Bush and Torture

[Adex_Xeda]

This part of the torture documents story seems under reported.

June 27, 2004 -- The White House last week re leased hundreds of documents showing that President Bush in sisted that all prisoners captured in Afghanistan be treated humanely, even if they weren't covered by the Geneva Conventions.
But that's not what much of the national news media chose to report.

Instead, they focused on an August 2002 memorandum from the Justice Department that raised a legal argument supporting aggressive interrogation tactics — despite the fact that the memo was never acted on.

Indeed, its conclusions were contradicted by the president's specific directive six months earlier.

In that document, Bush noted that he believed he had "the authority under the Constitution" to deny Geneva Conventions protection to detainees captured during the campaign that toppled Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

But, he added, "I decline to exercise that authority."

cont.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/26296.htm

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It won't help the effort to get rid of Bush by reporting both sides of the issue. Bush must continuing to be made out to be the devil, so the fanatic masses go out and vote for Kerry.

[Truant]

It won't help the effort to get rid of Bush by reporting both sides of the issue. Bush must continuing to be made out to be the devil, so the fanatic masses go out and vote for Kerry.

I just want to point out...you referring to anyone as fanatic masses is ironic and incredibly laughable.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

It won't help the effort to get rid of Bush by reporting both sides of the issue. Bush must continuing to be made out to be the devil, so the fanatic masses go out and vote for Kerry.

I just want to point out...you referring to anyone as fanatic masses is ironic and incredibly laughable.

In your opinion. Your ability to assess character is obviously lacking.

[Pherr the Dorf]

It won't help the effort to get rid of Bush by reporting both sides of the issue. Bush must continuing to be made out to be the devil, so the fanatic masses go out and vote for Kerry.

I just want to point out...you referring to anyone as fanatic masses is ironic and incredibly laughable.

In your opinion. Your ability to assess character is obviously lacking.

When you get some, we'll access it

[kyoukan]

so what is that? 100's of documents proving that Bush can't control his own administration?

so he's either sadistic or incompetent and ineffective as a leader.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

so what is that? 100's of documents proving that Bush can't control his own administration?

so he's either sadistic or incompetent and ineffective as a leader.

The expected response. No matter what comes out people like you will find a way to spin it to the negative against Bush. You don't even see how transparent and one-tracked you are and that makes it even more humorous.

[archeiron]

so what is that? 100's of documents proving that Bush can't control his own administration?

so he's either sadistic or incompetent and ineffective as a leader.

The expected response. No matter what comes out people like you will find a way to spin it to the negative against Bush. You don't even see how transparent and one-tracked you are and that makes it even more humorous.

Actually, I don't believe that Bush is the anti-Christ. I see good indications from this article that Bush acted with good intentions. I accept the article and its corroborating documentation as evidence of Bush's good faith in the his armed services.

Actually, this did make me think of something somewhat related. In my current organization, the following situation could arise. I could setup a procedure for performing a certain task. I could insist that all of the members of my development teams follow that procedure. One person could choose not to follow the task and do serious damage to our product. That person would be accountable for breaking with procedure, but I would still be repremanded for his actions. I think that it sucks when this happens. However, when we do well, I get more of the glory than they do, so I also have to accept more of the blame when things go wrong. So my question is this:

Can we and should we hold the president at all accountable for the actions of the soldiers in Iraq?

In all honesty, I do not personally hold him accountable for their actions, but I do feel that he should accept some of the responsibility. I would think better of him if he did accept responsibility, but I do not hold it against him if he does not. I have low expectations in that sense.

[Wulfran]

Then you are not insisting that G.W. Bush do his job, Acheiron.

The job of anyone in a position of authority is to accept responsibility, and by defination that makes them accountable. You cannot have one without the other. It does not matter if you are talking the political world or the business world.

George W. Bush is the head of the Armed Forces of the United States (you know the whole Commander in Chief thing?). As such he is responsible for delegating responsibilities to competent personnel. If they fuck up, or their subordinates fuck up, it IS his fault to some degree, because he left their boss in a position of authority. Even if was intentionally mislead by those subordinates, it reflects on his ability to choose and lead competent subordinates.

Thus as much as Midnyte loves to discount what Kyou says on general principle, he is dead wrong. Kyou is asking pertinent questions that the electorate of the US should be asking. They also need to ask what the alternatives are and do they think they would be any more or less effective.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Then you are not insisting that G.W. Bush do his job, Acheiron.

The job of anyone in a position of authority is to accept responsibility, and by defination that makes them accountable. You cannot have one without the other. It does not matter if you are talking the political world or the business world.

George W. Bush is the head of the Armed Forces of the United States (you know the whole Commander in Chief thing?). As such he is responsible for delegating responsibilities to competent personnel. If they fuck up, or their subordinates fuck up, it IS his fault to some degree, because he left their boss in a position of authority. Even if was intentionally mislead by those subordinates, it reflects on his ability to choose and lead competent subordinates.

Thus as much as Midnyte loves to discount what Kyou says on general principle, he is dead wrong. Kyou is asking pertinent questions that the electorate of the US should be asking. They also need to ask what the alternatives are and do they think they would be any more or less effective.

Dude. Stop. Take a breathe and try to think clearly. Lets make it easy for you. An employee at Microsoft creates a virus and puts it in the latest Media Player patch. Should Bill Gates have to resign? No. Use your fucking brain for two seconds instead of rushing to find reasons to justify your anger at Bush.

[noel]

Have to agree with Arch/Mid here.

GW is accountable for the event as it happened, and as such is accountable for finding out why it happened, how it was able to happen, making sure that the people who caused it are punished, and making sure the procedures are changed so that it never happens again.

[Keverian FireCry]

I agree. There are many things you could blame Bush for, this is a bit of a stretch. As for finding reasons to justify anger towards Bush, there are tons, but this one is silly.

[Karae]

Actually, this did make me think of something somewhat related. In my current organization, the following situation could arise. I could setup a procedure for performing a certain task. I could insist that all of the members of my development teams follow that procedure. One person could choose not to follow the task and do serious damage to our product. That person would be accountable for breaking with procedure, but I would still be repremanded for his actions. I think that it sucks when this happens. However, when we do well, I get more of the glory than they do, so I also have to accept more of the blame when things go wrong. So my question is this:

Can we and should we hold the president at all accountable for the actions of the soldiers in Iraq?

In all honesty, I do not personally hold him accountable for their actions, but I do feel that he should accept some of the responsibility. I would think better of him if he did accept responsibility, but I do not hold it against him if he does not. I have low expectations in that sense.

Using your metaphor, which may or may not be relevant, if one of your subordinates were to do something damaging to your product, or prevent it's scheduled delivery, who would be accountable to your boss? To the consumer?

Certainly your subordinate would be accountable to you, but it is YOUR responsibility that things go smoothly, not your subordinate's. You are accountable to your boss - or if you are the head of the company - to the consumer.

George W. Bush is accountable because the handling of the prisoners is, ultimately, his responsibility. He allowed the detention facilities to be structured in a manner that was conducive to this type of behavior. Whether he expressly ordered/condoned it or not, he allowed it to happen.

Bush says he does not order torture, but he has ordered the detention of over 600 prisoners in Guantanamo for nearly 2 years without charge, trial, or appeal. Holding prisoners without fair trial is considered a grave breach of the Geneva Convention, and is a War Crime. This is a violation of their rights as human beings and of the Geneva Convention. Another violation is that they have yet to grant "protecting powers" (the U.N.) access to the prisoners in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq despite their request for access.

The Bush administration has routinely violated the Geneva Convention, claiming that it doesn't apply in this circumstance. This justification is insufficient. There is never a justifiable reason for denying people their basic human rights. For someone who purports himself as a champion of freedom, he doesn't seem to have much problem ignoring people's freedom and rights when it's convenient.

George W. Bush is a War Criminal. Unfortunately, it isn't likely that he'll ever be tried as one. As were those who committed the acts in Abu Ghraib - apparently they will not be tried as such either.

Frankly, I'm disgusted to be living in a country that ignores both U.N. rulings and the Geneva Convention as a matter of convenience.

[Kylere]

I do not see any reason for him to resign as President over the actions of his subordinates, as long as they acted against orders. However he should already have Rumsfeld resignation in hand, as well as Cheneys.

[Karae]

I do not see any reason for him to resign as President over the actions of his subordinates, as long as they acted against orders. However he should already have Rumsfeld resignation in hand, as well as Cheneys.

I agree. But we should have his resignation for his own actions.

[Arilain]

From the Geneva Convention....

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, fulfil 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;

(c) 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. 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.

2. 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.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.



Now tell me two things please...

How do the detainee's at Gitmo fall into this catagory?

How can they cry foul when they do not follow the same rules they
want us to follow?

Remember these people would happily slice your head off in the name of religion and kill your families for a political agenda that is vague to say the least. Al Quada is an international organization which is specificly not recognized by the Geneva Conventions (Article 3 I think) They only apply to forces inside a local country that are fighting for the country they are in.

In light of recent history I say that we treat them better than we treat our own criminals. I am against that because they would not treat us the same way. In this case eye for an eye.

[Karae]

Maybe you should have read the Geneva Convention rules on civilians? Moron. They absolutely qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention. Every human being alive does. Are you stupid enough to suggest that human rights should be suspended simply because they are not members of a (recognized) army? Please.

I'm embarassed to have ever called you my friend if you're advocating the denial of ANYONE'S right to a fair trial and appeal, or that anyone who would do so is anything other than an international/war criminal.

[archeiron]

How can they cry foul when they do not follow the same rules they
want us to follow?

Remember these people would happily slice your head off in the name of religion and kill your families for a political agenda that is vague to say the least. Al Quada is an international organization which is specificly not recognized by the Geneva Conventions (Article 3 I think) They only apply to forces inside a local country that are fighting for the country they are in.

In light of recent history I say that we treat them better than we treat our own criminals. I am against that because they would not treat us the same way. In this case eye for an eye.

Are we fighting with them as equals on purely defensive terms, or are we fighting from the moral highground?

They can cry foul because we are breaking our own rules in detaining them. Rules that we hold dear. Rules that form the ideology of our form of government and our way of life. Rules that seperate us from lesser nations that can be drawn from more repugnant eras of the past that act in selfish authoritarian (barbaric) ways. Our rules must be immutable. This is a "war" of ideas. We must win this war with ideas as well as balanced and justifiable acts of force. At the moment, we are not demonstrating either our ability to stand by the ideas or the use of justifiable, measured acts of force.

[Arilain]

Terrorsists are not civilians. Also (and this applies to the US as well) Anyone that violates the conventions are no longer protected by them. This applies to international terror organizations and the United States. The conventions were violated in Abu Ghraid and more than likely before that. Terror organizations have repeatedly ignored the conventions yet expect to be saved by them. There is something wrong with that.

Karae we have argued this before. Remember we agreed to disagree.

[archeiron]

Terrorsists are not civilians. Also (and this applies to the US as well) Anyone that violates the conventions are no longer protected by them. This applies to international terror organizations and the United States. The conventions were violated in Abu Ghraid and more than likely before that. Terror organizations have repeatedly ignored the conventions yet expect to be saved by them. There is something wrong with that.

Karae we have argued this before. Remember we agreed to disagree.

See my post above, I believe I just addressed this issue fairly clearly. We aren't playing by the same rules as terrorists groups for the reasoning I mentioned above.

[Karae]

Karae we have argued this before. Remember we agreed to disagree.

That was before you said something so absolutely disgusting and reprehensible as claiming the prisoners in Guantanamo don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention. You are wrong. These are rules we agreed to play by long ago. They apply to EVERY human being and we can't just suspend them as a matter of convenience.

The right to fair trial is the most basic of the rights afforded under the Geneva Convention. So basic, in fact, that it is even afforded to those War Criminals (such as George W. Bush or those terrorists responsible for the beheadings) who violate the Convention itself. George W. Bush is worse than those terrorists. He claims to be a protector of those freedoms when he, in fact, is destroying them. The terrorists, at least, have never claimed to be championing freedom while they committed their atrocities.

[Arilain]

ok ok I got your point. The problem I see with the detainee's not getting a speedy trial or right to due process is that the government wants to do the whole war tribunal thing and subject them to an archaic law code known as the UCMJ. Ask anyone that has been in trouble in the military and most will tell you it took a very long time to get a hearing nevermind a trial. Also one thing I might point out is that in the military law system getting a fair trial is often a very hard task.

Arch you are correct that we should set a standard for the moral ground and while part of me agrees with that and understands it totaly; I find that everyday I see that it has not gotten us anywhere more and more. As long as the US continues to invest in the exploitation of other cultures and back it up with force that ideal that we try to hold up is absolutly hypocritical.