Cite, please, quoting evidence acceptable in court.
I'll let you Google it yourself, but the practice of "extraordinary rendition" is pretty well documented... enough so for an Italian court to charge several CIA agents for the illegal kidnapping of an Egyptian from Italian soil; I also recall a Canadian who was kidnapped by agents of the US government, interrogated, tortured, eventually released, and exonerated (by the Canadian government).
And that's just the beginning.
As for "torture or inhumane treatment," the debate over waterboarding happened for good reason... as did McCain's failed attempt to restore some honor to the situation. I also recall Cheney's favorable public comment about a "dunk in the water."
And without a trial. Just like the Patriot Act.
Oh, I'm all for impeachment and a trial... but it will never happen. Regardless, Bush has
publically admitted to felonious acts. The warrantless wiretapping program is blatantly illegal, and Bush has said that he personally authorized it.
I have a copy in front of me. There is no "Section 3." Part III deals ONLY with POWs. Please provide a cite for that which you believe you are referring. Please see above regarding documenting torture in a way admissible in court. We're not convicting people in absentia on hearsay about laws we think might exist. This isn't the Patriot Act
Look at Article 3; it applies to non-POWs as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Though on further inspection, this appears to apply to domestic conflicts. Regardless, my point does not rely on the Geneva conventions specifically; US law forbids such acts entirely. (Or at least, it used to.)
And the cases where detainees were mishandled and abused, we're conducting courts martial. How about that? America is ssoooooo evul.
No, we aren't, except to find a few scapegoats in a couple specific cases that got a lot of publicity. Do that Google search...
Rights only apply on US soil.
Bu||%^$@^!.
Heck, one of the mods here has that article on his website.
Detained combatants fall under Geneva. Detained terrorists fall under nothing, and never have. There is plenty of precedent in WWII on this.
The Geneva conventions do have something to say on the matter of such detained persons; that they should have a fair hearing to determine their status. Furthermore, many of the detainees are known
not to have been combatants. (Bin Laden's taxi driver?)
Furthermore, from Article 44 of Protocol I:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
We signed, but did not ratify it; though the rest of the world considers it legally binding everywhere. Check Wikipedia.
nobody_special said:
Aside from that, war is always a crime. The Iraq war is a particularly blatant one, which lacked justification. I think a good argument can be made that the Iraq war itself is a crime committed by the US, and chiefly perpetrated by the president.
Pardon me, but that is the most utterly stupid comment on this thread.
How is the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis not a crime, when
to this day the President has not been able to express any justification for the invasion? You're arguing like a lawyer, while ignoring the larger moral issue.
War is DEFINED in international law,
It is also defined in US law. Here's a hint for you: legally, we are
not presently at war. No war has been declared, the war powers act has not been invoked. As far as I can tell, the invasion of Iraq was simply a (failed) large scale smash-and-grab operation; either that or simple revenge for the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.
and therefore by definition is not a crime. I understand you object to it. Guess what? You're not world dictator. You don't get to set the rules.
No, that would be Bush.
Seriously, are you for real? The war is and was illegal. The justifications presented to obtain the necessary support of Congress were
lies, as is now well documented. Oh, yeah... and lying to Congress is also illegal.
So far, I see you arrogating to yourself all the authority you claim Bush is misusing. Kettle, meet Pot.
I haven't claimed any authority whatsoever. I'm simply stating the obvious.
PS: what does this have to do with Justice Dept attorneys?
It shows a pattern of criminal behavior which our Attorney General
supports. Bush and Gonzales go way back, they're good friends; it's cronyism at it's finest. And when the AG does wrong, who is there to prosecute
him? Congress. I'll be amazed if they do anything other than posture and fume, though.
