OT: Release of the DOJ torture transcripts.

[poorgradstudent]

Torture was inflicted. We’ve known this for years. It was authorized from the highest level of the previous administration (either GW or Cheney). We’ve also known that for years.

We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[ucodegen]

I’m beyond disturbed when my country violates international law, i.e. the Geneva convention and can somehow justify our actions.

It is interesting on how many people don’t read the Geneva convention and then accuse people of violating it. First and foremost, the Geneva convention is written to protect the citizens within the country where the battle is taking place. The protection afforded to the fighting forces is secondary. Parts of the Geneva convention relating to protections for the fighting force are bilateral, not unilateral. For example, we have fighting force ‘A’ and ‘B’. If fighting force ‘A’ violates the Geneva convention, than fighting force ‘B’ is no longer bound by it. This is what gives the Geneva convention some of its ‘teeth’.

The Geneva convention has prohibition on explicitly targeting civilians.. whuups.. that is exactly what Al Qaeda has done– multiple times. (Twin Towers and their own people in Afghanistan who disagree with them.. local tribal leaders.)

The Geneva convention prohibits use of civilian shields.. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits fighting forces from concealing themselves with civilian garb (this is to allow the opposing force to discriminate them from civilians and not accidentally hit a civilian).. whuups again.

The Geneva convention prohibits either fighting force from forcing the civilians to conceal or protect them.. whuups again.

This is why, during the whole Al Qaeda and IRAQ scenario, the UN and NATO has been quiet. The Geneva convention is written primarily to protect the civilians.. not the fighting forces, from abuse. It is written because of what Hitler and his forces did to their own civilians.. including forced conscription of children (also against the Geneva convention) into a fighting force.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[afx114]

[quote=poorgradstudent]We need to set policies in place to make sure it never happens again, and move on. Prosecuting the previous administration or those who were just following orders would only muck the country down in more partisan bickering while there are bigger issues at hand (Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Health Care).[/quote]

“We were just following orders” was the same argument made by the Nazi’s in Nuremberg (aka “The Nuremberg Defense”), and it did not hold up in a court of law.

As for “moving on,” when a person commits a crime — be it murder, theft, whatever — do you consider it “retribution” or “petty politics” when the lawbreaker is tried for those crimes? No, it is considered enforcing the rule of law. In a nation that is supposedly “a nation of laws” I don’t see how we can just say, “well, that was in the past, it’s cool man, we’re looking forward now. Just pretend it never happened.”

If law breakers are not held accountable for their actions, what incentive does it give others to follow the law? None. It sets a dangerous precedent.

I am quite disappointed with the Obama administration on this issue.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[patientrenter]

What TG said. Sometimes I half-wish the purists on this issue could be dropped off somewhere in the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan. Then interview the survivors (if any) as they emerge for a TV discussion of human rights. Make sure to get a few Harvard professors of law to grill them on how fair and law-abiding they were to their pursuers.

[Author]

Posts