Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Justanobody

I am curious how you could read the above article and then support torture of prisoners. The article indicates that torture is not being used and apparently is not needed.

Do we really want to be a country that supports torture?

BTW, the McCain bill merely says that anyone working for the US must follow the guidelines as written in the US Army field manual.


13 posted on 10/23/2005 12:42:43 AM PDT by Ethan_Allen1777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Ethan_Allen1777

And do you approve of treating our troops worse than the terrorists -- punishing them for self defense?

"Documents recently obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that one detainee punched a guard in the mouth, knocking out his tooth, then began to bite the MP. Several guards were required to repel the prisoner's attack; one soldier who came to the rescue delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio.

For this he was dropped in rank to private. "


14 posted on 10/23/2005 12:48:56 AM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Ethan_Allen1777

One catch -- terrorists are NOT POW-s as defined by the Geneva convention. Making International law, a US law sets a very bad precedent. You can see that already guards defending themselves against attacks from terrorist prisoners are being punished. Can you imagine, if a US law is passed that almost anything can count as violation of the "rights" of the terrorists?

Did you actually read the bill?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1497443/posts?page=103#103


THE ACTUAL TEXT, GIVING THE TERRORIST DETAINEES FULL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE US CONSTITUTION ANYWHERE, EVEN OUTSIDE THE US AND CREATING US LAW BASED ON THE UN.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109H252jM:e911694:

(a) In General.--"No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "




15 posted on 10/23/2005 12:52:12 AM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Ethan_Allen1777
I say we double the pay of the guards at the Rykers (sp) Island Isolation lockup and send them down there.

Just have a few military supervisors.

Let the new guards handle the unruly prisoners in their own special way :-).
44 posted on 10/23/2005 5:19:49 AM PDT by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson