CIA admits to waterboarding

[Xavier]

The Geneva Conventions were written using a very strict, and specific language. The conventions only refer to prisoners of war, or more exactly, soldiers who have been capture during a time of war.

Since the Geneva Convention only deals with the treatment of soldiers captured during a time of war, terrorists do not fall under its protections.

That is simply not true.

Whether we believe it is true or not, is beside the point. That is the stance the United States is taking. The United States, very clearly does not consider terrorists prisoners of war, nor does it consider them civilians. As I said earlier, the term "enemy combatant" has been created.

This is how the current administration has justified, holding many "enemy combatant" indefinitely at various sites outside the U.S., such as Guantanamo Bay, and without bringing any formal charges, or even allowing the accused knowledge of the evidence against them.

As far as your original statement, the Third Geneva Convention focuses on Prisoners of War. An amendment to the Third Convention, Protocol I, more specifically addresses the rights afforded to combatants that more closely resemble guerrillas fighters, which today would most closely resemble terrorist organizations. Protocol I was ratified by 167 countries, and signed but not ratified by the United States, Pakistan and Iran. The international community at large generally believes that the protocols are obligatory, regardless.

The Forth Geneva Convention more specifically deals with those who do not qualify as Prisoners of War, guaranteeing them the right to humane treatment.

So again, your original statement just is not true.

Now, as to the latter half, I'm well aware of how the United States is justifying its actions, but that does not by defacto make them legal. There are countless challenges facing those actions, and it appears that most now believe that the Administration's definition will never be sustainable in the long run. Your description of the current situation is right on though.

[archibaldcrane]

The Geneva Conventions were written using a very strict, and specific language. The conventions only refer to prisoners of war, or more exactly, soldiers who have been capture during a time of war.

Since the Geneva Convention only deals with the treatment of soldiers captured during a time of war, terrorists do not fall under its protections.

That is simply not true.

Whether we believe it is true or not, is beside the point.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (June 29, 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror.

As much as the president dislikes the principles of democracy, he is not in fact all 3 branches of the government. The Supreme Court, not the president's lawyers, is the branch that interprets laws. There is no weasel-wording around it, the supreme court says that all prisoners in the War on Terror are a part of Article III of the Geneva Conventions, then that's how it is until another court ruling comes along. They are protected by the Geneva Convention, and that fact -is- the point.

President Bush committed illegal acts in the authorization of waterboarding, and should be impeached.

[Saphirea]

And it's against the Geneva conventions to fire a 50cal machine gun at a person... doesn't mean it doesn't happen

Countries hell-bent on doing it anyway (NATO) figured out how to get around that years ago, Saph...

"We don't fire .50cal weapons at people. We just fire at the equipment they wear."

And it certainly does an amazing job at destroying equipment.

Just as a funny about this... When I was at MCT this girl went to fire one mounted to a tri-pod and it kicked so hard for her she got flung back... that was ten years ago and I still vividly remember it because it was so funny.

[evilbau]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23167004/

Justice Dept.: Waterboarding no longer legal
Official testifies as Congress moves to ban CIA tactics despite veto threat

WASHINGTON - A senior Justice Department official told Congress on Thursday that laws and other limits enacted since three terrorism suspects were waterboarded have eliminated the technique from what is now legally allowed.