Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 40883
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2005/12/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40883 Activity:high
12/6    Condi is the next Dick Cheney
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534543/posts
        "Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to
         govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate
         or condone torture under any circumstances."
        "The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport
         anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where
         appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred
         persons will not be tortured."
        \_ Translation: Torture is what we say it is; if we do it, then it
           isn't torture. What happens in Saudi Arabia, stays in Saudi Arabia.
           \_ What is torture depends oon what your definition of is is.
           \_ It all depends on what your definition of is is.
        \_ Actually this is interesting b/c it implies that the protections
           of convention 3 will be applied regardless of the person's art 4
           status. If this is the administrations official policy, it seems
           like a big change.
           \_ This how every other Geneva Convention signatory interprets it.
              Only the GWB Whitehouse claims this "enemy combatant" exemption.
              \_ Go read convention 3 and you will see that Art 4 status is
                 (1) not applicable to non-state actors and (2) only provided
                 until a competent tribunal makes a determination re Art 4
                 status if such status is in dispute. That other signatories
                 interpret it in a particular way is irrelevant b/c the admin.
                 is not obligated to follow an interpretation which is not
                 supported by the text. If the admininstration has chosen to
                 extend Art 4 protections I applaud it.
                 \_ I'm sorry, but many of these "terrorist" are state actors.
                    \_ Which state?  My understanding is that if found out of
                       uniform (no, bomb belts are not a uniform), they are
                       EC until said tribunal determines otherwise.  That is
                       the point of the tribunal, no?
                    \_ Go read Convention 3 and then tell me which part of
                       Art 4.1 applies to the terrorists. Here is a link to
                       the text:
            http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
                       \_ "armed forces"?  You mean like Army, Navy, Air
                          Force, and Marines?  (Yes, terms and words do have
                          specific meaning.)  Insurgents are not considered
                          specified meaning.)  Insurgents are not considered
                          part of the "armed forces of a Party", nor are they
                          volunteers or militias "forming part of such armed
                          forces".  Usually 4.2 is considered to apply to
                          Iraqi insurgents, especially since the Article 4.2
                          specifically mention "militias and members of other
                          volunteer corps, *including those of organized
                          resistance movements*" [emphasis added].  Problem
                          there is that Iraqi insurgents may not meet defitions
                          2 and 4 of an "organized resistance movement".
                          \_ I did not mean to imply that the insurgents
                             could be considered armed forces of a party
                             or milita (esp. since I do not think that
                             any state is directly opposed to the US).
                             I agree that only organized resistance or
                             possibly spontaneous resistance can apply
                             to the insurgents.
                             Assuming arguendo that only one of the four
                             requirments of 4.2 need to be met (in reality
                             all four are required), the insurgents can't
                             possibly qualify b/c (1) there is no identif-
                             iable chain of command, (2) they do not carry
                             insignia identifying themselves, (3) they do
                             not carry arms openly and (4) they do not
                             adhere to the customs/laws of war (ex. suicide
                             bombings are not customs of war).
                             The best bet is probably 4.6, but the problem
                             is that the insurgents don't adhere to the
                             customs/laws of war.
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2011/2/16-4/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:54041 Activity:nil
2/16    "Iraqi: I'm proud my WMD lies led to war in Iraq"
        http://www.csua.org/u/sl0 (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ Duh.  the best thing that could ever happen to a country is
           the US declaring war on it.  cf: japan, germany, and now iraq.
           the US winning a war with it.  cf: japan, germany, and now iraq.
	...
2010/2/22-3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53722 Activity:nil
2/20    Ok serious question, NOT political.  This is straight up procedural.
        Has it been declared that we didn't find WMD in iraq? (think so).
        So why did we go into iraq (what was the gain), and if nobody really
        knows, why is nobody looking for the reason?
        \_ Political stability, military strategy (Iran), and to prevent
           Saddam from financing terrorism.
	...
2008/11/19-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:52045 Activity:nil
11/18   why are we completely fucking retarded in Iraq?
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/68dlo3
        \_ This is how we get people killed.
        \_ We are completely fucking retarded all over.  It just doesn't
           usually get people killed so directly.
        \_ this is consistant.  We simply don't *CARE* about Iraqi's lives.
	...

	...
2008/9/23-29 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:51270 Activity:moderate
9/22    "Pakistanis say suspected US drone shot down"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_drone
        One fewer friend, one more foe.
        \_ Isn't this what Obama said he'd do?
           \_ No, but why let facts get in the way.
           \_ Obama or Osama? Are we really supposed to belive that Obama said
	...
2008/9/16-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:51196 Activity:kinda low
9/16    I'm confused on this one.  Obama's campaign denies that he pressed
        Iraqi's to delay security agreement by confirming it.  Huh?
        http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A
        \_ Isn't this what Nixon did?
           \_ I'm not sure of the history on that one. -op
           \_ Ah, I've heard this charge before.  As far as I know it's just
	...
2008/8/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50864 Activity:nil
8/13    Wow, how does the kool-aid taste?
        http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/11/sitroom.01.html
         "My point is that a President Obama will have a good, strong
        dialogue-oriented relationship with Russia, where these kinds of
        situations would not occur."
        \_ Red-flavor or blue-flavor?
	...
2008/7/26-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50698 Activity:nil
7/26    http://tinyurl.com/5r456r [AP]
        Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
        \_ So move the goalposts enough and eventually you can claim
           victory and bug the fuck out.  That's not winning.
           What exactly was won again?
           \_ Huh?  What goalposts are you talking about?
	...
2008/6/23-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50343 Activity:nil
6/23    The Iraqi security forces really had nothing better to do than spending
        all that time to set up this photo op:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/5db4nk (Yahoo! News Photos)
        \_ Unless they're cataloging all those weapons.  And of course, public
           relations has *nothing* to do with police/army work.
	...
Cache (3039 bytes)
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534543/posts
The United States does not permit, tolerate or co ndone torture under any circumstances," Secretary of State Condoleezza R ice told reporters at Andrews Air Force Base, Md, as she prepared to de part on a four-day European trip to Germany, Romania, Ukraine and Belgiu m Rice rebutted recent news reports alleging that the United States has tra nsported captive terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order t o exact confessions. "The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using tort ure," Rice said. She also said the United States doesn't use the airports or airspace of o ther countries to transport terrorist detainees to other places for the purpose of torture. "The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyo ne to a country when we believe he will be tortured," Rice said. "Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured." Rice said she supports the practice of rendition, or the transport of det ainees from the point of their capture to their home countries or to oth er locations where they can be questioned, held or brought to justice. "Renditions take terrorists out of action and save lives," Rice said. For decades, she said, the United States and other countries have used rend itions to move captive terrorists. "Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States or to the current administration," Ri ce said. Rice said rendition brought 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ra mzi Youssef to the United States, where he now serves a life sentence fo r his crimes. Rendition also brought the notorious terrorist Ilich Ramr ez Snchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal," to France for trial aft er his 1994 capture in Sudan, Rice recalled. Today, Ramrez Snchez spen ds his days in a French prison, she said. View Replies To: SandRat "Torture is a term that is defined by law. The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone to rture under any circumstances," One might deduce from this that, amidst the clamor for Congress to pass a law banning torture, the USA already has such a law. View Replies To: SandRat A large problem here is deciding what falls under the "torture" umbrella. Weak-kneeed types end up putting any and all rough treatment under this c ategory. Our guys on the front lines need to be able to deal roughly (very roughly at times) with some of these thugs in order to shorten our OODA loop. View Replies To: SandRat "Torture" is to one what "information gathering" is to another. I hope we continue to "gather information" from captives no matter what McCain sa ys. View Replies Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Cache (8192 bytes)
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention#Article_4
Wikisource:Historical documents Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishm ent of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, h eld in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949. edit Article 2 In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, t he present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Co ntracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupati on of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupa tion meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Conven tion in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies th e provisions thereof. edit Article 3 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provis ions: 1 Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members o f armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: + violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of th e Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal st atus of the Parties to the conflict. edit Article 4 1 Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. No special agreement shall adversely affect the situ ation of prisoners of war, as defined by the present Convention, nor res trict the rights which it confers upon them. Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express prov isions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent a greements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict. edit Article 7 Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be. edit Article 8 The present Convention shall be applied with the cooperation and under th e scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard the in terests of the Parties to the conflict. For this purpose, the Protecting Powers may appoint, apart from their diplomatic or consular staff, dele gates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of other neutral Powers. The said delegates shall be subject to the approval of the Powe r with which they are to carry out their duties. The Parties to the conflict shall facilitate to the greatest extent possi ble the task of the representatives or delegates of the Protecting Power s The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall not in an y case exceed their mission under the present Convention. They shall, in particular, take account of the imperative necessities of security of t he State wherein they carry out their duties. edit Article 9 The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the hu manitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the co nsent of the Parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protec tion of prisoners of war and for their relief. edit Article 10 The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organ ization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the dut ies incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Conventi on. When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for w hat reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organizatio n provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall r equest a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functi ons performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designa ted by the Parties to a conflict. If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall r equest or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the o ffer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the Interna tional Committee of the Red Cross to assume the humanitarian functions p erformed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention. Any neutral Power or any organization invited by the Power concerned or o ffering itself for these purposes, shall be required to act with a sense of responsibility towards the Party to the conflict on which persons pr otected by the present Convention depend, and shall be required to furni sh sufficient assurances that it is in a position to undertake the appro priate functions and to discharge them impartially. No derogation from the preceding provisions shall be made by special agre ements between Powers one of which is restricted, even temporarily, in i ts freedom to negotiate with the other Power or its allies by reason of military events, more particularly where the whole, or a substantial par t, of the territory of the said Power is occupied. Whenever in the present Convention mention is made of a Protecting Power, such mention applies to substitute organizations in the sense of the pr esent Article. edit Article 11 In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected person s, particularly in cases of disagreement between the Parties to the conf lict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of the pr esent Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices wi th a view to settling the disagreement. For this purpose, each of the Protecting Powers may, either at the invita tion of one Party or on its own initiative, propose to the Parties to th e conflict a meeting of their representatives, and in particular of the authorities responsible for prisoners of war, possibly on neutral territ ory suitably chosen. The Parties to the conflict shall be bound to give effect to the proposals made to them for this purpose. The Protecting Po wers may, if necessary, propose for approval by the Parties to the confl ict a person belonging to a neutral Power, or delegated by the Internati onal Committee of the Red Cross, who shall be invited to take part in su ch a meeting. edit Article 12 Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the indi viduals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the in dividual ...