3 ms·

But is the US government just showing up outside John & Jane Smith's house in Iowa, kidnapping the wife, a perfectly innocent suburban house mom, taking her awa

by brazzy 16y ago

But is the US government just showing up outside John & Jane Smith's house in Iowa, kidnapping the wife, a perfectly innocent suburban house mom, taking her away to a secret location and then waterboarding her in order to make her reveal her secret cookie recipe? Heck no. Heck, yes. Or pretty close to it. Quite a few Gitmo inmates were completely innocent, they just were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or had the wrong surname, or had enemies who called them terrorists to get rid of a business rival, or to get the bounty that US was paying.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mkramlich 16y ago
Good point. Mistakes happen. It happens even when the US government (or state or local law enforcement authorities) kidnaps and enslaves native US citizens in the course of enforcing domestic criminal law. Later, some of these people get released. Some are found innocent. Some are not but the cases were flawed or some legal rule was not followed to the letter. And sometimes these people are found guilty by a court, serve sentences (in a prison as slaves) and are then let go, sometimes many years later. This is normal in the US and throughout the world. Unfortunately.
mkramlich 16y ago
To clarify about your Gitmo point: the vast majority were not waterboarded. Going to Gitmo did/does not automatically mean being waterboarded. But point taken. I thought of another good argument against waterboarding: the Geneva Convention. My understanding is that it is banned by it under all (or, well, proscribed) circumstances, and the US is signatory to it. I think part of the reason why the US wanted to do certain things NOT on mainland US soil was to be able to weasel around certain laws and international rules that address what they are and are not allowed to do.
- anamax 16y ago
  > the Geneva Convention. ... the US is signatory to it. There are several "Geneva Conventions". The US has signed some of them. In general, the Geneva conventions only apply when both parties are signatories. Since the Taliban and such orgs aren't signatories ....
  - brazzy 16y ago
    The USA has signed all 4 geneva conventions and all 3 amendment protocols, but not ratified 2 of the latter. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_C... And the conventions quite definitely do apply to some degree when a signatory fights an opponent that is not a nation (and which therefore, by definition, cannot be a signatory). The details are a bit difficult, especially when a conflict is both internations and involves non-nation parties, but it's definitely not correct to say "our opponents are not signatories, so all rules are off".
- dkimball 16y ago
  More to the point than the Geneva Conventions: the UN Convention Against Torture, which is exactly what it sounds like. As for whether waterboarding is torture under US law: the US executed a few Kempaitai (Japanese secret police) agents for torturing US prisoners in WWII; they had waterboarded them. Waterboarding is also covered under UNCAT. (Note to anyone assuming a partisan motivation: I am a serious Catholic, thus not by any stretch of the imagination a US liberal.)

by brazzy 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mkramlich 16y ago

Good point. Mistakes happen. It happens even when the US government (or state or local law enforcement authorities) kidnaps and enslaves native US citizens in the course of enforcing domestic criminal law. Later, some of these people get released. Some are found innocent. Some are not but the cases were flawed or some legal rule was not followed to the letter. And sometimes these people are found guilty by a court, serve sentences (in a prison as slaves) and are then let go, sometimes many years later. This is normal in the US and throughout the world. Unfortunately.

mkramlich 16y ago

To clarify about your Gitmo point: the vast majority were not waterboarded. Going to Gitmo did/does not automatically mean being waterboarded. But point taken. I thought of another good argument against waterboarding: the Geneva Convention. My understanding is that it is banned by it under all (or, well, proscribed) circumstances, and the US is signatory to it. I think part of the reason why the US wanted to do certain things NOT on mainland US soil was to be able to weasel around certain laws and international rules that address what they are and are not allowed to do.

anamax 16y ago
> the Geneva Convention. ... the US is signatory to it. There are several "Geneva Conventions". The US has signed some of them. In general, the Geneva conventions only apply when both parties are signatories. Since the Taliban and such orgs aren't signatories ....
- brazzy 16y ago
  The USA has signed all 4 geneva conventions and all 3 amendment protocols, but not ratified 2 of the latter. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_C... And the conventions quite definitely do apply to some degree when a signatory fights an opponent that is not a nation (and which therefore, by definition, cannot be a signatory). The details are a bit difficult, especially when a conflict is both internations and involves non-nation parties, but it's definitely not correct to say "our opponents are not signatories, so all rules are off".
dkimball 16y ago
More to the point than the Geneva Conventions: the UN Convention Against Torture, which is exactly what it sounds like. As for whether waterboarding is torture under US law: the US executed a few Kempaitai (Japanese secret police) agents for torturing US prisoners in WWII; they had waterboarded them. Waterboarding is also covered under UNCAT. (Note to anyone assuming a partisan motivation: I am a serious Catholic, thus not by any stretch of the imagination a US liberal.)