War Criminal?

[DeletedUser22575]

Not arguing for anything. Just pointing out that the argument here is grumbling about bureaucratic red tape, not about right or wrong of it. There is ample evidence, clear statements made by Awlaki, that he is and has been working with and for Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that specifically targets civilians, particularly Americans. This, in and of itself, indicates that every minute he lives is an effort to take the lives of American civilians.

You seem to be under the misconception this man didn't make videos clearly indicating his actions, intentions, plans, and directives, nor of his contact and involvement with the terrorists of 9/11, or his direct emails to Major Nidal Malik Hasan just prior to the attack at Ft. Hood, etc and so on. Perhaps you and others should review his recruitment videos and rethink your arguments.

Anyway, here's a judicial review on the issue (prior to the killing) --- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005391675065166.html

Just keep on stirring the pot Hel. :laugh:

Bottom line he was illegally killed and you know it.

In your example of the snipers shooting someone generally they are killing someone who is actively threating someones life at that time...pointing a gun at then, etc.

As far as what this dude flapped his mouth about on the internet..anyone can flap their gums there and say anything. Does this mean if it is anti-americian they should be targeted?

From your link you provided..

Judge Bates wrote that Mr. Awlaki had used the Internet in recent months to issue anti-American messages, while taking no action to indicate he wants the U.S. judicial system to hear his case. To the contrary, the judge wrote, Mr. Awlaki wrote an article in April asserting that Muslims "should not be forced to accept rulings of courts of law that are contrary to the law of Allah."

I think also we have to remember that the Judge punted on this case despite the "difficult questions" it brought up on the grounds his father "lacked legal standing". We both know during war time that Judges really hesitate to get involved giving the government (the President) as much latitude as possible.

The case, brought by the father of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, raised difficult questions about the breadth of U.S. executive power, but U.S. District Judge John Bates said he couldn't answer them as the father lacked legal standing to bring the case.

How about his 21 year old son who was killed this week by a drone strike? He was an American citizen also. Where are his tapes at on the Internet? What about his due process?

Three problems here.

1 is the legal precedence that is set by actions such as these.

2 is how much do you trust your government. Do you trust some secret committee to make these decisions for you? Or should these decisions (guilty verdict..stripped of citizenship) be handle by a public trial by abstensia where the evidence against someone is publicly disclosed.

3. How often does our government really get it right. Remember, often "evidence" is from one Afghani pointing the finger at another whom they have a grudge or family feud against and someone ends up at Gitmo. What will they say in the hopes of getting out of there? Who will they incriminate when they are repeatedly ask "what about this guy"?

And how reliable is info gained by torture. Those known to be involved with the Danial Peril murder never mentioned Sheik Kalif. Yet when being water boarded he took credit for planning it. Did he? Or was being water boarded 100 times a month to much for him to be able to handle.

So when the next drone strike kills some American citizen we have never heard of (he son of Anwar al-Awlaki) is it still ok?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...0/15/gIQAzogalL_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage


Bottom line the ends does not justify the means when you are a nation of laws. Both Obama and Bush are war criminals despite Obama trying to keep his hands clean through his "secret committee".

Nixon had to resign the Presidency for what? Covering up a break in?

Today we have Presidents killing American citizens by secret committee with no due process and POW's being tortured and everyone thinks its ok.

Well its not ok in the USA I grew up in and it should not be ok in this new police state we live in.

Face it. The terrorist have won.

 

[DeletedUser]

I find a gross contrast in all this.

When the U.S. military, under authorization from the Executive branch previously managed by Bush Jr., was found to have killed 100,000+ non-combatant Iraqi, including women, children and elderly, there was nary a ripple in the pond. Then we deal with a man who has been repeatedly identified as in collusion with persons that performed, or attempted to perform, terrorist acts against Americans, repeatedly calling for American Muslims to kill other Americans, and we say, "this is wrong!"

What's really wrong with this picture?

 

[DeletedUser]

You seem to be under the misconception this man didn't make videos clearly indicating his actions, intentions, plans, and directives, nor of his contact and involvement with the terrorists of 9/11, or his direct emails to Major Nidal Malik Hasan just prior to the attack at Ft. Hood, etc and so on.

You seem to be under the misconception that the Constitution and the right to due process only applies in certain circumstances.

If George W. Bush had been the one to greenlight the assassination, would your opinions on the subject be the same? If your answer is "yes", I don't believe you.

 

[DeletedUser22575]

I find a gross contrast in all this.

When the U.S. military, under authorization from the Executive branch previously managed by Bush Jr., was found to have killed 100,000+ non-combatant Iraqi, including women, children and elderly, there was nary a ripple in the pond. Then we deal with a man who has been repeatedly identified as in collusion with persons that performed, or attempted to perform, terrorist acts against Americans, repeatedly calling for American Muslims to kill other Americans, and we say, "this is wrong!"

What's really wrong with this picture?

Whats really wrong with this picture? Everything.

Starting with the citizens of the US being lied to about the WMD's...the killing of the 100,000+ non combatants in Iraq, plus no telling how many we have killed in Afganistan then add to it these drone strikes killing US citizens.

Let me ask you this Hel. What is right about this picture.

 

[DeletedUser]

Returning to the initial point of this thread --- I am seriously concerned about Americans only raising thier arms when it's thier rights being threatened, turning a blind eye when not only rights, but hundreds of thousands of non-Americans lives are being trampled on.

This is the greater wrong El. There's ample evidence of Awlaki's wrongdoing, his commitment to taking the lives of Americans merely for being Americans, to actively and repeatedly encouraging others to do the same (and some did, like the Major at ft Hood). In stark contrast, we have had tortures and mass murders being performed, at the insistence of our Executive branch, and with denial to our citizenry and Congress, since 2003.

You stand appalled that an American's rights (a clearly traitorious one, no less) were circumvented whilst he blatantly called for our executions, while I stand appalled that Americans only give a damn when something like that could happen to them, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHEN OUR SONS ARE DIRECTED TO KILL INNOCENT WOMEN, CHILDREN AND ELDERLY.

It's totally lost... perspective. A myopic perceptuon of the issues, where Americans completely ignore the CLEARLY WRONG atrocities we commit to non-Americans and claim wrong when CLEARLY RIGHT actions are committed to Americans who weren't provided, "due process."

So tell me, where was "due process" when one of our soldiers put a bullet in a 12 year old Iraqi girl's head? When is hypocrisy of effort recognized as a moral wrong and Americans are held accountable for ignoring the crimes thier sons have been ordered to do? All crimes, not merely the trivial balldrop on "due process?"

It truly pains me to see Awlaki being put into the same discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

It truly pains me to see Awlaki being put into the same discussion.

Alright, let's combine the discussions. If assassinating Bush would have prevented the Iraq War, would you have condoned it?

 

[DeletedUser]

comparative fallacy

 

[DeletedUser]

would've happened anyways since 9/11 occured....

 

[DeletedUser]

comparative fallacy

How so? If they're both criminals responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, both American citizens, and you justify the assassination of Awlaki in that it prevented further deaths....

 

[DeletedUser30834]

When we tried and executed Japanese for water boarding after WWII we set the legal precedence for it being a war crime right there.

We can not try and execute people for war crimes..and then turn around and go..well we did it..but when we tried and executed people for doing the same thing it didn't count.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc2-h4k4M00

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2008/winter/genoways-torture/

lol.. it depends on what the meaning of the word is is again. Until recently, no US law or treaty we have signed declared water boarding to be torture. You might think it is, someone might think it is not. Until it is codified into law or court ruling or implicit by treaty it is just your opinion that it is torture. We do not criminally prosecute people for violating your opinion. The US constitution specifically forbids it as it becomes a post facto law by default.

on that note, i agree that it is torture. It never should have happened and was a sign of desperate times basked in fear. But we did not prosecute Japanese service members for water boarding after WWII. Water boarding was listed as part of the pattern of behavior that was considered to be torture but there has never been a prosecution for water boarding as torture in itself. This is a tad bit different then declaring all behavior associated with something that is determined to be a crime as the crime in and of itself. Saying we have prosecuted someone for water boarding in this context is akin to saying possession of a firearm is always illegal because we prosecute criminals for using fire arms in the commission of a crime. You see, the pattern of behavior defining an act does not make that behavior illegal because of the act. People can legally posses a firearm, some can even carry it concealed. DO you see how absurd this is?

Lets do another analogy to make this clear. In most areas, an adult having sex with a minor is illegal. An adult cannot wed a minor in these areas too (granted, i'm using 13n to denote a minor, I know some areas have laws about 16 years, 4 years in age difference and so on, but most areas take 13 year olds off the market for adults) So we can claim unwed sex with a minor is illegal. Well, unwed sex is part of it, and in order to carry the same intention that we prosecuted people for water boarding because it in and of itself was the act of torture, then unwed sex is illegal. And we know that boat just doesn't float.

SumDumass,

I'm sure that the UN would disagree. Any state has the power to arrest some one who broke international laws. And then try them in international court. Torture is against international law. Which is why the US sent people to countries where it is 'legal' to be tortured. If I remember right Mrs. Rice was trying to defend the position of Gorge Bush Jr. in which the European countries were pissed off because the Americans sent people to countries through their airspace to be tortured elsewhere.

You should look up the term sovereign nation and the right of sovereignty. The UN does not hold any power over any nation unless something forcibly places that power there or a specific right of sovereignty was surrendered to it. That has not been the case with the US. International law has no binding effect either unless the country signs the treaty that created the so called international law. And to that extent, the law can only be enforced by voluntary action of the parties involved or violence (read war).

The US has not signed onto the international court (probably will never do it either) and any attempt to arrest and prosecute any citizen there, or worse yet, an elected official for actions taken while in office is an act of war. Any attempt at that should be greeted with the full force and might the country can muster. Evenif it means nuclear war.

Here is the problem with international courts and international laws as you are attempting to apply it. The US is a sovereign nation. It is based on a consitution that specifically outlines how something can become law and in it's right of sovereignty, forbids the prosecution of it's people within it's jurisdiction for laws that have not went through that process. Congress either has to pass a law or ratify a treaty which then becomes law. It further protects rights of the citizens by forbiding the government from doing certain things. I know- they have ignored that from time to time, but we are either a sovereign nation or we are not. And if we are not, then we need to be.

This entire international law and self interpretation combined with some sort of inherent concept of sovereignty over another nation inso that any country can arrest and prosecute the leaders of any other country is dangerous to boot. Suppose the US arrested the Queen of England and the President of Germany and prosecuted them on crimes again humanity for holding up the loans to reassure Greece's economy and forcing them to make austerity measures which amounts to less services to the people. Now, that's a stretch, the US wouldn't do something like that. But how about France or Sweden or some other more socialist country?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Today its a simple case of They do what they wish, when they wish and change excuses/stories to suit and make up the rules or ignore them depending on the requirement they have the media under their thumb they have lobbyists and never ending amounts of cash to pay/buy off whoever they need to.

In short they do exactly as they please with no comeback, and they know it.

Your countries broken, has been for ages, your leaders ( as are ours ) are above the law and they prove it all the time.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether the death was right or wrong, but I did want to make a comment to Hellstromm. I think you chose the wrong side of this debate since you're so set against the death penalty. Saying that this killing was justified/legal/correct/whatever makes it sound like you only believe it's acceptable to take another person's life if the courts haven't ordered it. I think we all know that's not what you think.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether the death was right or wrong, but I did want to make a comment to Hellstromm. I think you chose the wrong side of this debate since you're so set against the death penalty. Saying that this killing was justified/legal/correct/whatever makes it sound like you only believe it's acceptable to take another person's life if the courts haven't ordered it. I think we all know that's not what you think.

Hi Arty, my reasons against the death penalty are not sweeping. I am against the death penalty because determination of guilt or innocence, in a court of law through juror determination, is not often assured and is instead dependent upon circumstantial or, in some cases, misrepresented information. I am also against the death penalty because it costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them imprisoned. And finally, I'm against the death penalty because spending the rest of your life in prison, having to wear a butt-cork, is far and away a better penalty than giving them the easy out.

In the case of Awlaki there is more than ample evidence, including videotaped statements he repeatedly made, indicating he is at war with the U.S. and encourages others to join that war by performing terrorist acts.

Regardless, my point isn't about whether it was right or wrong to kill him, it's about the distorted American perspective, to be up in arms about Awlaki having lost his "due process" rights and yet COMPLETELY dismissive of the +100,000 non-American women, children and elderly that were butchered in the falsely initiated war of the Middle East. Until Americans get their priorities straight, put the rights of ALL Man at an equal level to their rights as citizens of the U.S., we're basically screwed as a nation in claiming moral right, let alone moral integrity.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol.. it depends on what the meaning of the word is is again. Until recently, no US law or treaty we have signed declared water boarding to be torture. You might think it is, someone might think it is not. Until it is codified into law or court ruling or implicit by treaty it is just your opinion that it is torture. We do not criminally prosecute people for violating your opinion. The US constitution specifically forbids it as it becomes a post facto law by default.

on that note, i agree that it is torture. It never should have happened and was a sign of desperate times basked in fear. But we did not prosecute Japanese service members for water boarding after WWII. Water boarding was listed as part of the pattern of behavior that was considered to be torture but there has never been a prosecution for water boarding as torture in itself. This is a tad bit different then declaring all behavior associated with something that is determined to be a crime as the crime in and of itself. Saying we have prosecuted someone for water boarding in this context is akin to saying possession of a firearm is always illegal because we prosecute criminals for using fire arms in the commission of a crime. You see, the pattern of behavior defining an act does not make that behavior illegal because of the act. People can legally posses a firearm, some can even carry it concealed. DO you see how absurd this is?

Clearly only time people are water boarded is when they are being tortured, therefore the pattern of behavior is clearly set. No matter how you look at it, it's an illegal act to perform on people w/o their consent.

Yes, having a firearm is legal, in Canada, it must be concealed while being transported. The criminal behaviour in the case of weapons is shooting the weapons at or in the vicinity of other people. As well as not having a permit for them. Hunting is an exception.

Lets do another analogy to make this clear. In most areas, an adult having sex with a minor is illegal. An adult cannot wed a minor in these areas too (granted, i'm using 13n to denote a minor, I know some areas have laws about 16 years, 4 years in age difference and so on, but most areas take 13 year olds off the market for adults) So we can claim unwed sex with a minor is illegal. Well, unwed sex is part of it, and in order to carry the same intention that we prosecuted people for water boarding because it in and of itself was the act of torture, then unwed sex is illegal. And we know that boat just doesn't float.

DO NOT equate underaged sex (sex with a person below the age of consent) with unmarried sex. The two are different. If you read the December issue Reader's Digest of 2010... There was an article that was written by a divorcee... she was married when she was 9... her husband is 'honorable,' according to her father, yet he beat her and forced her to have sex with him even though he agreed to wait until she was older. Yes, in Yemen, her country, it is legal for a father to sign a marriage contract for his daughter that young, but it was illegal for her husband to have sex with her... since the age of consent was 15. The government tried to increase the age of consent to 17, but due to an out cry by 'conservatives' it was lowered back to 15. She was married for about 6 months. According to Dr. J. P. Fedoroff, a child is anyone below the age of majority, which is typically set to be 18. International law has set it to be 18. Child Pornography (evidence of child abuse) is pictures/videos of people who are below 18 even if they are of age of consent in the country they reside.

----

You should look up the term sovereign nation and the right of sovereignty. The UN does not hold any power over any nation unless something forcibly places that power there or a specific right of sovereignty was surrendered to it. That has not been the case with the US. International law has no binding effect either unless the country signs the treaty that created the so called international law. And to that extent, the law can only be enforced by voluntary action of the parties involved or violence (read war).

The US has not signed onto the international court (probably will never do it either) and any attempt to arrest and prosecute any citizen there, or worse yet, an elected official for actions taken while in office is an act of war. Any attempt at that should be greeted with the full force and might the country can muster. Evenif it means nuclear war.

Here is the problem with international courts and international laws as you are attempting to apply it. The US is a sovereign nation. It is based on a consitution that specifically outlines how something can become law and in it's right of sovereignty, forbids the prosecution of it's people within it's jurisdiction for laws that have not went through that process. Congress either has to pass a law or ratify a treaty which then becomes law. It further protects rights of the citizens by forbiding the government from doing certain things. I know- they have ignored that from time to time, but we are either a sovereign nation or we are not. And if we are not, then we need to be.

This entire international law and self interpretation combined with some sort of inherent concept of sovereignty over another nation inso that any country can arrest and prosecute the leaders of any other country is dangerous to boot. Suppose the US arrested the Queen of England and the President of Germany and prosecuted them on crimes again humanity for holding up the loans to reassure Greece's economy and forcing them to make austerity measures which amounts to less services to the people. Now, that's a stretch, the US wouldn't do something like that. But how about France or Sweden or some other more socialist country?

There is a difference between countries not giving money to others and the people who rule the country harming others. In a CBC documentary, which was aired about two weeks ago, the leader of Libya was an ally of USA, even though he was a totalitarian and has been killing people in his country who are his political opponents.

Now, to further the argument, er discussion, George W. Bush, invaded Iraq, when there were UN investigators looking for weapons of mass destruction... um... doesn't USA have weapons of mass destruction, like... um... you know, nuclear weapons? The UN investigators haven't found any signs on weapons of mass destruction but he insisted and invaded Iraq against the will of most western countries. Ever heard of Freedom Fries? 'You are either with us or against us.' Unfortunately, very few things are that black and white. Since USA is part of the UN's Security Council... no one has the ability to call it's leaders to justice. In fact the US has ignored agreements which they signed into law. Soft wood lumber dispute between US and Canada... the US put a tariff on soft wood lumber... then when all the trade organizations supported Canada's claim that the tariffs are illegal... the US eventually paid back some of that money... and made it law that Canada can only send so much into the US... which breaks NAFTA. The US is 'we first, everyone else second.'

Gitmo, itself is illegal since the people in there aren't given the rights they normally would have. Amhar Kadr, a Canadian (duel citizenship) was in a fight against the US troops, his father and he were part of the Taliban, when he was 15. After the fight he threw a grenade and subsequently killed two medics. He's in military court. He was an illegal combatant (child soldier) and shouldn't be there... yet the US doesn't care... International Law says child soldiers are those who are under the age of 16. Now, if you want to know more, read Inside Gitmo by Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Clearly only time people are water boarded is when they are being tortured, therefore the pattern of behavior is clearly set. No matter how you look at it, it's an illegal act to perform on people w/o their consent.

How is it the only time if it's only illegal without their consent? A pattern of behavior incorporates more actions then one. Please show me the law that existed before 2008 that says Waterboarding is torture or illegal. Again, it's only an opinion and we do not prosecute people based on your opinions.

Yes, having a firearm is legal, in Canada, it must be concealed while being transported. The criminal behaviour in the case of weapons is shooting the weapons at or in the vicinity of other people. As well as not having a permit for them. Hunting is an exception.



DO NOT equate underaged sex (sex with a person below the age of consent) with unmarried sex. The two are different. If you read the December issue Reader's Digest of 2010... There was an article that was written by a divorcee... she was married when she was 9... her husband is 'honorable,' according to her father, yet he beat her and forced her to have sex with him even though he agreed to wait until she was older. Yes, in Yemen, her country, it is legal for a father to sign a marriage contract for his daughter that young, but it was illegal for her husband to have sex with her... since the age of consent was 15. The government tried to increase the age of consent to 17, but due to an out cry by 'conservatives' it was lowered back to 15. She was married for about 6 months. According to Dr. J. P. Fedoroff, a child is anyone below the age of majority, which is typically set to be 18. International law has set it to be 18. Child Pornography (evidence of child abuse) is pictures/videos of people who are below 18 even if they are of age of consent in the country they reside.

I'm glad you chose to see how ridiculous it is to take actions in a pattern of behavior and declare it illegal because the pattern made it illegal. However, if you ever decided to check into it, you would find that the age of consent is largely below 18 not only world wide, but within the United State itself. Perhaps you are confusing the age of consent with when society declares someone an adult?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Federal_laws

By the way, I like the way you worked the term conservatives in there with the quotes.. Wink, wink, it's like them evil basterds in every country are the same despite NAMBA largely endorsing US democrat political candidates and close ties with them.

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/8094/

There is a difference between countries not giving money to others and the people who rule the country harming others. In a CBC documentary, which was aired about two weeks ago, the leader of Libya was an ally of USA, even though he was a totalitarian and has been killing people in his country who are his political opponents.

So is that why the leader of Libya was arrested and prosecuted under the international criminal court? Killing political opponents has been against :international law: for quite a while now. Yet no one did a damn thing about it because they had no jurisdiction over it. Libya while a crap hole place to live never surrendered their sovereignty any other body and it took a revolution internally before outside forces decided to pick a side and get involved. Now to be honest about Libya being a US ally, this only happened when they surrendered all their chemical, biological, and Nuclear weapons and abilities to create them because of policy Bush put in place. Their ally status was only insofar as we would help them defend against foreign invasion should it happen as would have been the same offer given to even Iran if they chose to do the same. Do not pretend that Libya was some favored trade partner or some buddy buddy country the US protect because it liked what was going on. You would be showing more then you ignorance there.

Now, to further the argument, er discussion, George W. Bush, invaded Iraq, when there were UN investigators looking for weapons of mass destruction... um... doesn't USA have weapons of mass destruction, like... um... you know, nuclear weapons?

lol.. The US never invaded a country and aggreed to end hostilities after being defeated by surrendering parts of it's sovereignty to the UN. Are you seriously that ignorant of how the UN became under control of Iraq. Bringing this topic up supports my claim. The US has not been in a situation that Iraq had. You are about as boring as those idiots who claim the Israel is in some violation of the Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty when they never signed onto it but heard it somewhere and decided that blindly repeating it makes it more true and Israel inherently evil. MEanwhile, lets get back to reality.

The UN investigators haven't found any signs on weapons of mass destruction but he insisted and invaded Iraq against the will of most western countries. Ever heard of Freedom Fries? 'You are either with us or against us.' Unfortunately, very few things are that black and white.

You should spend some time reading the UNSUM and UNMOVIC reports. They paint a completely different picture then you believe to be true. Granted, they never found WMDs- but did find some prohibited weapons, but they found and reported signs of WMD weapons, evidence of weapons of one class in areas already cleared for that class while being checked for other prohibited weapons, undeclared dual use materials, and patterns of stalling and manipulation to hide and move WMD or prohibited weapons. Again, the UN gained jurisdiction by the surrender of sovereignty outlined in the 1991 armastice that ended the first gulf war.

Since USA is part of the UN's Security Council... no one has the ability to call it's leaders to justice.{/quote]Let me stop you here. The United Nations has absolutely no ability whatsoever to hold countries or leaders accountable for anything unless those countries voluntarily surrender itself to that jurisdiction. Russia was a member of the UN when they were invading eastern europe and killing their own people in hopes of a communist utopia rich from the spoils of WWII. The UN can't even declare a war on a country, it's not able to because of it's own charter.

In fact the US has ignored agreements which they signed into law. Soft wood lumber dispute between US and Canada... the US put a tariff on soft wood lumber... then when all the trade organizations supported Canada's claim that the tariffs are illegal... the US eventually paid back some of that money... and made it law that Canada can only send so much into the US... which breaks NAFTA. The US is 'we first, everyone else second.'

lol.. This has exactly what to do with the UN how? NAFTA is a trilateral agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico. It has nothing to do with the UN. At best, it can be classified under the WTO seeing how the WTO handles dispute resolution per NAFTA clauses. The WTO was created by the Uraguay Round table agreements and is a product of GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) to present a more formal avenue of inclusion. It's not part of the UN either.

Do you realize that you are basically saying "well, because they go shopping at walmart, they are subject to best buy's return policy"? Let's at least know a little about what we are talking about or stick to the points presented to us.

Gitmo, itself is illegal since the people in there aren't given the rights they normally would have. Amhar Kadr, a Canadian (duel citizenship) was in a fight against the US troops, his father and he were part of the Taliban, when he was 15. After the fight he threw a grenade and subsequently killed two medics. He's in military court. He was an illegal combatant (child soldier) and shouldn't be there... yet the US doesn't care... International Law says child soldiers are those who are under the age of 16. Now, if you want to know more, read Inside Gitmo by Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu.

Gitmo itself is not illegal. The detainees held there are not considered prisoners of war so your sob story about a 15 year old terrorist doesn't count. Now if the US was to ratify the the 1977 protocals of the Geneva Convention, you might be right in more ways then one, but this issue is moot as it has already been hammered out in US courts under the Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld rulings and subsequent military commissions act past into law by the 2006 congress.

Something you also have to remember is that the Geneva convention provides no age for determining who is a child soldier. That is defined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which forbids using children under the age of 15 form being used as soldiers. Being that 15 is the cut off, your sob story is unimportant to your point but this does prove mine. You see, the US never ratified theConvention on the Rights of the Child and therefore is not subject to the constraints of it. Further more, in the US, children 15 years old and sometimes younger are sometimes trialed as an adult in serious cases like the one you described. I so no inconsistency there.

 

[DeletedUser]

How is it the only time if it's only illegal without their consent? A pattern of behavior incorporates more actions then one. Please show me the law that existed before 2008 that says Waterboarding is torture or illegal. Again, it's only an opinion and we do not prosecute people based on your opinions.

As usual, sumdumass, you don't know what you're talking about (although you do give a good front of propaganda, which works well against those who don't bother to factcheck). You claimed that nobody has been prosecuted for waterboarding and that it has never been defined as torture. In both cases, you're just plain wrong:

November 2, 2007

<to> The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman
United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy,

In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue – but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture – no less than wanton killing – is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact – as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well- established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule – the law – has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise – or even to give credence to such a suggestion – represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.

Sincerely,
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88 ~ http://thinkprogress.org/jag-letter-waterboarding/​

Specific instances of U.S. prosecutions for the commission of waterboarding:

• In 1947, the U.S. convicted Yukio Asano of torture, and sentenced him to 15 years hard labor. His specific crimes included torture via waterboarding. ~ http://2008election.procon.org/pdf/asano_case.pdf
  
• During the Vietnam War, several U.S. soldiers identified as performing waterboarding were subsequently court martialed for torturing and/or imposing inhumane treatment of prisoners.
  
• In 1981, Texas sheriff James Parker and three others were convicted of torturing a prisoner and sentenced to 10 years and 4 years respectively. The specific act was waterboarding. George W. Bush Jr., the Governor of Texas, never pardoned them.

It goes on (click here and here, and particularly here). In short, Sumdumass, your continued presentation of false information and fallacious reasoning (on all fronts, in this thread and previous threads) merely serves to further damage you credibility.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

As usual, sumdumass, you don't know what you're talking about (although you do give a good front of propaganda, which works well against those who don't bother to factcheck). You claimed that nobody has been prosecuted for waterboarding and that it has never been defined as torture. In both cases, you're just plain wrong:

Blah Blah, irrelevent blah blah blah.

In short, Sumdumass, your continued presentation of false information and fallacious reasoning (on all fronts, in this thread and previous threads) merely serves to further damage you credibility.

You are clueless aren't you? You present a letter stating opinion of people as evidence that something is law that has never been codified into law? And you call my credibility into question? If it was as you say, you would have absolutely no problem whatsoever at all providing a link to the law stating it is illegal. Hell, you could even cite the specific language in the Geneva Conventions where waterboarding is mentioned- defined as torture- and specifically forbidden.

But wait, you cannot do that. Why? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. We do not prosecute people for your opinion. How many times does that have to be said?

You pointed to other examples that have already been indirectly addressed by me. It's the totality of the situation and not the specific act. If you would have bothered with a cursory investigations into the claims provided by your agenda driven sources, you would find that several other factors were in play on them too. In stead you take their blind accusations and repeat the garbage they pushed in your attempt to push your ideological lines while accusing me of failing to do exactly what you failed to do.

I stand by my original assertion. Foreign governments, the UN, or international law, does not hold any right over a sovereign nation or persons of that sovereign nation unless that nation somehow surrendered that right of sovereignty or it was taken by force and if any of the aforementioned entities attempts to arrest any elected official for acts done while in office of the United State, the United State of America, as well as should any other Sovereign nation should it happen to them, should retaliate with the full might and power that they can muster. Even if it means world war three.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are clueless aren't you? You present a letter stating opinion of people as evidence that something is law that has never been codified into law? And you call my credibility into question? If it was as you say, you would have absolutely no problem whatsoever at all providing a link to the law stating it is illegal. Hell, you could even cite the specific language in the Geneva Conventions where waterboarding is mentioned- defined as torture- and specifically forbidden.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Totally Irrelevant... Blah, Blah, Blah....

I stand by my original assertion. Foreign governments, the UN, or international law, does not hold any right over a sovereign nation or persons of that sovereign nation unless that nation somehow surrendered that right of sovereignty or it was taken by force and if any of the aforementioned entities attempts to arrest any elected official for acts done while in office of the United State, the United State of America, as well as should any other Sovereign nation should it happen to them, should retaliate with the full might and power that they can muster. Even if it means world war three.

So, if I electrocute you for the sole purpose of gaining information you have about other terrorists... that's OK, since it's in my opinion it's not torture? Clearly, USA has charged people for torturing others.... including for waterboarding them... so... USA can also say, it only applies when it's SumDumass' opinion? Also, have you thought of the Miranda Protocol? It's part of USA's established laws... if a person is unwilling to talk, then the police (even military) are to respect that and cease questioning. Or does that only apply to US citizens who happen to be on US soil?

If you attack a country, and you are trying to force the current government's leadership to quit the country, doesn't that make the defenders, even if they are terrorists, POWs in question? And Military Law, which US has, POWs are allowed to be silent, the only thing they need to say is, rank, name, and id number, which is on their dog tags. POW's are to be treated humanely, as in not tortured.

You also failed to grasp something about the UN, it's security council can declare a country's regime to be unlawful and force economic sanctions on said country... up to and including total isolation. Sure, you can do w/e you want... just be sure you can sustain yourself first.


Link: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
Yep, US has broken a lot of laws where treatment of prisoners are concerned.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sumdumass, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance by referring to Judge Advocate Generals as mere "people with opinions." In addition to heading the JAG departments for their respective military branches, they also serve as Commanding General/Admiral to all judge advocates in their respective military branches, which in turn serve as Defense, Prosecution and yes, even the Judges for all court-martial cases.


It is thier specific duty to interpret "and" lay down the law, military and related. When they present an interpretation of miltary law, it isn't an opinion, it is a ruling.

As to the rest of your ignorant ramble, I suppose I could waste my time responding to it when I'm not on my phone typing away with my oversized thumbs. tata

 

[DeletedUser30834]

So, if I electrocute you for the sole purpose of gaining information you have about other terrorists... that's OK, since it's in my opinion it's not torture? Clearly, USA has charged people for torturing others.... including for waterboarding them... so... USA can also say, it only applies when it's SumDumass' opinion? Also, have you thought of the Miranda Protocol? It's part of USA's established laws... if a person is unwilling to talk, then the police (even military) are to respect that and cease questioning. Or does that only apply to US citizens who happen to be on US soil?

Sort of. There are all sort of laws that make an something illegal but are not illegal in the application. Worse yet, there are acts people can commit that aren't illegal except within a certain amount of circumstances. An illustration of this might be killing someone else. If I killed a person who broke into my house and posed a threat to me or my family, I have done nothing illegal. If this person broke into my house because I stole something valuable to him and he was trying to recover it, a case could be made that it's in continuation of a crime (keeping stolen property from it's rightful owner) and it could become illegal. If i invited them into the house, it's likely it's highly illegal. If the home is never part of the issue and I just kill him, it's completely illegal. Now, how illegal can be argued here too. If I was just doing something negligently and killed him, it's a lower form of manslaughter, if I was acting recklessly, it's a higher form of manslaughter. If I planned and purposely killed them, it's murder of some degree in which the punishments all differ depending on how elaborate of an attempt was made to get the job done. But that's all laid out in existing law. It's completely known that certain actions will have consequences.

So lets get back to your electrocution example. Suppose I use electrocution to cauterize a wound and save your life so i can question you about terrorist acts. Is it torture now? How about electrosurgery for a necessary or voluntary procedure, is it torture? So is electrocution torture? I would assume that in most situations surrounding prisoners and getting information, it would be because it generally causes pain. However, that is my opinion- not law and if there was a way to use electrocution to extract information without causing pain, it certainly wouldn't be torture. Laws do not prosecute for opinion- it goes against the entire grain of the rule of law in the US as well as many other countries. Something needs to specifically be outlawed which is more then your opinion of what is illegal in order for it to be "criminally illegal".

So lets see what has been made law concerning torture.

The UN convention against torture states in articlle 1.1 "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."

The Geneva conventions simply says torture is prohibited leaving the definition of torture open to discussion. Even if we retroactivly apply the UNCAT definition of torture, you have to establish that waterboarding created severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental in order for it to be included as torture in an act on it's own.

So let's look at US law, the only US law concerning torture. It should be noted that US law was not created until 2008 and codified until 2010- Well after the fact.
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or


There is more, but note how the threat of imminent death was added in addition to severe mental or physical pain. This indicates that the legislation thought that waterboarding was not covered by sever pain alone.

But it gets even better. The US signed the fourth convention in 1955 or so, in 1961, the US CIA and Military hand books included interrogation techniques that they approved of as legal that included waterboarding. The exclusion to this was that military training manuals kept a notation stating that it was often unproductive and lead to false or misleading information being extracted. This is well known by the international community who has had no problem with it until recently.

If you attack a country, and you are trying to force the current government's leadership to quit the country, doesn't that make the defenders, even if they are terrorists, POWs in question? And Military Law, which US has, POWs are allowed to be silent, the only thing they need to say is, rank, name, and id number, which is on their dog tags. POW's are to be treated humanely, as in not tortured.

Well, no, at least not if you follow that so called international law you are championing when it is convenient. The third convention states that only people carrying arms in the open who are wearing a uniform or marking separating them from the civilian population, with an organized command structure and follow the rules of war are military afforded prisoner of war status.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You also failed to grasp something about the UN, it's security council can declare a country's regime to be unlawful and force economic sanctions on said country... up to and including total isolation. Sure, you can do w/e you want... just be sure you can sustain yourself first.


Link: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
Yep, US has broken a lot of laws where treatment of prisoners are concerned.

The US holds a irrevocable seat on the security council as one of the 5 or 7 members with complete veto power. While in theory, you might be right that the UN can impart sanctions through the security council, it's not likely it would ever happen to the US unless it voluntarily waived it's veto power and no other country with veto power used theirs to stop it. Russia and England are two countries that would likely stop any attempts at isolating the US. Germany is possibly another country that could do it but I'm not sure of their veto status without looking it up.

Your link at the end, has a few fatal flaws which you make too. It talked about US law concerning torture and yes, US law does prohibit waterboarding, but it did not do that until after the fact. Waterboarding is completely illegal right now under US law, but was not even addressed at the time. The closest it was address was in the United State Military Code of Justice which is sort of a separate law for the military in which it was outlawed in 2006. Torture itself was not defined in US law outside the ratification of the Geneva convention which says severe pain not threat of death as US law now states since 2008-2010. This is akin to the state changing the law so you can only get a drivers license at age 21 then attempting to prosecute you for every time since you were 16 and had your license that you drove before the law was passed. And of course we have constitutional protections against that.

Sumdumass, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance by referring to Judge Advocate Generals as mere "people with opinions." In addition to heading the JAG departments for their respective military branches, they also serve as Commanding General/Admiral to all judge advocates in their respective military branches, which in turn serve as Defense, Prosecution and yes, even the Judges for all court-martial cases.


It is thier specific duty to interpret "and" lay down the law, military and related. When they present an interpretation of miltary law, it isn't an opinion, it is a ruling.

As to the rest of your ignorant ramble, I suppose I could waste my time responding to it when I'm not on my phone typing away with my oversized thumbs. tata

Please show me the constitutional or otherwise process to which the JAG creates law or changes laws. Until then, they interpret laws and make statements of opinion concerning them. However, it is obvious that their opinion is different today then it has been at any other time since the CIA and military training manuals included the same advance interrogation techniques since the 1960's and has used these manuals in the training of not only US service members (mainly special ops), but with foreign countries we assisted in developing their own military and intelligence agencies in allied cooperations.

Military law did not outlaw torture-specifically waterboarding as torture until 2006. But please do not think an attorney general's or advocate general's opinions on the law are infallible or much more then opinions when the law doesn't clearly state it. We have ample evidence through failed prosecution that they can and have been wrong at times. This is especially the case when they all the sudden form an opinion of existing law that is counter to previous interpretations.