billvon 3,111 #26 February 3, 2008 >I got waterboarded there. Sucked, but I wouldn't say it's something worth >all this whining. So you would disagree with the US court's decision that a Japanese soldier who waterboarded US soldiers was guilty of torturing them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #27 February 3, 2008 I'm sure there was a LITTLE more to it than that. Joe Brit guy never offers references - so I don't buy his shit for a minute. And pssst. that was 60+ years ago. There was just a teensy more racism in the US then than there is now. Short answer - Yes. I disagree with 25 years for waterboarding. The MSM makes it sound worse than it is. It's like a tasering. "It fucking hurts...but your gonna live pussy - so man up". - Anonymous Police Tactics Instructor when I asked about it - before I got tasered.. Why can't people understand the very DISTINCT difference between physical discomfort and injury? They are not the same thing. Let me say that again for the fucktards...they are not the same thing. My issue with torture is that the information gleaned is unreliable. So torture shouldn't be used for that. Now for shits and giggles because it's a bad guy - oh hell yeah. But I've heard I'm a dick, so who knows.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #28 February 3, 2008 Quote So you would disagree with the US court's decision that a Japanese soldier who waterboarded US soldiers was guilty of torturing them? It was a US civilian that the Japaneses soldier waterboarded, according to the NPR report. "....In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor...." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genn 0 #29 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote Whomever leaked the information about any form of interrogation, should be tried for treason. Unfortunately, they will probably go work for CNN. Ahhh. Any and all atrocities and human rights abuses are ok, as long as no-one finds out. Got it. Bad dental plans and milky white skin may be your idea of utopia. However, it's not necessarily everybodys opinion. When the United State's unemployment rate tops the UKs, then you can malign us. Until such time, continue to take your snaggle toothed unemployed bum to the welfare office this Monday morning. I hear you get the best food stamps from the Dole, early in the month. Chop, chop! How 'bout some tea n crumpits? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 February 3, 2008 Quote Jeanne, didn't you go to SERE? I got waterboarded there. Sucked, but I wouldn't say it's something worth all this whining. There are different types and it is not that hard to screw up and you can kill someone... and I did not just go to SERE... I was an instructor... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #31 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote Jeanne, didn't you go to SERE? I got waterboarded there. Sucked, but I wouldn't say it's something worth all this whining. There are different types and it is not that hard to screw up and you can kill someone... and I did not just go to SERE... I was an instructor... So are you guilty of torturing U.S. Servicemen? If so, please turn yourself in to the proper U.N. authorities.There is time for you to repent for your crimes against humanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 February 3, 2008 Bite me And I say that in the nicest way possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #33 February 3, 2008 QuoteWhy can't people understand the very DISTINCT difference between physical discomfort and injury? They are not the same thing. Let me say that again for the fucktards...they are not the same thing... My issue with torture is that the information gleaned is unreliable. So torture shouldn't be used for that. Now for shits and giggles because it's a bad guy - oh hell yeah. But I've heard I'm a dick, so who knows. So you'd be alright with inflicting the most excruciating pain possible on prisoners for no other reason than to have a giggle - as long as it didn't cause injury. Hmmmmm.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #34 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Whomever leaked the information about any form of interrogation, should be tried for treason. Unfortunately, they will probably go work for CNN. Ahhh. Any and all atrocities and human rights abuses are ok, as long as no-one finds out. Got it. Bad dental plans and milky white skin may be your idea of utopia. However, it's not necessarily everybodys opinion. When the United State's unemployment rate tops the UKs, then you can malign us. Until such time, continue to take your snaggle toothed unemployed bum to the welfare office this Monday morning. I hear you get the best food stamps from the Dole, early in the month. Chop, chop! How 'bout some tea n crumpits? I don't suppose the phrase 'non sequitur' means anything to you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #35 February 3, 2008 Don't you and Jakee have some hands to wring or something? Maybe you should actually do something about it intead of complaining. Oh that's right, it would take EFFORT. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #36 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuote So you would disagree with the US court's decision that a Japanese soldier who waterboarded US soldiers was guilty of torturing them? It was a US civilian that the Japaneses soldier waterboarded, according to the NPR report. "....In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor...." Torturing soldiers is OK then, approved by the Geneva Conventions?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #37 February 3, 2008 Not prisoners...I said badguys. Again, a distinct difference that you will never get.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #38 February 3, 2008 QuoteNot prisoners...I said badguys. Again, a distinct difference that you will never get. Whatever, badguys then. You're absolutely fine with torturing the hell out of "badguys" for no other reason than to get a kick out of it as long as you don't cause them injury? Do you get a "giggle" out of inflicting intense pain? If you really, really mean that it says a lot about you, and none of it good.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #39 February 3, 2008 >In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war >crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Ah, so it's an even better comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #40 February 3, 2008 QuoteNot prisoners...I said badguys. Again, a distinct difference that you will never get. the fact that this term is completely relative is a something that the defenders of torture never seem to get either.. a great many things cause 'little to no physical HARM' and yet I'll bet you'd be very pissed off if they were performed on you and yours...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #41 February 3, 2008 Quote>In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war >crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Ah, so it's an even better comparison. In this thread, the person waterboarded by the Japanese soldier has been called a US "citizen", a US "civilian", and a US "soldier". The pupose of my post was to get us to use the correct term, as used in the referenced NPR report. Imprecision and use of incorrect terminology does no good. As far as "civilian" being a better comparison, I'm not sure I'd agree. A few weeks ago I took a quick look at the relevant sections of the GC, and there is quite a bit of text dedicated to defining "citizens", "civilians", "soldiers", "non-soldier fighters" (all my terms) in relation to their coverage under the rules. Is an Egyptian civilian citizen fighting against US troops in Iraq covered by the GC? I doubt it, and that may be why he/she is called an "enemy combatant" by the US, and not a POW. It may be perfectly legal to "torture" that person. I'm not sure, but the person is definitely not an Iraqi "civilian" or "soldier". "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #42 February 3, 2008 QuoteIs an Egyptian civilian citizen fighting against US troops in Iraq covered by the GC? I doubt it, and that may be why he/she is called an "enemy combatant" by the US, and not a POW. It may be perfectly legal to "torture" that person. Most interpretations of the GC is that there is no middle ground. Everyone is covered by international law and as it stands must be classified either as a POW under the 3rd or a civilian under the 4th. Why should this not be so? It's interesting how many people who would proclaim to defend to the death the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence and uphold their concept of inalienable rights for all men... except anyone who isn't American. I don't get it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #43 February 3, 2008 Do not concern yourself with the United States Constitution, as you are not an American, nor do you want to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #44 February 3, 2008 QuoteDo not concern yourself with the United States Constitution, as you are not an American, nor do you want to be. So? You're not an Iraqi but you're still talking on this thread.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #45 February 3, 2008 How is your statement germain to this thread? You are a British subject, complaining about something that does not involve you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #46 February 3, 2008 >It may be perfectly legal to "torture" that person. I'm not sure, but >the person is definitely not an Iraqi "civilian" or "soldier". As we are holding a great many people on somewhat ambiguous charges - and have occasionally discovered after we torture people to death that they were in fact innocent civilians - I don't think that's a distinction that matters, or can even be made accurately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #47 February 3, 2008 QuoteHow is your statement germain to this thread? You are a British subject, complaining about something that does not involve you. Oh I'm sorry, of course talking about the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with this thread about torturing prisoners of war. And how dare I comment on the middle east? No British soldiers over there, no sirree. Get over yourself.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KelliJ 0 #48 February 3, 2008 Quote Get over yourself Said the pot to the kettle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #49 February 3, 2008 Quote Quote Get over yourself Said the pot to the kettle. Could you point to any occasion that I've attempted to control who can or can't comment on a thread? I think you'll have some difficulty finding anything.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #50 February 3, 2008 QuoteMost interpretations of the GC is that there is no middle ground. Everyone is covered by international law and as it stands must be classified either as a POW under the 3rd or a civilian under the 4th. Interesting. Like I said, I only looked at it briefly. Who made "most interpretations"? Re: Billvon comment, I assume you're talking about the same thing as Jakee. Since the law behind the "detainees" or whatever they're called is questionable, who or what court will make a binding interpretation? Will it require war crime charges/trial, or can it be done in another way? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
