pensitoreview.com— Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor
Oct 30, 2007View in Crawl 4
A lot of other things you would consider less obvious, are torture as well. Sleep deprivation. Being locked in a room for the rest of your life. Sensory deprivation. Constant noise. Extreme heat and cold. Putting a subject under constant stress. All these conditions are experienced daily by millions of Americans in U.S. prisons, and nobody notices one bit. Why? Because all these prisons have been hidden out of site, at the ends of lonely paved roads out in the middle of nowhere. Its like becoming one of the 'lost'... its an alternate reality, a 5th terrifying dimension, where laws apply only in theory, but in reality, the only rights you have are what you can defend for yourself in this gulag thunderdome world. My friends, the United States government tortures millions of people every single day. Nobody has to lift a finger. The buildings are designed to do it for them. Cramming a lot of people in a concentration camp like environment does it for them. All this talk about how shocking and new it is for the United States to have torture on its hands, is not shocking nor new. Money and torture are what empires are built on. And if you think its not an empire, try changing a law, and see how far your voice goes. Your voice has no say so whatsoever in the laws under which you live.
TRUE PATRIOTS DON'T SUPPORT WAR ON LIES!It might have taken a little while to see through the corporate owned Nazi media cable fake news networks but 70% of America are true Patriots.Only a complete scumbag still listens to opinions from a whacked out drug addict on the radio, or a dildo using pervert and his screeching she-male cohort on FOX.Now, that is the height of stupidity!
the f**king gun lovers are responsible for most of this, wars and torture. they poison the population with their venomous lies about how "guns bring freedom".guns don't bring freedom f**khole, people do. oh, you don't like the argument when it's used against you eh?
Article 5,"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. The problem with this, of course, is that "should any doubt arise" phrase. If you look at Article 4, which 5 refers to, and say THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY DO NOT MEET ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS, then where do you go from there? Others may argue, but the lawfully elected administration says they are not covered. Now, if the person is a POW, we can come down to Article 17: "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. So, what does "equivalent information" mean? To me it would be a complete description of the group the POW is associated with, including organization chart, all current member's names, descriptions and location. And what is willful? To me it is a simple refusal, for whatever reason, to supply name, rank, etc. Of course the next question that is always raised, is: They have rights under our law... Nonsense. They are not citizens. They are not visiting the US, either legally or illegally. What are they? Terrorists. Illegal combatants. Now, what has the historical fate been of them? A trial by military tribunal and execution, if convicted. But you know, I don't think the Left really wants this tied down, jam up and jelly tight. Because if it is, then the Left will lose one of its major positions. Heaven forbid for it to have to stare reality straight in the face.<a class="user" href="http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2005/01/06/914/78414/17?mode=alone;showrate=1#17">http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2005/01/06/914/78 ...</a>Enemy CombatantAn ?enemy combatant? is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): ?Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.??Enemy combatant? is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President?s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.<a class="user" href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html">http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatan ...</a>
anarchytvOct 30, 2007
A lot of other things you would consider less obvious, are torture as well. Sleep deprivation. Being locked in a room for the rest of your life. Sensory deprivation. Constant noise. Extreme heat and cold. Putting a subject under constant stress. All these conditions are experienced daily by millions of Americans in U.S. prisons, and nobody notices one bit. Why? Because all these prisons have been hidden out of site, at the ends of lonely paved roads out in the middle of nowhere. Its like becoming one of the 'lost'... its an alternate reality, a 5th terrifying dimension, where laws apply only in theory, but in reality, the only rights you have are what you can defend for yourself in this gulag thunderdome world. My friends, the United States government tortures millions of people every single day. Nobody has to lift a finger. The buildings are designed to do it for them. Cramming a lot of people in a concentration camp like environment does it for them. All this talk about how shocking and new it is for the United States to have torture on its hands, is not shocking nor new. Money and torture are what empires are built on. And if you think its not an empire, try changing a law, and see how far your voice goes. Your voice has no say so whatsoever in the laws under which you live.
Closed AccountOct 30, 2007
TRUE PATRIOTS DON'T SUPPORT WAR ON LIES!It might have taken a little while to see through the corporate owned Nazi media cable fake news networks but 70% of America are true Patriots.Only a complete scumbag still listens to opinions from a whacked out drug addict on the radio, or a dildo using pervert and his screeching she-male cohort on FOX.Now, that is the height of stupidity!
artemusOct 31, 2007
Nice post, but shouldn't it be this:TRUE PATRIOTS DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR ON TRUTH!Just wondering...
Closed AccountOct 31, 2007
the f**king gun lovers are responsible for most of this, wars and torture. they poison the population with their venomous lies about how "guns bring freedom".guns don't bring freedom f**khole, people do. oh, you don't like the argument when it's used against you eh?
Closed AccountNov 1, 2007
You can bet "Masters of Deceit" is no longer required High School reading ether.
velvethammer2Nov 9, 2007
Article 5,"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. The problem with this, of course, is that "should any doubt arise" phrase. If you look at Article 4, which 5 refers to, and say THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY DO NOT MEET ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS, then where do you go from there? Others may argue, but the lawfully elected administration says they are not covered. Now, if the person is a POW, we can come down to Article 17: "Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status. So, what does "equivalent information" mean? To me it would be a complete description of the group the POW is associated with, including organization chart, all current member's names, descriptions and location. And what is willful? To me it is a simple refusal, for whatever reason, to supply name, rank, etc. Of course the next question that is always raised, is: They have rights under our law... Nonsense. They are not citizens. They are not visiting the US, either legally or illegally. What are they? Terrorists. Illegal combatants. Now, what has the historical fate been of them? A trial by military tribunal and execution, if convicted. But you know, I don't think the Left really wants this tied down, jam up and jelly tight. Because if it is, then the Left will lose one of its major positions. Heaven forbid for it to have to stare reality straight in the face.<a class="user" href="http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2005/01/06/914/78414/17?mode=alone;showrate=1#17">http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2005/01/06/914/78 ...</a>Enemy CombatantAn ?enemy combatant? is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): ?Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.??Enemy combatant? is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President?s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.<a class="user" href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html">http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatan ...</a>
morequestionsJul 1, 2008
I guess it all depends on one's respect for law and the Constitution. Bush has shown over and over that he respects nothing but money and power.Watch out for nasty surprises in the fall near election time. I don't trust him or his VP.Time to impeach: <a class="user" href="http://www.reelectnoone.com/impeach_cheney.php">http://www.reelectnoone.com/impeach_cheney.php</a>