Cheney endorses simulated drowning

seagoat2

Despicable & Inexcusable!!!

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

so that's a "no" then. duly noted.

putting words in someones mouth works out well for you doesnt it.

Abookamongstthemany

chiefojibwa wrote:

no worries, i thought you were calling me a nazi there for a second!

lol! Nope but this place sure has the tendency to get us on edge, sometimes, so it's understandable.

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

i learned it by watching you.

I bet you have learned alot from me. keeping watching, you will learn more.

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

I bet you have learned alot from me. keeping watching, you will learn more.

I'm at the edge of my seat!

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

me too.

and i think i just millered myself from laughing!

its gonna be a wild ride

Ahnimus

A terror suspect is any dark-skinned muslim that tries to board a plane.

Or your grandpa protesting the war.

I mean, Maher Arar was flying home to Montreal with a stop-over in New York where he was detained by U.S. Officials. He was deported from the U.S. to Syria where he was tortured for about a year. Then he was sent back to his comfy home in Canada.

It's fucking sick.

Puck78

jlew24asu wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

everybody can write on wikipedia, also people without legal knowledges or with biased opinions. For real legal definition of "enemy combatant", look at here:
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/qna1006/

Definition of Unlawful Enemy Combatant

7. What is the definition of “combatant” under international law?

International humanitarian law (the laws of war) draws a distinction between “combatants,” defined as members of armed forces, and civilians. Civilians who are actively participating in hostilities can be treated as combatants. Deeming someone to be a combatant has important consequences: under international humanitarian law, combatants may be lawfully attacked and killed, and are subject to capture.

8. What is the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” under the MCA and how does it comport with international law?

The MCA expands the definition of “combatant” to include those who have “purposefully and materially” supported hostilities against the United States, even if they have not taken part in the hostilities themselves, and even if they are arrested far from the battlefield. This turns ordinary civilians – such as a mother giving food to her combatant son, an individual who sends money to a banned group, or a U.S. resident who commits a criminal act unrelated to armed conflict – into “combatants” who can be placed in military custody and hauled before a military commission.

An additional – and circular – provision specifies that anyone who has been determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (the military boards convened to allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to contest their status as combatants, called CSRTs) or “another competent tribunal” established by the president or the defense secretary is presumed to be an enemy combatant for the purposes of military commissions. This provision does not include any substantive criteria to guide the deliberations of such tribunals. And, notably, the definition of enemy combatant that has been used by the CSRTs at Guantanamo is even broader than the definition contained in the legislation, encompassing even the unknowing financier of a charitable arm of a terrorist organization. In at least one known case, a CSRT labeled a detainee an enemy combatant for precisely that reason.1

These definitions have essentially been invented by the administration and Congress. They have no basis in international law and undermine one of the most fundamental pillars of the Geneva Conventions – the distinction between combatants, who engage in hostilities and are subject to attack, and non-combatants.

9. Does the legislation authorize the indefinite detention of anyone who falls within its definition of “unlawful enemy combatant”?

The MCA does not explicitly address the question of detention. Yet in detaining persons as enemy combatants, the administration may point to the definition of unlawful enemy combatant under the MCA to try to justify who may be so detained.

Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsay Graham – three of the primary authors of this legislation – have argued that this definition “simply establishes the jurisdiction of military commissions” and does not, in any way, authorize the arrest and indefinite detention of those who fall within this broad category.2 The legislation itself specifies that the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” applies to the section of the U.S. code establishing military commissions.

---

1 Combatant Status Review Tribunal Transcript of Detainee ISN #229, U.S. Department of Defense, Set 4, Page 390, Released March 3, 2006, http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/.

2 John Warner, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, “Looking Past the Tortured Distortions”, Wall Street Journal¸ October 2, 2006.

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

A terror suspect is any dark-skinned muslim that tries to board a plane.

Holy exaggeration, Batman.

Tarrou

jlew24asu wrote:

while I would do far worse to these terrorists fucks, I do not think the goervnment should be doing this.

the flip side to water boarding, is it does not do any permant physical damage. it make you think you will drown. its a mind fuck. we arent cutting off fingers.

I do think it puts our captured soliders at risk of far worse toture. even though they would be and are totured anyway, we shouldnt stoop to that level.

when it comes to getting information on an immintant dirty bomb going off, then I think the people holding him should break the law and do whatever necessecary to get that info.

You wouldn't do a damn thing tough guy. You'd be in the corner crying for your mommy; So shut your fucking mouth.

rebornFixer

Tarrou wrote:

You wouldn't do a damn thing tough guy. You'd be in the corner crying for your mommy; So shut your fucking mouth.

Why don't you guys get off jlew's back? I'm tired of watching all the personal stuff on here ... Everyone is being pissy and this place is going to get locked down again.

RavennaSeattle1911

some should turn off 24 with keifer sutherland and go read "my pet goat"

jeffbr

Tarrou wrote:

You wouldn't do a damn thing tough guy. You'd be in the corner crying for your mommy; So shut your fucking mouth.

Do you try to get banned? Didn't you go through this before with your first couple of posts?

Rushlimbo

jeffbr wrote:

Do you try to get banned? Didn't you go through this before with your first couple of posts?

Mind your own business. If he wants to be banned then more power to him. Stop trying to be his mommy. Jeez.

jeffbr

Rushlimbo wrote:

Mind your own business. If he wants to be banned then more power to him. Stop trying to be his mommy. Jeez.

Take your own advice, kid.

denverfan

Have any of you actually seen this in action?...it's far less the crisis situation your making it out to be. I thought at first this sounded terrible, then had someone demonstrate exaclty what it was...not a big deal at all. I do the same thing to myself when I try getting rid of the hiccups

hairpants

jlew24asu wrote:

the flip side to water boarding, is it does not do any permant physical damage. it make you think you will drown. its a mind fuck. we arent cutting off fingers.

It's a dunk tank, that's all. They sit the suspected terrorist on a little plank of wood over a big tub of water, and try to throw softballs at the target, and everyone has a great time. Hot dogs are grilled and then force fed to the detainees.

The fruit of their labor rewards them with the admissons of 30 of the detainees describing in detail how they participated in the assassination of JFK.

Hope&Anger

denverfan wrote:

Have any of you actually seen this in action?...it's far less the crisis situation your making it out to be. I thought at first this sounded terrible, then had someone demonstrate exaclty what it was...not a big deal at all. I do the same thing to myself when I try getting rid of the hiccups

Wow! You must have some awesome hiccups.

I saw it last night on Olbermann. Some intelligence officer hired people to demonstrate on him. He had his hands shackled in front of him. They had him bent over backwards over a trough. His head was covered with some sort of tight-fitting shroud, with only his mouth exposed. One guy held his head down and just kept pouring water down his mouth and around his chin. Another guy holding him down was also pouring water all over this body. Between the two guys, he couldn't move at all.

I could hardly watch it.

When I get hiccups, I take tiny sips from a glass of water. But you must have some really macho hiccups if you have to do this.

El_Kabong

reborncareerist wrote:

Holy exaggeration, Batman.

is that so? seems like some ppl can't wait to jump the gun and automatically assume

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=219048

denverfan

Hope&Anger wrote:

Wow! You must have some awesome hiccups.

I saw it last night on Olbermann. Some intelligence officer hired people to demonstrate on him. He had his hands shackled in front of him. They had him bent over backwards over a trough. His head was covered with some sort of tight-fitting shroud, with only his mouth exposed. One guy held his head down and just kept pouring water down his mouth and around his chin. Another guy holding him down was also pouring water all over this body. Between the two guys, he couldn't move at all.

I could hardly watch it.

When I get hiccups, I take tiny sips from a glass of water. But you must have some really macho hiccups if you have to do this.

and you think this is some terrible torture???