Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

Let me highlight the important part of that for you Set.

Quote:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.[/qoute]

Does that help?

0 Replies

All those who argue in favour of torture should talk to a torture victim or actually watch such a fun session. It might give them a little compassion, an emotion that seems to be rare nowadays.
How anyone can beat a defenseless person is beyond me. Wife and child beaters are amongst these monsters.

0 Replies

Ex-Gitmo chief takes military 5th on abuse

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The former commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, who has been tied to the prisoner abuse scandal, is declining to answer questions in two courts-martial cases involving the use of dogs during interrogations.

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller invoked the military's version of the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself, a move that was defended Thursday by the military's top commander.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Guantanamo_Abuse_Investigation.html

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What is the competent tribunal which determined that detainees, either in Cuba or in Iraq, did not fit into the categories which Thomas posted?

I believe the Bush Administration plans to have that determination made by the drumhead tribunals which are just beginning down in Guantanamo.

I don't believe any similar tribunal has been set up in Iraq.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

McGentrix's assertion was that irregular combatants do not enjoy the protections of the Geneva conventions. And that statement was correct.

It is unlawful combatants which do not fall under Geneva III.

Geneva III covers irregular combatants, so long as they follow the laws of war (that includes wearing a proper uniform, which the folks down at Guantanamo didn't do).

EDIT: At least, they weren't wearing proper uniforms according to the media descriptions of the war in Afghanistan. Their lawyers are always free to argue that they did wear proper attire.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

detano inipo wrote:
Can't find anything that allows the torture of prisoners.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762529232_3/Geneva_Conventions.html

It doesn't cover certain prisoners at all. Get it?

If I remember correctly, hundreds of prisoners were released from Guantanamo Bay. They were found not guilty, after years of torture.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:
You commonly post links to web pages which make outrageous charges against the United States without foundation.
.....................
Dear sir or madam, whatever Setanta means, all you have to do is prove these 'charges' wrong. Show me that the US foreign policy is above board and I will be a happy man.
To call journalist's articles 'absolut tripe' is an opinion, nothing more. Whistle blowers expose wrong doings. People who hate whistle blowers are protecting the guilty.

Only those who lived through atrocities really know. The rest of us have to rely on the medias for information. Many Vietnam veterans have spoken up; they were there. In a few years the soldiers will speak up about todays wrong doings.

I do not link 'idiotic pages', that is your interpretation, using strong language to make a weak point. It so happens that all those 'idiotic pages' were written by Americans. Do you hate those Americans that much?

0 Replies

I have already shredded two of the idiotic pages you link, i'm not going to clutter this thread by bringing the text over here. I am also not going to ignore that you are winding up your hysteria again. You have no basis upon which to allege that the idiots who wrote that nonsense about the United States supporting Nazis can be considered "whistle blowers." You have no basis upon which to assert that i "hate whistle blowers." You have no basis upon which to assert that i "protect the guilty." I am a veteran of the war of which you speak, so i don't need your sanctimonious and self-congratulatory screed to tell me what war is about. That Americans write tripe is not to be wondered at. That i point out that it is tripe is not evidence of hatred.

You are peddling a tissue of lies. You have the burden of proving the lies you peddle. You do not do so.

0 Replies

Let me highlight the important part of that for you McG.

Quote:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Does that help?

0 Replies

setanta, you are making no sense at all. This thread is about the US and torture. Nothing in your post has to do with this thread.
Defending the purity of your country is kind of noble. Throwing words like 'idiotic' around makes you look tough and insulting, but does not help your argument.
It is best to ignore your attacks; they have nothing to do with a good debate.
ps, find out what IBM has to do with tattoos.

0 Replies

The United States supporting Nazis? You mean Hitler's Nazis? Well it's well documented history that a handful of American corporations funded and armed Hitler's rise to power. And then invested heavily in his military industrial complex. Standard Oil worked to fuel Hitler's military throughout the war. That history is easily traced. Denial cant change what happened.

0 Replies

detano inipo wrote:

setanta, you are making no sense at all. This thread is about the US and torture. Nothing in your post has to do with this thread.

You posted in this thread using the pronoun "we" to refer to the United States. You are not a citizen of nor a native of the United States, and have no business using the pronoun, and more than that, you rail against the United States on every occasion which presents, whether it is germane or not. However, the issue of whether or not the United States is or has been guilty of an alleged crime is very much to the point of the the spirit of this thread, if nothing else.

Quote:

Defending the purity of your country is kind of noble.

Absolutely nothing i have ever written at this site qualifies as having been a case of "defending the purity of [my] country." You continue to ignore what i have continually pointed out--which is that no one at this site has demonstrated themselves better informed on the international crimes of the United States, and that i have frequently detailed those crimes in these fora.

Quote:

Throwing words like 'idiotic' around makes you look tough and insulting, but does not help your argument.

I made my argument against the idiocy of Third World Travel and the other pages you linked in the thread in which you linked them. I describe them as idiotic because they lie about the United States, and try to make their case with idiotic assertions. It is my case that the pages you link are idiotic, and as i've pointed out, on more than one occasion, i've already demonstrated that the contents of the pages of this type which you've linked are idiotic.

Quote:

It is best to ignore your attacks; they have nothing to do with a good debate.

I attack the content of your posts, and that is always germane to a topic in which you post.

Quote:

ps, find out what IBM has to do with tattoos.

I already pointed out in the other thread that IBM (it was not known by that name at the time, by the way) established branches in Europe in general and in Germany in particular in the 1920's. Hitler did not come to power until the National Socialist German Worker's Party won 37% of the vote in 1933. The argument advanced in that page is idiotic--many Jewish-owned businesses were seized by the Nazis after 1933. By the "logic" applied on that page, the author could accuse German Jews of supporting the Nazis. That page was a prime example not only of an idiotic argument, but of your inability to judge the value of someone's contention. Not only did you miss the obvious objection to the thesis, you miss the point that even were IBM complicit, that is not evidence that the United States government, nor the United States as a nation of individuals, supported the Nazis.

You demonstrate how clueless you are by asserting that there is an ounce of credibility in that thesis.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

The United States supporting Nazis? You mean Hitler's Nazis? Well it's well documented history that a handful of American corporations funded and armed Hitler's rise to power. And then invested heavily in his military industrial complex. Standard Oil worked to fuel Hitler's military throughout the war. That history is easily traced. Denial cant change what happened.

You can, i take, support this absurd thesis. You seem to suffer from DI's myopia. If an American company invested in Europe, and its assets were seized by the Nazis, that does not make them complicit in what the Nazis did. Furthermore, even were said corporations complicit, that does not mean that the government of the United States nor the United States as a nation of individuals supported the Nazis.

During the Second World War, the Nazis got a lot of their oil from Ploesti in Roumania. Standard Oil, as one could have expected, invested heavily in Roumania after the Great War, and their facilities were seized and used by the Nazis. The Nazis spread propaganda that the "Jews who own Standard Oil" had built and run those facilities, and that the Romanians should not care if their assets were seized. Sadly for them, many Romanians bought that line of crap, and when the Americans bombed Ploesti during the war, hundreds of them went to the Standard Oil refineries to seek "refuge." Sadly, we have no report of how they reacted to their error, as the refineries and everyone in them were pulverized when the American bombers, suffering appalling casualties in the effort, blew Standard Oil's refineries to Kingdom Come.

0 Replies

This page give excellent information on the raids made against Ploesti by the United States Army Air Force.

The United States Air Force Museum wrote:

Despite intense defensive fire from the ground and from the Axis planes, the AAF pressed the attack. In the confusion of battle, some B-24s made bombing runs through heavy smoke over targets that had already been attacked and were caught in the bursts of delayed action bombs dropped several minutes previously. Although overall damage to the target was heavy, the cost was high. Of 177 planes and 1,726 men who took off on the mission, 54 planes and 532 men failed to return.

That is hardly consonant with a charge that the United States government was complicit in a charge that: "Standard Oil worked to fuel Hitler's military throughout the war."

William Saxon, of The New York Times wrote:

At the time, Romania, under the dictator Ion Antonescu, was allied with Germany against the Soviet Union. There were 13 refineries around Ploesti, 35 miles north-northwest of Bucharest, including Europe's loargest, the Romano complex formerly run by Standard Oil of New Jersey. (emphasis added)

People who love to hate the United States will cheerfully glom onto naive and tendentious statements about who was involved in supporting the Nazis. No one will be quicker to point out the international crimes of the United States, and i have good reason to state that i am one of the best informed members of this site on that topic. No one at this site will be quicker to point out horseshit historical distortions than i will be, either.

0 Replies

I suppose America was not complicit in Saddam's atrocities either except that if he hadn't of been a known madman the CIA never woulda hired him in the first place. As for Hitler he was very much propped up by Rockefeller, Ford, Dupont, IBM etc, despite writing Mein Kampf. When Hitler''s campaign wasd floundering, broke, going nowhere, Allen Dulles sat in on a meeting of International bankers who agreed to pay off his campaign debts and fund his campaign. They armed his thugs and very much arrainged for Hitler to take power. Saddam and Hitler and many like them have been set up by American war merchants who made fortunes off the blowback. And the Bush family have been major players in that insanity for generations. It's history that cant be wished away.

0 Replies

You supposition is pretty damned foolish. If you have evidence of what you contend, provide it.

*******************************

I really hate it when conservatives post historical horseshit to support their partisan hysteria.

I really hate it when liberals post historical horseshit to support their partisan hysteria.

0 Replies

Setanta, I'm not making suppositions. History is documented in mergers, legal briefs, Congressional hearings and in personal correspondence that is in the public record. Men like Ford and Rockefeller found common ground with Hitler through shared beliefs in a master race. Mein Kampf quoted long passages from Henry Ford's book the International Jew. Mengele was on Rockefeller's payroll for years before the war. His experiments were funded by Rockefeller. IG Farben's partnership with Standard Oil is well documented. Standard Oil was the majority stockholder in Farben and had their man on the ground running things in Germany. Farben built Auschwitz and other death/slave labor camps but in partnership with Standard Oil. Humanity has paid ever since we neglected to charge Standard Oil while charging Farben. That too is clear. Also clear is that detano inipo has already shown you the documentation but you refuse to face up to facts. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0241,black,39111,1.html

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Mein Kampf quoted long passages from Henry Ford's book the International Jew.

It has been a long time since I read Mein Kampf, but I don't recall any quotations from Henry Ford at all. On the other hand, Ford's anti-Semitism is well-known to historians.

0 Replies

I do not dispute that Ford was an anti-semite. I don't dispute that IBM facilities already existant in Europe at the time the war began were used by the Nazis. I dispute two things-Mr. Black's lack of evidence other than his own bald assertions, for which he provides no external evidence. Much of your Village Voice article is tendentious and evidence of the low standard of proof with which both you and D.I. are content. For example, the article reads, at one point: "Since the United States was not technically at war with Nazi Germany in 1939, it may have been legal for IBM to do business with the Third Reich and its camps in Poland. But was it moral?" Not technically at war? Not at war in any sense at all. This sentence is a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question--to answer this, one would be inferentially stipulating that there were "camps" in Poland in 1939, and in the context of the article, that could only mean "death camps." No such camps existed in Poland in 1939, nor yet again in 1940. In fact, such camps were not established in Poland until well after the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Black may have a case against IBM, but neither the page D.I. linked nor the VV article you have linked demonstrate as much. There is a good deal of low grade journalism in suggesting that because IBM does not wish to respond to Mr. Black, the Village Voice or the gentleman from the Jewish organization who alleges that IBM won't come clean--means that IBM is "guilty" and has something to hide. Anyone familiar with my postings here knows that i don't have blinders on with regard to the behavior of corporations, and am no cheerleader for them. Anyone familiar with my postings here knows that i do not refrain from criticizing the current administration and the past actions of United States governments . . . which leads us to the point which neither you nor D.I. will address.

Whether or not IBM or Standard Oil were complicit--and you have not demonstrated that to be the case--that does not constitute evidence that the United States government, nor the United States as a nation of individuals, supported the Nazis.

You really need to learn something of historiography and evidence.

0 Replies

I've never made the claim that the US government was complicit with Hitler and certainly not the American people many of whom fought and died in WW2 including my family. But there were many Hitler lovers in America. Hitler youth camps and just all around nazis. But our government is very much controlled by our corporations and politicians very much in the pockets of corporate lobbyists. We're a corporate fascist state behind all the glimmer and never more so than today. The partnerships of Standard Oil, Ford, GM, Alcoa, Dupont with the nazis is well established. Here is one of my favorite sources on that subject, http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/ There are many others. But it's the carrying on of the oppression after the war including today that is most important. The same Dulles led crew that forged relations with Hitler used his intel org to form the CIA. And history after that is full of American backing of murderers and despots with Saddam being one current example. American war merchants in league with the government have armed the worst sort of people and profited from the blowback. They've betrayed us and lied us into more than one war and yet we continue to follow leaders who use war to enrich themselves at our expense. Both Saddam and bin Laden being examples. Many Americans excuse these betrayals. Not I. I say there were better people to back in Germany than Hitler and better people in Iraq to back than Saddam. But our leaders chose to back known madmen. I'm not one to excuse or justify arming someone who had written Mein Kampf or who had already used WMD. Would you have sold WMD to a man who had already used WMD? By the way here's another interesting money making scheme by the same crew who chose to empower Hitler, divide and conquer, http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/.

0 Replies

Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know