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

Skip to comments.

What is the law that congress passed regarding torture
vanity

Posted on 04/25/2009 8:25:03 AM PDT by airedale

The media and the DemoRats like to bring up the Geneva Conventions when the issue of torture comes up and give its protections for lawful combatants to unlawful combatants. Those that disagree with them point to something that congress passed which defines torture and the legal definition is substantially different than the everyday meaning of the word torture. Does any one know and could post the actual law in question so we can read it. Also when it was passed so we can determine who was in charge in congress when it was passed. I suppose we also should know who sponsored it and who voted for it as well. I know the MSM will never ever provide us with this if the Republicans are right. It will hurt the meme they are using so it would have to be suppressed.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: congress; law; torture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2009 8:25:03 AM PDT by airedale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: airedale

The Geneva conventions outline what are valid military targets. Not how to treat POWs, banning weaponry, or anything like that.


2 posted on 04/25/2009 8:27:52 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airedale

I’ve asked the same question. No one seems to know.


3 posted on 04/25/2009 8:33:58 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airedale
Type Geneva Conventions into your browser, you will get several hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

A very large portion of these documents deals with who IS and who IS NOT covered by the Conventions.

Why?

If everyone is covered, why doesn't this treaty simply say, “every living human being on the face of this Earth is covered?”

The truth is, when you argue with an informed liberal, for any length of time, they end up saying something like, “Cheney and the neo-cons carved out exceptions—” Blah Blah Blay -—

They KNOW they do not have the law behind them, at least not yet.

They count on an activist judge or some international Court, even though their case, that their was any “crime” is very weak.

4 posted on 04/25/2009 8:36:11 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airedale

In September 2006, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., authored the amendment to the military tribunals bill that would have effectively defined waterboarding as torture and made it subject to Common Article 3 under the Geneva Conventions.

The amendment itself focused on conduct of other countries, but said: “should any United States person to whom the Geneva Conventions apply be subjected to any of the following acts, the United States would consider such act to constitute a punishable offense under common Article 3 ... .”

The amendment listed “forcing the person to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; applying beatings, electric shocks, burns, or other forms of physical pain to the person; waterboarding the person; using dogs on the person; inducing hypothermia or heat injury in the person; conducting a mock execution of the person; and depriving the person of necessary food, water, or medical care.”

The amendment failed to gain the needed 50 votes, failing 46-53. Specter and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island were the only Republicans to vote in favor. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure.


5 posted on 04/25/2009 8:37:01 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airedale

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00258


6 posted on 04/25/2009 8:38:28 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airedale

Can you locate any of this in The US Constitution or The Federalist Papers?

Oh, you haven’t READ The US Constitution, Congressperson??? And Why The H3ll NOT?


7 posted on 04/25/2009 8:42:49 AM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (The Constitution & Bill of Rights stand as a whole. Remove any part & nullify the whole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Contrary to your assertion the Geneva conventions does specify the treatment of POWS and what the legal conditions are that must be met to be POW and have POW status.
8 posted on 04/25/2009 8:44:59 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: airedale
So according to the Congress and Senate there is no law that says the terrorist should be punished for cutting off heads or other body parts of the people they capture..We should all sue these morons and make them go after the real criminals..
9 posted on 04/25/2009 8:47:32 AM PDT by PLD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airedale

Both houses of congress passed a torture bill but it wasn’t enough to beat Bush’s veto.


10 posted on 04/25/2009 8:48:16 AM PDT by sazerac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

The Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949.


11 posted on 04/25/2009 8:50:14 AM PDT by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

And this was in 2006. I noticed right after the 9/11 attacks it seemed even the dims were supportive of what was being implemented to get information. The dims felt the same fear, uncertainty, and resolve against terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11 as we all did. At a later point the dims decided fighting terrorists was not nearly as important as fighting President Bush. As if that wasn’t bad enough- now with the Obama dims in power they think conservative Americans and especially Veterans are more dangerous than muslim extremists. Talk about out of touch with reality.


12 posted on 04/25/2009 8:56:13 AM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support & pray for our Troops; they serve us every day. Veterans are heroes not terrorists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: airedale

If there is no law, there is no problem and no reason to keep anything secret.


13 posted on 04/25/2009 8:58:18 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3
Very interesting wording.

“To whom the Geneva Conventions Apply” -—

A United States Citizen who joined a terrorist organization, and attacked another country, while NOT wearing a uniform or being attached to any recognized government, would NOT be covered by the Geneva Conventions, and therefore, would NOT have been covered by the Kennedy waterboarding definition, even if Kennedy had gotten his way!

14 posted on 04/25/2009 9:01:38 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

I agree.
And those out of uniform can be shot as spies.
Those not in uniform are illegal combatants.

The Geneva Conventions spell out what is legal. You must be in uniform to be legal.


15 posted on 04/25/2009 9:03:10 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: airedale

Big News! The Terrorists are not signatories to the “Geneva Convention”.


16 posted on 04/25/2009 9:05:18 AM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli now reads "Oil the gun..eat the cannolis.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Actually it does talk about prisoners of war and their treatment along with the treatment of civilian non combatants. It defines what’s a combatant, non combatant and unlawful combatant. Each are treated differently. SCOTUS in its infinite wisdom totally changed the meanings of the accords when it comes to unlawful combatants but that’s a different issue.


17 posted on 04/25/2009 9:05:39 AM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Wrong!
There were lots of reasons to keep this secret, before Obama committed treason and selectively released portions of this information, for political reasons.

Obama is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Obama is helping the enemy train against our methods.

Obama is putting American lives in danger.

Obama is a traitor.

18 posted on 04/25/2009 9:05:59 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Obama is not an American.


19 posted on 04/25/2009 9:07:11 AM PDT by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

The issue isn’t the Geneva Conventions it’s the law passed by congress that the Republicans are hanging their hats on regarding the definition of torture. If the law is what the former WH and its lawyers claim then there will be some real problems for the Dems who voted for it and any case against them.


20 posted on 04/25/2009 9:07:43 AM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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