaffirmed:

“[The] authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in US military custody.”​

Sigh.. You are having difficulty aren't you. You have separate situations and you can't seem to separate it. What you are doing it like claiming that someone told someone else to rob a bank because he told them to go get some money and that was what happened. The abu ghriad idiots were not participating in the interrogation activities. Those were nothing more then prison guards and we know how stupid they are, most people in prison are there because they are forced to be in it. Prison guards volunteer to be in prison.

Here is a hint. Cheney never said he authorized torture. He said he authorized specific acts for advanced interrogation but any mention of torture is put in there by you and other idiots. The acts, like water-boarding was not considered torture by the law of the land at the time it had happened. Some of those actions are now considered torture by law signed into effect by George W. Bush himself once the OPINION that it should be torture was presented to him convincingly.

STOP claiming things happened that never did happen just because you want to impose your ideology onto it. If Bush and Cheney actually did support torture, then they would have not prosecuted the people they did who actually did torture according to the law of land at the time. If they actually did torture, they would have instead pulled an Obama and simply refused to prosecute anyone (Eric Holder, Illegal aliens, felony pot growing operations in certain areas, the very same people you claim participated in torture if the prosecution wasn't initiated under Bush originally).

You put forth one big lie. The sad part is that you have convinced yourself it is the truth.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, not taking the bait. You obviously didn't review the evidence and instead opted to attack the messenger.


Besides, I already pwned u on this particular point in a previous discussion:

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=603713&postcount=36
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=604106&postcount=41

Excerpt from those discussions:

The U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52, published in 1992) was quite clear (enacted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and was reciprocatively based on WW2's General Order - the Code of U.S. Fighting Forces). The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 reaffirmed FM 34-52 and required all personnel to abide by it. Unfortunately Rumsfeld modified the manual shortly thereafter and added an unpublished section including "enhanced interrogation techniques." Nine months later the U.S. Army replaced the "tampered" version of FM 34-52 with FM 2-22.3, which firmly restricted (disallowed) the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and tortures, including waterboarding.

As to the laws, just a few are:
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (1949)
Article 16 of the U.N. Convention Against Torture (1987)
Article 93 of the UCMJ (Cruelty & Maltreatment - 1950)
Article 128 of the UCMJ (Assault - 1950)
Article 134 of the UCMJ (Communicating a Threat- 1950)
Assault/Battery (every U.S. State and Protectorate)

There is also ample evidence to tack on Articles 78, 80, 81 & 82 of the UCMJ

And then there's the civil penalties authorized by the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which does a pretty good job of indicating torture (inclusive of waterboarding, as presented in case studies) as a crime.

 

[DeletedUser21689]

You have a very good name.

 

[WanderingStranger]

I think we lost view of the question. It can be answered with a simple "yes".

Everyone has rules in war. Things they will and will not do. It can be a complex system or as simple as "Kill everyone except the people on our side" or "No throwing snowballs on Christmas Day"

 

[DeletedUser30834]

There is no bait to take. The bottom line is that you are wrong even in your attempt to claim you are right.

The CIA, not the Army was doing the extreme rendition programs and water boarding. They are not subject to the Military field manuals or military law or even military oversight. Even the articles you cited, most of which aren't even in the Geneva Conventions that the US signed and ratified, does not specifically state water boarding is illegal, it sets a set of circumstances to be considered concerning actions. It is your interpretation- only an interpretation- that the acts that took place was a war crime at the time.

Cheney never admitted to war crimes. He admitted to authorizing actions that you think was war crimes. It really is that simple and is a complete and total dishonest thing to claim when saying he admitted to war crimes.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, denial is a river in Egypt. Have fun paddling.

 

[DeletedUser]

Rules:A type of statement that must be abided to. If failed, will have to be punishable.


Can someone tell me what is the punishment?

 

[DeletedUser30834]

No one is in denial except maybe you and the "Bush is teh evil" people.

You more then anyone should know that in the US, we do not prosecute people for post facto err ex post facto laws. Until Water boarding was specifically defined as torture by congress or we signed and ratified a treaty specifically defining it, anything that happened before that is off limits and only your imagination getting the best of you on calling it war crimes.

And you pawned nobody in those links posted. You may have palmed someone in the process of posting them, but only in your delusional mind does it mean what you think it means. As I pointed out in the other threads, water boarding and the same interrogation techniques was used quite a bit in the 60's and 70's which were after 83% of the so called laws you presented would have been around.

Here is another reason you are wrong. Extreme heat and extreme cold, loud music 24/7, lack of sleep, lack of water, imminent threat of violence or loss of life. loud sudden noises above 120 decibels. All that has been called torture that Cheney authorized. On the other hand, it is defacto procedure for FBI and most major city swat teams in a barricade situation. It certainly happened in Wako Texas where their stunt backfired and caught the compound on fire and burnt to death most of the women and children they pretended to be trying to save by bring them up on gun charges. So I guess it's only torture when Cheney says it can happen- not.

 

[DeletedUser]

It doesn't work that way Sumdumass. The act is defined as illegal, not the "name." The Convention Against Torture (CAT) was signed by the U.S. in 1988 and ratified in 1994.

Article 1.1 of CAT defines torture as:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." ~ http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm​

Articles 2 & 4 mandate criminal penalties and laws associated thereof.

Article 3 addresses rendition.

Article 16 addresses actions that may fall short of torture:

"Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ~ http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm​

Etc and so on...


Like I said, you're in denial. You want that paddle now?

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, not taking the bait. You obviously didn't review the evidence and instead opted to attack the messenger.


Besides, I already pwned u on this particular point in a previous discussion:

http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=603713&postcount=36
http://forum.the-west.net/showpost.php?p=604106&postcount=41

Excerpt from those discussions:

Treat each other with respect and remain polite. No personal insults or flames will be tolerated.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Here is your big problem. Define "severe" and show a legal definition concerning the implemented treaties that the US has agreed to before they made water boarding illegal by law.

Any interpretation inconsistance with how the concept of severe was either understood by the US or in practice by any law enforcement agency within the US before congress made a law saying certain things were torture is an after the fact law. But this negates the fact that Cheney never admitted to authorizing war crime, he admitted to authorizing actions that you consider war crimes making the statement a complete lie.