Trapped in spam, in the mean-time the two of you can re-read the law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ trizzlor
I’m not trying to make this about the Geneva Convention. I’m saying no treaties or conventions cover what we are now dealing with.
I also see you haven’t answered Robert Kelly’s question:

The question is, would you rather see khalid sheikh mohammad threatened or American citizens killed?

or my question:

What would you do if you found out you family was killed in a second terrorist attack that could have been stopped by simply telling KSM we were going to kill him and his family?

As for your snark:

trizzlor: I know you’re eager to post some talking points INRE Geneva, but less bolding and more reading would do you some good.

Guess Aye proved you’re the one with the talking points and needs to spend a little more time reading.

*Thanks Aye!*

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@trizzlor:

Here’s where your argument falls apart:

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

The law you quoted doesn’t apply overseas.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Aqua: The US Code of Justice section I linked to defines torture based on the act itself not on the victim; the torture distinction still holds if it’s a citizen, an immigrant, or an enemy non-combatant. I know you’re eager to post some talking points INRE Geneva, but less bolding and more reading would do you some good.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Robert Kelly: Your question had nothing to do with this debate – I’d rather see whatever is most effective at protecting American citizens, weather that means giving KSM a steak dinner of putting a bullet in his head. For this reason we have due process, where legal & military professionals determine what is effective and constitutional. If you (and I’m speaking broadly here) have compelling evidence that the legal code should be changed, that such torture yields more positive intelligence than false leads, then let’s reform the code so we can start using this internally on suspected serial killers and domestic terrorists and whomever else is deemed to be a threat to American lives. Until then, the DOJ follows the laws on the books rather than your gut feelings.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

caught in the spam filter.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ trizzlor
I DON’T CARE! The fact of the matter triz, is there are not guidelines for dealing with terrorists, period. They aren’t enemy combatants. The Geneva Convention was put in place to keep countries from treating prisoners of war harshly for the actions of the nation state. If you want to call it torture, call it torture. Call it whatever you want. Until the nations put together a guideline for dealing with terrorists that WE sign off on, I DON’T CARE!
What would you do if you found out you family was killed in a second terrorist attack that could have been stopped by simply telling KSM we were going to kill him and his family? I’d be pissed.

It’s not an investigation into criminal conduct that needs to take place, it’s a united front against the a$$ clowns that want to destroy us that needs to take place. We should get together and say these people do not fall under any conventions that currently exist and we will therefore put a new convention in place that says once they are captured, we’ll use any means necessary to eradicate them from the planet.

Members of other nation’s uniformed military fall under the Geneva Convention. Nothing there has changed. KSM and OBL do not fall under that category or any other category that you can cite.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@trizzlor: Go on ahead and investigate, but you still didnt answer my question. I think I know the answer. I never said that “roughing up a few enemies” feels good or right, but if it prevents future attacks, it is necessary for our protection. I will always put the safety of US citizens above your perceived ‘rights’ of terrorists. As Scott pointed out in #10, ‘the interrogations did provide actionable intelligence and saved AMERICAN lives’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Robert Kelly: No, the question is weather this is was illegal behavior and needs to be investigated – and there’s no question about it. If you have compelling evidence to strike those clauses from the legal definition of torture then you can do so through due process, not by ignoring the law and then justifying it ex post facto based on hypothetical lives saved. Rather, your argument seems to be that “roughing up a few enemies” feels good and right, so it’s legally permissible. There wasn’t a single mass-casualty attack on the US under Clinton (or one if you count domestic terrorism) … that doesn’t make a legal point.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@trizzlor: The question is, would you rather see khalid sheikh mohammad threatened or American citizens killed? There has not been a mass-casualty attack on the US since 9-11, and it isnt because the muslims have given up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0