Waterboarding NOT torture - says AG Eric Holder

[The Mick]

 

The Geneva convention does not offer POW rights to enemy combatants' date=' [/quote']

 

That a load of bull

[NeoConMan]

What did he say exactly?

Exactly what I posted.

 

Don't look for it on CNN or any of the usual fruity Lefty websites, they will ignore this completely.

[KSG_Standard]

 

That a load of bull

 

Want me to post the conventions and the trial briefs? You should google them yourself.

[Homz]

You haven't followed the UN very closely' date=' have you?

 

We helped create it, we fund the VAST MAJORITY of it, it votes against our interests every time, it is corrupt as hell and supports terrorism, and is responsible for the death of [b']MILLIONS[/b] of people worldwide due to their ineptitude.

 

Feel free to counter any single one of those points....

 

 

We should condemn the building and throw their asses out of the nation - and they can even take their pigeons.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will), but isn't the UN grounds considered to be sovereign ground (like the Sudi embassy). It would be illegal to through them out.

[The Mick]

A POW was an enemy combatant but once captured is a POW .

[The Mick]

 

Want me to post the conventions and the trial briefs? You should google them yourself.

 

Eye have.

[NeoConMan]

It would be illegal to through them out.

They could be forced to leave' date=' trust me.

 

And[i'] why[/i] would you even mention the word 'illegal' in a sentence with the UN?

There's no worse an organization in the world when corruption is discussed.

 

Feel free to debate that as well - you'll LOSE.

 

 

You guys can continue with the mental masturbation all you want.

The truth has been told and there's nothing left to talk about.

 

I'm outta here.

[Bluemoon]

Exactly what I posted.

 

Then post the part in his testimony where he says waterboarding isn't torture. He was asked whether it was considered torture if applied as part of military training of soldiers...he said no it was not because the intent was not to cause harm. "What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture."

[The Mick]

It's too bad that two intelligent people as you are can't see simple truths.

[Bowdiddley]

 

Then post the part in his testimony where he says waterboarding isn't torture. He was asked whether it was considered torture if applied as part of military training of soldiers...he said no it was not because the intent was not to cause harm. "What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture."

 

It doesn't cause harm.

[KSG_Standard]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

 

Article 4

 

A. 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.

 

2. 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, fulfill the following conditions:

 

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

 

(B) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 

© That of carrying arms openly;

 

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

[Homz]

They could be forced to leave' date=' trust me.

 

And[i'] why[/i] would you even mention the word 'illegal' in a sentence with the UN?

There's no worse an organization in the world when corruption is discussed.

 

Feel free to debate that as well - you'll LOSE.

 

Why would I argue. I've never said anything on the forum about the UN. I don't have an opinion on the matter. I've never read much about what your talking about. Your again making assumptions and broad generalizations.

[NeoConMan]

Then post the part in his testimony where he says waterboarding isn't torture. He was asked whether it was considered torture if applied as part of military training of soldiers...he said no it was not because the intent was not to cause harm. "What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture."

 

Looks like you read an edited transcript.

I saw the testimony on TV as he was answering questions from two Republicans in Congress.

He looked almost as bad as Pelosi' date=' stammering and stuttering, trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

 

FAIL.

 

Believe what you want (Why the fxck are you even here?) and keep on living in La La Land....

[KSG_Standard]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

 

Enemy Combatant

 

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

 

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

 

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

 

Authority to Detain

 

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

 

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

 

Who Decides

 

The determination of enemy combatant status has traditionally resided with the military commander who is authorized to engage the enemy with deadly force. In this regard, the task ultimately falls within the President’s constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief to identify which forces and persons to engage or capture and detain during an armed conflict. Of course, there is no requirement that the President make such determinations personally, and in the vast majority of cases he does not do so. Rather, consistent with longstanding historical practice and applicable rules of engagement, the task is normally a function of the military command structure.

 

In the current conflict, military personnel ordinarily make enemy combatant determinations during combat operations, under the combatant commander’s direction. With respect to individuals captured in the United States, to date DoD has detained only Abdullah al Muhajir, also known as Jose Padilla. The President, as Commander in Chief, determined that Mr. Padilla is an enemy combatant.

[Bluemoon]

 

Looks like you read a transcript.

I saw the testimony on TV as he was answering questions from two Republicans in Congress.

He looked almost as bad as Pelosi' date=' stammering and stuttering, trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat.

 

FAIL.

 

Believe what you want (Why the fxck are you even here?) and keep on living in La La Land....

 

I am here to make sure that the discussion is based on facts. I am here because I like this forum.

[AXE®]

I have a rhododendron so kiss my a$$..

 

[NeoConMan]

I am here to make sure that the discussion is based on facts.

You don't like MY facts.

You won't produce ANY of your own.

 

I think of you as a speed bump in a thread.

:-)

 

 

 

I am here because I like this forum.

You're here because you like the abuse.

:-)

[The Mick]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

 

 

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants' date=' including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

 

[/quote']

 

Seen it read it thats U.S. Laws way of declaring a get out of jail free card. Not international treaty's

[The Mick]

All you wan't to do is argue how just and right you are Eye'm out

[Bluemoon]

I think I posted the facts. Still waiting for yours.

[Bluemoon]

You're here because you like the abuse.

:-)

 

Yep. That is why I am here.

 

[actually' date= I here to keep you honest]

[Bluemoon]

Form the National Review...a source I am sure you are familiar with

 

Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

 

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

 

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

 

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

 

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

 

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

 

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?

 

Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

 

Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

 

Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

 

Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

 

Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.

[Homz]

How about a bit of intellectual honesty. If the president had been a Democrat and not a Republican many of you would be calling it torture just as many liberals are doing now.

 

For me it would have gone like this. It is the duty of all presidents to protect their country. It is their primary responsibility. This does not necessarily make their actions legal. as Thomas Jefferson once said, It is the duty of the president to protect his country. If he breaks the law in the process then he should stand and accept the consequences of his actions.

[KSG_Standard]

It's not my job or yours to protect the citizens of the US during this time of terrorists and jihadists. I won't second guess the decisions that the president or CIA or Military made as long as the US law is on their side. I don't like the idea of waterboarding any more than the rest of you, but history, legal precedence and the law are what they are. If you don't like the law, fight to have it changed. But you can't go after our leaders for trying their best to protect us, they weren't torturing anybody according to US law. From all the testimony, they only waterboarded 3 people. Detention of enemy combatants and waterboarding have been used for years, under leadership from both parties. So get as mad and disgusted as you want to, it won't change the facts or the law.

[Bluemoon]

I won't second guess the decisions that the president or CIA or Military made as long as the US law is on their side. .

 

You might be right. But that is the problem...was law on their side? Only way to determine that is to let the courts decide.