Waterboarding

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Should waterboarding be legal?


    • Total voters
      0
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    122
    16
    Northside Indpls
    Exactly what everyone forgets. If you are not a citizen or lawful resident of this country then OUR constitution does not apply to you.

    And everybody in GITMO is classified as unlawful combatants per the Geneva Convention. And as such they are NOT POW's. They are actually being treated better than we have ever treated someone of this category of combatants. :twocents:

    In 2006 the supreme court ruled that all detainees be treated with the minimal protection of the Gen. Convention called common article #3. Here it is in short:Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are out of the fight due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    I hate to revisit the torture issue since it's such a can of snakes, but here goes...

    humiliating and degrading treatment


    This would include being captured by the enemy since that would be humiliating and degrading.

    I guess it would be more humane to just put one in the back of their heads then since these detainees are being released and 37% of them have "reported back to duty". :rolleyes:
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    In 2006 the supreme court ruled that all detainees be treated with the minimal protection of the Gen. Convention called common article #3. Here it is in short:Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are out of the fight due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

    Several points:
    - For POW's imprisonment "for the duration" is not a "sentence."
    - It is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions not to try POW's criminally for actions taken as part of their military duties. In fact, it's a war crime to do so. POW's are not criminals and it's actually a war crime to treat them as criminals. Unlawful combatants are a different matter as the Geneva conventions explicitly only apply to lawful combatants.
    - Military courts are "regularly constituted courts", defined that way by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is law passed by Congress and signed by the President (whichever Congress and President last amended the UCMJ).
    - Considering how they're actually being treated, in comparison with how prisoners, including POW's, are treated in the rest of the world, "indispensable by civilized peoples" is a bar we're clearing with room to spare.
    - "Humiliating and degrading treatment." Yes, I am aware of Abu Ghraib. I'm also aware that those responsible were under investigation before the media "broke" the story and that those accused had their day in court--exactly like they are supposed to (do you not think we should give our own people the same benefit of trial that everyone wants to claim for the unlawful combatants?), and those found guilty were punished. IOW, the system worked exactly as it is supposed to.

    The "torture" word gets thrown around a lot. Frankly, I think anyone who classes waterboarding (the big bugaboo of the media) as "torture" needs a session with a set of thumbscrews or a rack (and then maybe we could get creative) just so they can understand the difference. Oh, and just in case there's any question: the above statements in this paragraph are hyperbole and should not be taken as a call to actually have journalists and tranzi's tortured.

    Once again, the media has been lying to you.
     

    jsgolfman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 20, 2008
    1,999
    38
    Greenwood
    the above statements in this paragraph are hyperbole and should not be taken as a call to actually have journalists...tortured

    Aw, c'mon, just a few?:D
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    10,071
    149
    Indiana
    Any form of torture is wrong. And it is only wrong in my eyes for two reasons.One I am an American,and as such believe every human has certain rights.Rights I hope this county promotes not takes away.The second is more or less obvious depending on how you see faith and God.I do not belive even for a second he would approve,no matter the reason.

    Lets look a little deeper. With the patriot act anyone who disagrees with our government can be held an unlimited time,with no rights,in secrecy,with out representation,with out any explanation...the only thing they have to say is that you are "the enemy" or a "terrorist". They can use the patriot act for nearly anything "When Homeland Security agents arrived at the Pufferbelly Toys store, the lead agent asked owner Stephanie Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time. Invoking the Patriot Act, he told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complies" *source Patriot Act Use Against US Citizens Extended

    also..
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
    Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]

    • [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
      [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. [/FONT]
      [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.[/FONT]
      [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. [/FONT]
      [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

      [/FONT]
      [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
      [/FONT]
      [/FONT]
    *source American Civil Liberties Union : Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act

    So those of you who do not care about the constitution and think water boarding is ok,be warned at any time it could be you.

    Wow...for this post I get my first negative rep ever...Thanks CarmelHP for the negative rep.
     
    Last edited:
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    122
    16
    Northside Indpls
    Once again, the media has been lying to you.

    my guy, I don't listen to the media. Whatever your little brain wants to interpret and understand is understandable. Apparently in your house Fox News is the only reputable station, I truly feel sorry for you. For you are living proof that a multi billion dollar media propaganda industry works.:nono:
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    my guy, I don't listen to the media. Whatever your little brain wants to interpret and understand is understandable. Apparently in your house Fox News is the only reputable station, I truly feel sorry for you. For you are living proof that a multi billion dollar media propaganda industry works.:nono:

    You don't listen to the media? Yet, strangely enough, you parrot their talking points with such exquisite precision. What an amazing coincidence.

    As for Fox news: none of them are particularly useful. I learned about what the Geneva conventions say by reading the Geneva Conventions. I learned about conditions in Iraq by talking to folk who were actually there. I learned about military courts by actually serving in the military and studying the UCMJ.

    I learned about war crimes not from CNN or Fox News, but from actual lawyers specializing in the field who actually teach the subject.

    You're going to have to do better than just saying "Fox News" along with a aspersions on the intelligence of folk who disagree with you. Perhaps on the Democratic Underground or Daily Kos that level of discourse will fly, but not here.
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    You don't listen to the media? Yet, strangely enough, you parrot their talking points with such exquisite precision. What an amazing coincidence.

    Huh? You're right, whatever makes you sleep at night.:rolleyes:
    Well, I suppose it's possible you don't get your "talking points" from the media per se--just from the far left propaganda machine that the media parrots with such enthusiasm. Instead of listening to the media you could just be reading from the same script.

    Here's a challenge for you: I will bet a rep that you cannot tell me under what circumstances "reprisals" that are ordinarily war crimes under the Hague and Geneva conventions are actually legal under those same conventions. (Here's a hint, the answer is not "never.")

    Here's another: Do you actually know what is required for a combatant, captured by another party in a conflict, is actually protected by the Geneva Conventions, what characteristics the belligerents must have and what characteristics the captured combatant must have. (Here's another hint, the answer is not "they are always protected.")

    And if you can't answer something as basic as that, can you really be so sure that what you "know" about the issues is actually correct.
     
    Last edited:

    spirit390

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 2, 2009
    295
    18
    I may have missed this mentioned in other posts or threads but on Super Bowl sunday barry ok'ed rendition. The media makes it out like ole evil George W and Chenney came up with this practice but it goes further back than their watch. So just giving the jobs away that Americans don't want to do to foreign contries that don't honor the geneve convention. Oh well thats change someone can believe in just not me.
     
    Top Bottom