Bush: CIA operates secret prisons

Bot · #1

Bush: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons

Well, this is certainly interesting, but definitely not all that surprising... lol

http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/resul ... clude.html

#2

Oh my god, the Dems are going to have a fucking cow, how dare Bush protect this country from a bunch of ragheads. Off with his head.lol

Did Harry Reid trip over himself trying to get to the media?

#3

LMAO @ Buff...

Alternate Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

#4

Did anyone listen to Bush's speach yesterday about all of this? He talked about the CIA prisons and Gitmo and how the Supreme Court is messing up the War on Terror. I couldn't find a script or a clip of it at all but he made it yesterday

#5

The Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program.

In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as "Common Article Three" applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

[... ]some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act - simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.

from bbc news.

Bot · #6

QUOTE(Buffmaster)Oh my god, the Dems are going to have a fucking cow, how dare Bush protect this country from a bunch of ragheads. Off with his head.lol

Did Harry Reid trip over himself trying to get to the media?

LMFAO... oh, Buff, you're killing me, man...

I see no problem with this. As the Bush admin has already stated. These are not POWs, therefore the U.S. military can beat them with the Geneva Conventions book for all I care... lol

#7

not POW's?!

POW stands for "Prisoner Of War" or am I wrong here?

Prisoner: A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint. (American Heritage Dictionary)

^^ sounds like a fitting description

War: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

^^ sounds like a fitting description as well

not POW's?! I am confused.

#8

wrong Brains...

a POW is only a POW if they are still imprisoned AFTER the conflict has ended.

Let me reiterate:

a enemy captured in war is not a Prisoner of War unless you keep them even after the war is over.

THEN an enemy who is STILL imprisoned once the war is over, is a POW. and the war is not over.

specific definition. read your Geneva again.

(incidentally, the presumption is that the prisoner's ONLY crime was a sanctioned action of war, and thus while detained, it should be considered that he "was following orders" in a lawful war and thus should not be regarded or incarcerated with "civil" criminals, who make personal judgement to break established laws.)

Scum who perpetuate terror do not have rights of Prisoners of War,.. they are murderous cultists, who at most want to be seen as divinely appointed vigilantes with a perverted sense of manifest destiny that is a reflection of their corrupted ideology.

#9

thanks raum. yet, I would appreciate you pointing me to the exact article of the convention where it states so.

even if true. then what happens when you are in a conflict which has no possible end because of the methods used in it?

and article 3 of the convention starts with:
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 provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of 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:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> Taking of hostages;

© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

which does seem not to be followed by the US. but well. here's the pacifist and european view again aye?!

#10

Brains,

Article 3 deals with armed native or naturalized internal dissidents in the High Contracting Parties (basically "Confederate War" in one of the countries who drafted the protocol of the original Hogue Convention): DOESN'T APPLY, except maybe in the 7/7 train bombings in London.

military definition: QUOTEA prisoner of war is a combatant captured by the enemy and interned until the end of the current conflict.

defintion of Combatant, accepted at Geneva:

QUOTEA combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Geneva Conventions, persons waging war must have the following four characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

In uniform: Wear distinctive clothing making them recognizable as soldiers from a distance.
Openly bearing arms: Carrying guns or small arms and not concealing them.
Under officers: Obedient to a chain of command ending in a political leader or government.
Fighting according to the laws of war: Not committing atrocities or crimes, not deliberately attacking civilians or engaging in terrorism.

Specifically the Article 4 Geneva Convention applies to Prisoners of War, not Article 3.

Article 4
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:
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.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. 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.
This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

------------

none of these apply to the scum in question... not ANYTHING in the third convention.

what you are looking for is the 4th convention, which deals with civilians and irregular combatants. and derogations on that say:

QUOTENationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

so, eat it. treat barbarians as barbarians.

oh, and...

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 entitled 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.

furthermore,

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion 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.

oops,.. TERRORISTS NEED NOT APPLY.

See, when you ACTUALLY SERVE in the military, they school you on this shit.

so, all you with the 3rd Geneva convention, go watch Hogan's Heroes,.. cause that is what it applies to.