Just Add It To the List of Lies

Andrew Sullivan posts this video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5DaY2Uyu64[/youtube]

Now the truth:

Bush personally authorized every technique revealed at Abu Ghraib. He refused to act upon the International Committee of the Red Cross’s report that found that he had personally authorized the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture and domestic law against cruel and inhuman treatment. A refusal to investigate and prosecute Red Cross allegations of torture is itself a violation of the Geneva Accords.

7 Responses to “Just Add It To the List of Lies”

  1. Booogie-Mann says:

    The Geneva Convention talks specifically about “Severe Punishment” … I don’t call stress positions, wearing women’s underwear, putting bugs in a prisoner’s box, nor the SERE style waterboarding (some of our troops go through SERE waterboarding training) …. “Severe” because everybody has walked away from it.

    Furthermore, these terrorists or “unlawful combatants” are not covered by the Geneva Convention. No flag, no uniform, no nation, no coverage. From what I’ve read on the GC, basically coverage is optional if you are not fighting for a nation, ie: are a terrorist. Congress did pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which deals with “unlawful combatants”. Its easy to find/read on Wikipedia.

    If Abu Ghraib was such a huge recruiting mechanism … well, then what did Al Qaeda use before Abu Ghraib, and before 9/11?? What inspired those 17ish Muslims to fly suicide missions into buildings killing thousands before this horror of Abu Ghraib??

    Seems Liberals are out for revenge, out for blood in the Bush Admin … while at the same time reverting back to a pre-9/11 mentality of naivete and denial. Who are our real enemies I ask?? You guys seem more outraged at Bush and Abu Ghraib than you ever were about Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

  2. Jack Jodell says:

    @Boogie-Mann:
    The United States got along perfectly well without resorting to torture when confronted with the dangers of Nazi Germany and Tojo’s Japan, both of which had large standing armies and were dedicated to our defeat. We got along perfectly well without torture when confronted with Soyiet Russia and Red China, both of whom had huge standing armies, a very large network of active spies worldwide, nuclear missiles pointed right at us, who engaged in torture though we did not, and who were dedicated to our destruction. So, dangerous though al Qaeda and the current radical Islamist movement is, and watchful we must be, today’s menace pales in comparison to those we faced in previous times. To engage in extreme acts like torture reduces us to their level. Not only that, it is a violation of both international and domestic law. So it is not at all naive to oppose the use of torture. To insist on its use, effectiveness, legality, and legitimacy, though, as the far-right is apparently doing and has done since 2002, is criminally ignorant and paranoid. THEY are our enemies, for, just like terrorists, they believe the ends justify the means. They are equally as dead wrong.

  3. Booogie-Mann says:

    Well thanks for making it clear that you view people on the Right as much your enemy as Al Qaeda. This statement epitomizes the Left mindset, a form of ideological bigotry. I’m not saying it’s naive to oppose torture, just describing the overall Left’s opposition to ANYTHING we use to fight Terrorism. Military Tribunals, Overseas Detention Centers, NSA wiretaps, bullets, soldiers, tanks, guns …. all the above !! Over the years, all the things Liberals are wringing their hands over make them naive, I’m afraid Liberals would do nothing to protect Americans and this Nation.

    You make good points when comparing Russia, Nazi Germany, Japan and the use of Torture to today’s scenario with Al Qaeda. If I’m not mistaken, the POW’s of these nations were covered by the Geneva Convention, or Hague Convention rules on POW Treatment. Only in Germany were our troops treated with any kind of dignity. Besides Germany, I have yet to see where the Geneva Convention has benefited OUR soldiers. Can you??

    We’ll probably have to disagree on the 2 big issues here …

    1. Which techniques if any are “Torture”?
    2. Was it Illegal?

    Firstly, the Geneva Convention describes torture as “severe physical and mental ….” blah, blah, blah … of all the techniques described in the CIA memo’s only waterboarding is questionable in my view. And at that it was only used on 3 guys. So I’m not losing any sleep over KSM’s waterboarding, nor does it deserve all this attention. Secondly, was it illegal?? I’ve been reading the GC, and other documents on War and don’t see where these Terrorists are covered, in fact the GC says it is optional for “Unlawful Combatants” or those not signed on to the GC. This is why the US Congress felt the need (in addition to a Supreme Court Decision) to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

    Anyway, I’m tired of the Left undermining our Troops and undermining our nation for some quick political gain. Very selfish and immoral attempt to gain political leverage by the lefties, while in the background Obama and Co. are making all kinds of moves going unreported/analyzed in the Press.

  4. Kathy says:

    Furthermore, these terrorists or “unlawful combatants” are not covered by the Geneva Convention. No flag, no uniform, no nation, no coverage. From what I’ve read on the GC, basically coverage is optional if you are not fighting for a nation, ie: are a terrorist. Congress did pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which deals with “unlawful combatants”. Its easy to find/read on Wikipedia.

    You could not be more wrong:

    Protocol II, Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (June 8, 1977).

    The definition of a “Non-International Armed Conflict”.

    The text of “Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,” referred to in the first paragraph of the Preamble to Protocol II (June 8, 1977), linked above. Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 is also known as “Common Article 3.”

    In What Situations Does Humanitarian Law Apply? For Whom Is It Intended and Who Does It Protect?

    Does Humanitarian Law Apply to the ‘New’ Conflicts?

    Who Is Bound by the Geneva Conventions?

    Please make an attempt to respond in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, since I spent a significant amount of time getting these cites for you, and it should not have been necessary, since I doubt I am intrinsically more competent at googling than you are.

  5. Booogie-Mann says:

    I will Kathy, and I will respond to Tinman’s assertion about the “Nuremberg Rules” as well when I get more time. Looks like the Nuremberg Rules were about Human Experimentation though, having to do with Mengele’s atrocities, not POW’s. Overall it looks like the GC leaves it up to signatory nations, as “optional” regarding those without a flag, nation, ie: armed militant groups and terrorists.

    But I’m off for now, at least this response represents significant research K.

  6. ???? says:

    ?????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ? ??????????? ????????. ???????? ????? ???????.
    ??????? ???? ? ??????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook