This had nothing to do with Acorn, ese.
You forgot nazis and racist Nancy
This had nothing to do with Acorn, ese.
The meltdown continues apace.
What does any of this have to do with a rainbow flag, micca?
the denial continues
The denial of what?
If you won't tell us what you mean, we can't tell what you mean.
You don't really do conversation do you, micca? It's always a monologue with you.
Perhaps, just perhaps, you could try to put together coherent thoughts without spewing forth your usual volcanic ad hominems?
Someone needs to invent a micca mad-lib.
You don't ______(verb) because you _____ (insult) ______ (non-sequitur) _______ (insult)... etc etc
You and whinehole have finally reverted to the level of clambake and shasta.doesn't take you long.,
Where does that place you? A few levels below them, I'm guessing?
Rarely have I reverted to insult-flinging to make my point on here, and the same goes for WH23. Tell me, does the same hold true of you?
YOU LIE
Feel free to find the examples.
What does the Geneva Convention have to do with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Those rules don't apply.
Is it your idea that terrorist suspects shouldn't be treated with some measure of humanity/dignity?
Oh, also, even unlawful combatants are covered under the 4th Geneva Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
Here it states the same, regarding spies and saboteurs (otherwise known as unlawful combatants)The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."[3]
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be en led to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite su ion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
But is she an expert to say what is and isn't torture?
I haven't take enough time on this. It's another story that I, and the rest of you, can only offer improperly informed opinion.
I don't think she's qualified to define torture, and there is already a strong bias both ways. It is possible that some overstepped legal bounds, but only one specific source for one case.
I will not believe someone who could be a liberal pundit, until I see the video.
Anyone else unbiased enough to want to see the video before forming an opinion one way or the other? Please don't tell me you're going to trust hearsay.
Combatants should be treated in a manner they understand. That said, harsh conditions are fitting for a group that understand that as a way of life. We cannot treat people who live under a different culture to cooperate if we treat them as if they were civilized. They are animals and need not be treated any better. However, I'm not one to beat an animal, neither are most people.
LnGrrrR...
Which member state are the terrorists fighting for as recognized soldiers?
The Geneva Convention does not apply.
I'm assuming she knows the legal definition, yes.
Saboteurs and spies are considered unlawful combatants, which is the same category terrorists are assumed under.
Torture is legally defined. She just had to see if said activity fit the legal definition.
Only a limited amount of people will probably have access to the video.
As far as trusting 'hearsay', it's only hearsay when it's coming from an unrecognized source. They don't consider it 'hearsay' when a doctor testifies about a medical procedure in a court of law, do they?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)