U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question - Page 9

Switchcraft · 07-12-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I'm trying to show that the US had not been treating these detainees humanely or applying any established judicial process to them. This looks like an attempted course correction with regard to treatment in an effort to reach approval for the judicial procedings (the military tribunal).

Edit - if there's no story here, why write the memo? Just for fun? And why now, and not at the onset?

Well, why would we have acknowledged that particular portion of the Geneva conventions at the outset?

Common Article 3, the article in question, reads:

Quote:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties...

Is there ANYTHING in that that would have led you to believe that the US invasion of Afghanistan would be covered by that? Because I certainly would have thought one country invading another was "international."

And saying or not saying that that applies does not mean anything going on at Guantanamo was "inhumane."

**CingularDuality** · 07-13-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I'm trying to show that the US had not been treating these detainees humanely or applying any established judicial process to them.

Logic is our friend.

AMosely · 07-13-2006, 02:59 PM

I think history will settle the score on this one, so I will stick with my opinions on the matter.

**CingularDuality** · 07-13-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I think history will settle the score on this one, so I will stick with my opinions on the matter.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, but the lack of logic in your latest posts are, well, silly.

There's a new rule in my house (for the sake of my son): the dog's food and water must be checked every night before bed. Is this evidence that my dogs were starving?

AMosely · 07-13-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

There's a new rule in my house (for the sake of my son): the dog's food and water must be checked every night before bed. Is this evidence that my dogs were starving?

No, but it's strong evidence that the food and water had gone dry too many times or else you would not have needed to make such a rule... either that or you are a micromanaging father who creates uneccesary repeated tasks for your son

**CingularDuality** · 07-14-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

No, but it's strong evidence that the food and water had gone dry too many times or else you would not have needed to make such a rule... either that or you are a micromanaging father who creates uneccesary repeated tasks for your son

You make my point for me. The fact that someone has made clear that Gitmo is absolutely going to be following a rule from now one can NOT logically be made into an assumption that conduct was previously such that the rule would be violated.

AMosely · 07-14-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You make my point for me. The fact that someone has made clear that Gitmo is absolutely going to be following a rule from now one can NOT logically be made into an assumption that conduct was previously such that the rule would be violated.

We must be stuck in bizarro world, then, because I think you are making my point for me!

Question - did you son previously leave the dog bowls empty or not?

**CingularDuality** · 07-14-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

We must be stuck in bizarro world, then, because I think you are making my point for me!

Question - did you son previously leave the dog bowls empty or not?

He went to bed without doing it, and I made him get up and take care of it... So, no, the dogs were never without food and water. But, see, you had to ask that question. Why? Because you can't just assume the worst case scenario.

AMosely · 07-14-2006, 03:43 PM

But he did go to bed without doing it, and you had to firm up the policy. There was a problem with feeding the dogs, and there's a problem at Guantanamo. That's all I'm saying - your son didn't starve the dogs, and I'm not claiming prisoners at Guantanamo are being systematically tortured and have no rights. But there are some problems there. The statement/memo regarding the Geneva Conventions was, in fact, made for a reason.

Of course this is all talk, though. Time will tell if your son forgets to feed and water the dogs before going to bed. Time will tell if the prisoners at Guantanamo will be given fair treatment and justice.

Switchcraft · 07-14-2006, 07:35 PM

AMosely, there is no memo saying people arrested on suspicion of DWI are covered by Common Article 3. Is that proof that they are being treated inhumanely?
If someone were to write a memo tomorrow saying they were, would that be proof that today they must have been being treated inhumanely?

07-13-2006, 02:59 PM	#123 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question I think history will settle the score on this one, so I will stick with my opinions on the matter.

07-14-2006, 03:43 PM	#129 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question But he did go to bed without doing it, and you had to firm up the policy. There was a problem with feeding the dogs, and there's a problem at Guantanamo. That's all I'm saying - your son didn't starve the dogs, and I'm not claiming prisoners at Guantanamo are being systematically tortured and have no rights. But there are some problems there. The statement/memo regarding the Geneva Conventions was, in fact, made for a reason. Of course this is all talk, though. Time will tell if your son forgets to feed and water the dogs before going to bed. Time will tell if the prisoners at Guantanamo will be given fair treatment and justice.

07-14-2006, 07:35 PM	#130 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: U.N., Guantanamo and the torture question AMosely, there is no memo saying people arrested on suspicion of DWI are covered by Common Article 3. Is that proof that they are being treated inhumanely? If someone were to write a memo tomorrow saying they were, would that be proof that today they must have been being treated inhumanely?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links