they don`t have uniform factories?.....i don`t mean to pick on you,hh,but,c`mon....
this is a tactic...not a wardrobe malfunction...
little missy...:nono:.......
so tell me is it torture to listen..
- Thread starter AR182
- Start date
they don`t have uniform factories?.....i don`t mean to pick on you,hh,but,c`mon....
this is a tactic...not a wardrobe malfunction...
little missy...:nono:.......
Sorry Matt Just seeing your question. I am not familiar with incident you are talking about--so can't relate but it sounds intereting if you could elaborate more on it.
My 1st thoughts when reading was why would Taliban assemble so many together in wide open area?
My 1st thoughts when reading was why would Taliban assemble so many together in wide open area?
From the right wing NY Post. I also saw the print edition of the Post a few days ago and they had a picture of the formation that was taken from the drone.
They were gathered for a funeral in the middle of the desert and didn't expect our undetectable unmanned drone to be there, to answer your question.
I'm surprised that you guys who come up with every tiny nugget of news in order to bolster some opinion somehow missed this one.
September 13, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral - and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone - dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries, according to a shocking report.
U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial, NBC News reported.
The unmanned airplane, circling undetected high overhead, fed a continuous satellite feed of the juicy target to officers on the ground.
"We were so excited. I came rushing in with the picture," one U.S. Army officer told NBC.
But that excitement quickly turned to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery, according to the report.
Pentagon officials declined comment and referred The Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan, who did not respond to a request for comment or explanation.
Agonizingly, Army officers could do nothing but watch the pictures being fed back from the drone as the Taliban splintered into tiny groups - too small to effectively target with the drone - and headed back to their mountainside hideouts.
Military experts told The Post that rules of engagement are constantly adjusted on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, depending on the severity of the threat posed by the enemy.
In Iraq, gun battles have raged inside cemeteries in Fallujah, and once-off-limits mosques are now subject to U.S. searches.
The lost opportunity in Afghanistan came amid a spike in Taliban activity in Afghanistan - a craggy country roughly the size of Texas that poses problems for U.S. troops hunting fighters in remote mountain areas.
Taliban militants have launched their deadliest attacks since the terrorist regime was toppled by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 for providing a sanctuary for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda camps.
U.S. troops and NATO allies recently reclaimed territory in southern Afghanistan from Taliban fighters following a bloody 11-day operation.
NATO leaders announced yesterday the hard fighting killed at least 510 Taliban insurgents.
And American and Afghan forces stormed a fortified compound in the Wardak province to arrest a dozen Taliban leaders who were planning a new wave of attacks.
"Five years ago, the Afghan national army was zero," Maj. Gen. Robert Durbin, who heads the training of Afghan soldiers and police, told CNN.
"We now have sufficient forces - that's why there is some tough fighting down in Kandahar."
With Post Wire Services
niles.lathem@nypost.com
U.S. held off on cemetery bombing
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of almost 200 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense Department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News said U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture ? taken in July ? was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of [the] cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," the statement said. "A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of almost 200 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense Department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News said U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture ? taken in July ? was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of [the] cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," the statement said. "A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
Here's one from military.com
US Considered Bombing Taliban Funeral
Associated Press | September 14, 2006
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," the statement said. "A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying "we were so excited" that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.
Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.
Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.
US Considered Bombing Taliban Funeral
Associated Press | September 14, 2006
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
"During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day," the statement said. "A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time."
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying "we were so excited" that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.
Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.
Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.
Thanks Matt I can understand them not hitting them while in cemetary--but certainly do not understand why they didn't after as they left.
The--
"While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
--is BS--don't know what reason was but would wager tidy sum that was not reason-wouldn't you
Would be interesting really knowing why--there's a lot goes on we don't know--could have been imbedded agent with them-could have wanted to track them back to camp--could be lots of things except reason they gave.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hippo Enjoyed reading your piece and certainly believe you are sincere--if I was little rough I apologize-I think you would make a superb humantarian but some times the best intentions are counter productive in war.
The--
"While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
--is BS--don't know what reason was but would wager tidy sum that was not reason-wouldn't you
Would be interesting really knowing why--there's a lot goes on we don't know--could have been imbedded agent with them-could have wanted to track them back to camp--could be lots of things except reason they gave.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hippo Enjoyed reading your piece and certainly believe you are sincere--if I was little rough I apologize-I think you would make a superb humantarian but some times the best intentions are counter productive in war.
Thanks Matt I can understand them not hitting them while in cemetary--but certainly do not understand why they didn't after as they left.
The--
"While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."
--is BS--don't know what reason was but would wager tidy sum that was not reason-wouldn't you
Would be interesting really knowing why--there's a lot goes on we don't know--could have been imbedded agent with them-could have wanted to track them back to camp--could be lots of things except reason they gave.
lol- man, you certainly have a bundle of excuses for this one, yet continue on with the 'Clinton had Bin Laden's head on a platter 23 times and refused.'
I'm not sure why you understand why we wouldn't strike because they were in a cemetary.
I don't understand that at all.
And if you read the accounts, they clearly describe that the terrorists broke up in small groups and went in different directions.
Not making excuses Matt but looking at possiblities.
There have been reported 420 Taliban killed in past week alone and thousands since war so being a logical sort I'd think there might be reason we don't know to pass on this instance.
---and on Clinton--I still waiting for list of "any" terrorists captured or killed under his watch--it certainly wouldn't take much bandwidth
There have been reported 420 Taliban killed in past week alone and thousands since war so being a logical sort I'd think there might be reason we don't know to pass on this instance.
---and on Clinton--I still waiting for list of "any" terrorists captured or killed under his watch--it certainly wouldn't take much bandwidth
The Need for National Security Commissions
Friday, September 15, 2006
By Brian Darling
A declaration of war is just that, whether or not the recipient wants to fight.
Back in 1998, Usama bin Laden declared war on us.
?I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America,? he told Time magazine that December. Three years later, al Qaeda launched a massive strike, with hijacked commercial aircraft serving as weapons of mass destruction.
On 9/11, we finally stopped treating bin Laden and his gang as criminals and answered their declaration of war with a war of our own -- a worldwide war that?s still going on today. But there are frightening signs that we may be losing our resolve. For example, some members of the Congress want to go back to treating al Qaeda as simply a matter for law enforcement.
The stakes will be high this month as Congress debates whether or not to use military tribunals (now commonly referred to as military commissions) to deal with individuals captured in the global war on terror.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers are supporting an amendment that would force these military commissions to disclose classified information to al Qaeda. If Congress approves the amendment, we?ll be harming our war effort by giving our enemies classified information. Our enemies would then know the sources and methods the United States uses to acquire information about terrorists.
That?s not the way to win a global war against terrorists who?ve vowed to use our own rights and freedoms against us. We should be less concerned about the civil rights of enemy combatants than we are about protecting our own national security.
It appears, though, that some members of Congress have confused law enforcement with war.
Law enforcement is a process that stresses the right of the accused. American citizens have constitutionally protected civil rights when the government arrests and incarcerates them. For example, when an American is arrested for attempting to take a life, the detainee is read Miranda warnings and may immediately consult an attorney. If there?s a trial, the accused has the right to confront witnesses and see all the evidence in the prosecution?s case.
War is different.
We are fighting a war against people that planned and applauded the execution of almost 3,000 people on Sept. 11. We need to be tough.
Today, when enemy combatants are wounded and captured on the battlefield, they are put in a secure area so that they will not be able to harm their American captors. These captured combatants are not read Miranda rights when they are ?arrested,? nor are they provided a lawyer to be present during interrogation. These dangerous people are put behind bars until the war is over, so they won?t be able to get back on the battlefield to attempt to kill more American soldiers.
All that proves it?s absurd to think that there are senators and representatives who want to extend hard fought American civil rights to foreign enemy combatants.
The House of Representatives will debate and may pass legislation before the fall recess that mirrors President Bush?s plan for military commissions. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter has put together a bill to create military commissions that allow the exclusion of evidence (to protect classified information), remove Miranda-type rights before a terrorist can be interrogated and allow hearsay evidence when a witness is unavailable.
The House bill would preserve national security while giving the captured combatant a right to a hearing. It would ensure the essential elements of a fair procedure while recognizing the nature of our terrorist enemy and the difficulties of trying a combatant when much of the evidence is left on the battlefield. In short, the bill would help protect our national security.
The Senate appears to be going in the wrong direction on the issue.
It will consider legislation that treats these commissions as the moral equivalent of a trial of an American citizen. Some Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are attempting to extend American-style rights to terrorists, rights that would severely compromise national security.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., told McClatchy Newspapers he?s ?confident the Senate will reject President Bush?s plan to try accused terrorists without letting them see classified evidence against them.? Graham?s leading the charge to make these tribunals mirror the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a mistake.
Our military?s men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for American freedom. They are not fighting so the people they capture on the battlefield can get a ?fair? trial. They are fighting to win a war against people that want to terminate our nation and our way of life. American lawmakers should ensure those hard-fought battlefield victories aren?t given away needlessly in the courtroom.
Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate relations at The Heritage Foundation, a leading Washington-based public policy institution.
Friday, September 15, 2006
By Brian Darling
A declaration of war is just that, whether or not the recipient wants to fight.
Back in 1998, Usama bin Laden declared war on us.
?I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America,? he told Time magazine that December. Three years later, al Qaeda launched a massive strike, with hijacked commercial aircraft serving as weapons of mass destruction.
On 9/11, we finally stopped treating bin Laden and his gang as criminals and answered their declaration of war with a war of our own -- a worldwide war that?s still going on today. But there are frightening signs that we may be losing our resolve. For example, some members of the Congress want to go back to treating al Qaeda as simply a matter for law enforcement.
The stakes will be high this month as Congress debates whether or not to use military tribunals (now commonly referred to as military commissions) to deal with individuals captured in the global war on terror.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers are supporting an amendment that would force these military commissions to disclose classified information to al Qaeda. If Congress approves the amendment, we?ll be harming our war effort by giving our enemies classified information. Our enemies would then know the sources and methods the United States uses to acquire information about terrorists.
That?s not the way to win a global war against terrorists who?ve vowed to use our own rights and freedoms against us. We should be less concerned about the civil rights of enemy combatants than we are about protecting our own national security.
It appears, though, that some members of Congress have confused law enforcement with war.
Law enforcement is a process that stresses the right of the accused. American citizens have constitutionally protected civil rights when the government arrests and incarcerates them. For example, when an American is arrested for attempting to take a life, the detainee is read Miranda warnings and may immediately consult an attorney. If there?s a trial, the accused has the right to confront witnesses and see all the evidence in the prosecution?s case.
War is different.
We are fighting a war against people that planned and applauded the execution of almost 3,000 people on Sept. 11. We need to be tough.
Today, when enemy combatants are wounded and captured on the battlefield, they are put in a secure area so that they will not be able to harm their American captors. These captured combatants are not read Miranda rights when they are ?arrested,? nor are they provided a lawyer to be present during interrogation. These dangerous people are put behind bars until the war is over, so they won?t be able to get back on the battlefield to attempt to kill more American soldiers.
All that proves it?s absurd to think that there are senators and representatives who want to extend hard fought American civil rights to foreign enemy combatants.
The House of Representatives will debate and may pass legislation before the fall recess that mirrors President Bush?s plan for military commissions. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter has put together a bill to create military commissions that allow the exclusion of evidence (to protect classified information), remove Miranda-type rights before a terrorist can be interrogated and allow hearsay evidence when a witness is unavailable.
The House bill would preserve national security while giving the captured combatant a right to a hearing. It would ensure the essential elements of a fair procedure while recognizing the nature of our terrorist enemy and the difficulties of trying a combatant when much of the evidence is left on the battlefield. In short, the bill would help protect our national security.
The Senate appears to be going in the wrong direction on the issue.
It will consider legislation that treats these commissions as the moral equivalent of a trial of an American citizen. Some Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are attempting to extend American-style rights to terrorists, rights that would severely compromise national security.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., told McClatchy Newspapers he?s ?confident the Senate will reject President Bush?s plan to try accused terrorists without letting them see classified evidence against them.? Graham?s leading the charge to make these tribunals mirror the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a mistake.
Our military?s men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for American freedom. They are not fighting so the people they capture on the battlefield can get a ?fair? trial. They are fighting to win a war against people that want to terminate our nation and our way of life. American lawmakers should ensure those hard-fought battlefield victories aren?t given away needlessly in the courtroom.
Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate relations at The Heritage Foundation, a leading Washington-based public policy institution.
That first attempt at WTC was what 60/70 days after Clinton was in office. A bunch of nuts mad at Bush for the golf war. Believe Clinton's guys arrested them and put some in prison. I guess you could call that capture. Then OK City happened and made folks look past just Arabs as problem. We have our share of home grown rednecks.
Went quiet for a while. Then all of a sudden war is more or less declared By BIN. Is that how it went? I remember the first thing that peed him off was our troops in Saudi around 90/91. To bad we put them there.
Went quiet for a while. Then all of a sudden war is more or less declared By BIN. Is that how it went? I remember the first thing that peed him off was our troops in Saudi around 90/91. To bad we put them there.
Ok, for the conservatives here, a question. What is wrong with having to show just cause for holding a prisoner at a place called Guantanamo, or elsewhere? Why is this administration always looking for cover and trying to avoid having justification and and oversight for their chosen activities? If what they are doing is so just, and so right, and does such a good job of protecting the citizens of this country, then why do they have to hide under a desired veil of secrecy?
We are a democracy (for the most part, except for some who don't want to follow agreed upon rules) and for one small group of people to be able to operate in secrecy, above our outside the law, is not American. Period.
I prefer to be the judge of what is right and good for ME. I don't want one secret group telling me that they are helping me. SHOW me how you are helping me. Show all of us. I would think that most rational people would want to have that right. And I say again, for the umpteenth time, that if it were being done in the Clinton age, there would be conservative outrage. And if it happens in the future Clinton or democratically inclined age, there will be outrage, although it will have to be spun properly to deflect attention from who made things that way.
Honestly, although I lean liberal, I have a strong sense of the "eye for an eye" mentality. I support the death penalty. I would support trying terrorists and putting them to death if proven to have done horrific things. I support killing them if they are actually trying to kill us. So I am not the traditional "bleeding heart" liberal, I guess. But our country is different, thank God. We should at least attempt to follow our reasonable forms of behavior, sense of justice, and not blindly compromise our way of life to serve one small group of individuals who want to operate without ever having to explain or justify their actions.
In that vein, this administration is clearly Un-American. And in my opinion, it is a slap in the face of many who died to preserve what this country stands for. I think McCain has a different perspective on this subject since he actually experienced torture and knows what that means. I respect him greatly for that, and for standing up for future generations of Americans who might need the Geneva Convention statutes to be in effect in situations non-terrorist related. All you gotta do is prove why you hold these people, and show what they did wrong, and I'll give you the rope to hang the sonsabeeches. But this administration deserves no trust nor rope at this point.
We are a democracy (for the most part, except for some who don't want to follow agreed upon rules) and for one small group of people to be able to operate in secrecy, above our outside the law, is not American. Period.
I prefer to be the judge of what is right and good for ME. I don't want one secret group telling me that they are helping me. SHOW me how you are helping me. Show all of us. I would think that most rational people would want to have that right. And I say again, for the umpteenth time, that if it were being done in the Clinton age, there would be conservative outrage. And if it happens in the future Clinton or democratically inclined age, there will be outrage, although it will have to be spun properly to deflect attention from who made things that way.
Honestly, although I lean liberal, I have a strong sense of the "eye for an eye" mentality. I support the death penalty. I would support trying terrorists and putting them to death if proven to have done horrific things. I support killing them if they are actually trying to kill us. So I am not the traditional "bleeding heart" liberal, I guess. But our country is different, thank God. We should at least attempt to follow our reasonable forms of behavior, sense of justice, and not blindly compromise our way of life to serve one small group of individuals who want to operate without ever having to explain or justify their actions.
In that vein, this administration is clearly Un-American. And in my opinion, it is a slap in the face of many who died to preserve what this country stands for. I think McCain has a different perspective on this subject since he actually experienced torture and knows what that means. I respect him greatly for that, and for standing up for future generations of Americans who might need the Geneva Convention statutes to be in effect in situations non-terrorist related. All you gotta do is prove why you hold these people, and show what they did wrong, and I'll give you the rope to hang the sonsabeeches. But this administration deserves no trust nor rope at this point.
The legal definition of torture is "actions by one signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention in contravenance of the articles of the 4th Geneva Convention against the citizens of the self-same or another signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention."
It's an extremely easy concept to grasp. The Taliban and Al-Qa'eda, as well as various non-aligned or irregular forces are therefore not granted a right to be free from torture as none of those NGO's are signatories to the 4th Geneva Convention.
The U.S. has a perfect right to torture the hell out of captured terrorists, end of story.
--
Oh and by the way "cause" is American legal term used to show that a party to a lawsuit is enjoined from actually being a party to the lawsuit and henceforth removed.
It's an extremely easy concept to grasp. The Taliban and Al-Qa'eda, as well as various non-aligned or irregular forces are therefore not granted a right to be free from torture as none of those NGO's are signatories to the 4th Geneva Convention.
The U.S. has a perfect right to torture the hell out of captured terrorists, end of story.
--
Oh and by the way "cause" is American legal term used to show that a party to a lawsuit is enjoined from actually being a party to the lawsuit and henceforth removed.
Last edited:
That is the Geneva Convention definition of torture. The definition of torture is:
?noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
?verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture.
Are terrorists covered by the Geneva Convention? No. Are you covered by the Geneva Convention? No. Does that mean the government can pick you up, call you a terrorist and "torture the hell" out of you? I guess you would say sure.
What keeps getting lost in this non-sense is that torture is an ineffective means of gathering information, morality aside. I will reiterate Hippo's post from yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html
"By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was 'not nice,' he says. 'But we did not physically abuse them.' Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the 'desperate and honorable officers' who wanted him to move faster -- 'if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything,' which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know 'any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.'
But you guys will keep beating the Geneva Convention drum and ignore the efficacy of torture let alone the moral issue. If it were effective, then the end may justify the means. But the morality is not even in question given that EVERY CREDIBLE EXPERT in the field states that it is not an effective means of extracting reliable information, end of story.
?noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
?verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture.
Are terrorists covered by the Geneva Convention? No. Are you covered by the Geneva Convention? No. Does that mean the government can pick you up, call you a terrorist and "torture the hell" out of you? I guess you would say sure.
What keeps getting lost in this non-sense is that torture is an ineffective means of gathering information, morality aside. I will reiterate Hippo's post from yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html
"By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was 'not nice,' he says. 'But we did not physically abuse them.' Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the 'desperate and honorable officers' who wanted him to move faster -- 'if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything,' which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know 'any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.'
But you guys will keep beating the Geneva Convention drum and ignore the efficacy of torture let alone the moral issue. If it were effective, then the end may justify the means. But the morality is not even in question given that EVERY CREDIBLE EXPERT in the field states that it is not an effective means of extracting reliable information, end of story.
