AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Toturing prisoners of war , who killed or attempted to kill civilians, in order to get information from such prisoners to save civilian lives, is not only lawful, moral, and ethical. It is also humane.

I believe that if the interogator of a prisoner has sufficient reason to believe that tearing off a limb of such a prisoner will cause that prisoner to divulge information that can save even one civilian life, then tearing off that prisoner's limb is justified.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Debra, What you'll get in response from Foxie is "hee haw!"

I thought Foxfyre was "on the record" as placing me on ignore because I allegedly don't follow her rules of engagement.

There was no 'consent of Congress' Fox. Only 4 people in Congress were informed of what was going on and they couldn't tell anyone else and at least one of those wrote a letter of protest.

That leaves 531 members of Congress that did not give their consent because they had no idea it was going on.

Go ply your lies to other conservatives who are ready to accept your deranged interpretations.

http://lawofwar.org/geneva_prisoner_war_convention.htm
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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.

...

Article 143
The Swiss Federal Council shall register the present Convention with the Secretariat of the United Nations. The Swiss Federal Council shall also inform the Secretariat of the United Nations of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations received by it with respect to the present Convention.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present Convention.

DONE at Geneva this twelfth day of August 1949, in the English and French languages. The original shall be deposited in the Archives of the Swiss Confederation. The Swiss Federal Council shall transmit certified copies thereof to each of the signatory and acceding States.

Toturing prisoners of war , who killed or attempted to kill civilians, in order to get information from such prisoners to save civilian lives, is not only lawful, moral, and ethical. It is also humane.

http://www.answers.com/topic/laws-of-war
...
The laws of war have for centuries encompassed a wide range of matters, including rights and duties of neutrals, treatment of POWs and of those wounded in battle, administration of occupied territories, negotiation and implementation of truces, limitations on means and methods of warfare, and war crimes.

...
Jus in bello (laws governing the conduct of war) thinking, on the other hand, drove the prosecution of crimes against the laws of war, which were defined in the Nuremberg Tribunal Charter as ‘murder, ill-treatment, or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder of ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity’. In addition, it was accepted that violations of the laws of war could include other acts, such as the use of banned weapons or the misuse of the flag of surrender, which were not explicitly mentioned in the Charter but were covered elsewhere. Indeed, given that there already existed a sizeable body of international law, particularly the Geneva and Hague Conventions, against which the conduct of combatants could be tested, the prosecution of violations of the law of war were in many respects the least contentious aspects of the war crimes trials.

...

A classic statement of the purposes of the laws of war as seen at this time was in the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration prohibiting explosive bullets. This said that ‘the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy’. This statement conveys a vision of war as a struggle between the uniformed armies of states, rather than between governments or peoples.

...

It seems that you think it is more humane for civilians to be injured, maimed, mutilated, murdered. Somehow the left always seems to ignore that part of the argument.

1. Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.

2. Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.

3. Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.

4. Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.

5. Question the motivation of the contrary source.

6. Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.

7. Change the subject.

Alternatively ...

1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.

"So what do you think? The investigations are on or off?

If they are off, Obama gets a high five kudos from me. He finally got one right. "

:"I am also consulting my bookie (perfectly legal of course) about laying odds on how many leftwingers will buy into this :"

;"JM, Obama did not say he will not prosecute anyone; just those working for the intelligence agencies. His reasoning, I believe, is that those who performed torture did so with the best intentions of following the mis-interpreted legal advise from the Attorney General and those in the administration. Irregardless, he cannot condone what is found to be domestic and international laws broken by previous administrations. Obama cannot ignore those who broke laws if he is aware of them. He then becomes a co-conspirator of those crimes."

Fine. Then let the AG prosecute. Let the justice dept investigate, depose, and indict. But our system of laws allows the defense not only discovery but the power of subpoena and deposition also. Do the Dems on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence want to join their House counterparts in this circus? First into the dock: "Ms.Pelosi step forward please. Raise your right hand. Do you swear..."