The Bradbury Memoranda was not released until recently as I understand it. I had never seen it until last week. Yoo's Memorandum had been out for over a year.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: > The "outing " .or "releasing done lately was of a CIA operative in the > Bush years. > > The released reports by Obama over torture was already public > information... how EXACTLY did it benefit the enemy in any way new ?? > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:06 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> This is no longer the age of battlefields and flashy uniforms. We have >> arrived at the age of asymmetrical/guerilla wars and 9-11. It is >> ridiculous to abide by the civilized rules of war when war was never >> civilized to begin with. We need a new set of "rules" to combat our >> enemies. And our enemies are Liberals who release our methods/secrets >> and think life is not a jungle for survival. Fine to think to guard >> our reputation for human dignity when our enemies have no thouight of >> doing the same. In this vein, FDR and Truman could be judged quite >> differently for winning WWII. Yes, the Liberals will cry bloody murder >> for waterboarding in their bubble baths, won't they? >> >> On Apr 19, 10:24�pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hey Keith, >> > >> > It is an extremely interesting point with far reaching and unthought of >> > ramifications. >> > >> > The dilemna for me is this..... >> > >> > The US, in recent history (30 yrs), on a foreign affair platform, has >> > developed a bad habit of dropping any part of or whole treaties with the >> > stroke of a Presidents pen. The Constitution says that that is the >> perview >> > of Congress. >> > >> > This is only problamatic diplomatically when considering that EQUAL >> response >> > in the opposite direction is called (pick a "dirty" political word) BY >> the >> > US. >> > >> > The US has called Hugo every name in the book for nationalizing industry >> in >> > his nation... well fuck, the President of the USA just fired the CEO of >> one >> > of the worlds largest corporations (GM) .... just how does that differ >> in >> > reality ?? >> > >> > Who just bought the banks in the US ?? Who now claims "ownership" ?? >> Where >> > IS the REAL difference ?? >> > >> > The government is not allowing the banks etc. to buy back the stock.... >> > >> > Back on the related point... it IS all perception when one of the >> > signatories breaks from the agreement for whatever self serving reasons. >> > Using this and many other examples as the means to deny the normal �or >> > common interpretation of a document to serve ones own best interest is >> to >> > allow others to do the same on the same basis. >> > >> > Lets take ANY country where a "black op" has taken place and apply the >> Bush >> > now Obama interpretation of "combatant" to those highly specialized >> marines >> > , sailors and soldiers AND the regular uniformed men that come to the >> > rescue..... The US would SCREAM bloody murder.. >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Hey Mark and Dick, >> > >> > > What is making this even more troublesome for me this evening, is that >> I am >> > > watching a movie as we speak on HBO; �called "Rendition"; which is a >> biased >> > > Hollywood scripted verison of what we are talking about, but attempts >> to be >> > > "fair" showing the Islamic Jihadists caught up in terroristic >> activities and >> > > a CIA Agent's dilemma in "torture" which again, contradicts all of the >> > > information that has been released to date. >> > >> > > A couple of points, �and again, let me make this clear, that I am >> looking >> > > for answers, and not necessarily "arguing a point". �If I sound >> critical, or >> > > argumentative, then it is because of my, "devil's advocate" mentality >> when I >> > > am searching for truth and answers. >> > >> > > Let's assume for a moment that the activities by the CIA and the >> United >> > > States passes Constitutional muster, which would include any treaties >> that >> > > we have entered into, including the Geneva Convention. �This was what >> both >> > > Yoo and Bradbury were attempting to argue: >> > >> > > "Does our actions, "Shock the conscience"? >> > >> > > Keep in mind that we are talking about individuals that we believe to >> be >> > > homicidal murderers, and who, (for argument's sake, let't take the CIA >> > > facts") �had designs to let off a dirty bomb in Washington D.C. and >> crash >> > > another plane into a Los Angeles Skyscraper. >> > >> > > Does our actions, "Shock the Conscience"?? >> > >> > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> Dick, >> > >> > >> The biggest and yet unaddressed issue is what happens when someone >> that >> > >> does not accept the US interpretation (and like any Sovereign nation >> > >> that has the right to unilaterally interpret the document) claims >> that >> > >> because of the US pullout from commonly held "truths" as to status of >> people >> > >> on a battlefield applies the US ruling in reverse and claims: >> > >> > >> 'The US, when relying on its' own/unilateral interpretation did >> tacitly >> > >> withdraw from the conventions therefore its' soldiers do not have the >> > >> privilege of being treated under the accord.' >> > >> This position is JUST as easily defended as the present US >> > >> position. �Especially when given the history of Presidential orders >> that >> > >> disregard the necessity of Congressional approval (not to mention the >> other >> > >> Sovereign signatories) to change the scope of a ratified treaty. >> > >> �On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:53 PM, dick thompson < >> rhomp2...@earthlink.net >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >>> When was the 4th Geneva Convention? �I know that the Geneva >> Convention >> > >>> during the Reagan era was never approved by Congress so it really >> shouldn't >> > >>> pertain to the US. >> > >> > >>> Mark wrote: >> > >> > >>> � The more I read the more obvious the reason for the US (and your) >> > >>> error is a slight difference in the wording between the 3rd and 4th >> > >>> conventions. The US seems to prayerfully cling to wording from the >> 3rd >> > >>> convention alone forgetting that by the time the 4th was written the >> world >> > >>> was in several small "guerrilla" style conflicts (non-government >> aligned/non >> > >>> uniformed soldiers as AQ and Taliban are now) and the 4th convention >> did >> > >>> indeed include them as identifiable "parties to the conflict" (if >> they were >> > >>> NOT supposedly identifiable they would never have been >> > >>> arrested/taken/kidnapped). >> > >> > >>> Cherry picking a law that was designed to include and protect in >> order to >> > >>> exclude and sequester �is NOT the action of a moral rule of law >> society... >> > >>> it smells of knee-jerking fear and �lost ideals. >> > >> > >>> � On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >>>> � Keith, >> > >> > >>>> This should help your position but does not overcome the plethora >> of >> > >>>> alternate definitions found in the conventions. >> > >> > >>>>http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=934 >> > >> > >>>> � �On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >>>>> �If you are a National of a Signatory Nation and are a "party to >> the >> > >>>>> conflict" you are covered. If you are not a national from a >> signatory nation >> > >>>>> and are caught THEN anything goes. You must however be given a >> FORMAL >> > >>>>> hearing to determine this status by a NEUTRAL to the conflict. >> > >> > >>>>> � On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Keith In Tampa < >> > >>>>> keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >>>>>> � There is a paragraph that I will find, (and I was looking for >> it a >> > >>>>>> couple of weeks ago and could not locate it, but i am positive of >> its >> > >>>>>> existence!!) �that discusses an individual who is not >> identifiable as >> > >>>>>> a soldier. �The Accords do not apply to him, and he can be shot >> on site. >> > >>>>>> This would apply to any and all illegal enemy combatants. >> > >> > >>>>>> � On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >>>>>>> � Protected persons shall continue to have the benefit of such >> > >>>>>>> agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, >> except where >> > >>>>>>> express provisions to the contrary are contained in the >> aforesaid or in >> > >>>>>>> subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have >> been taken >> > >>>>>>> with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the >> conflict. >> > >> > >>>>>>> Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in >> part or >> > >>>>>>> in entirety the rights secured to them by the present >> Convention, and by the >> > >>>>>>> special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such >> there be. >> > >> > >>>>>>> � On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Keith In Tampa < >> > >>>>>>> keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >>>>>>>> � Hey Mark! >> > >> > >>>>>>>> There is one major flaw with your premise. >> > >> > >>>>>>>> These folks are not prisoners of war. �They are illegal enemy >> > >>>>>>>> combatants, who wear no uniform, who are beholding to no >> Nation-State other >> > >>>>>>>> than a fanatical cultish religion, and who are intent upon >> destroying yours >> > >>>>>>>> and my way of life, to include the destruction of the United >> States of >> > >>>>>>>> America and its citizenry. >> > >> > >>>>>>>> As the enhanced interrogation tactics results proved, al Queida >> was >> > >>>>>>>> planning on flying more planes into West Coast skyscrapers, and >> planned on >> > >>>>>>>> setting of a dirty bomb in Washington D.C.; all aimed at >> civilian >> > >>>>>>>> targets.....Not military targets. >> > >> > >>>>>>>> But, my point being, is that the Geneva Convention that you are >> > >>>>>>>> quoting is not applicable to any of these individuals, and even >> assuming >> > >>>>>>>> that the Conventions were applicable to these 28 individuals >> that were >> > >>>>>>>> exposed to the enhanced interrogation tactics, the only tactic >> that was in >> > >>>>>>>> violation was the humiliation-embarassment clause, and the >> attempt to >> > >>>>>>>> extrapolate information from these individuals by using >> coercive, (yet >> > >>>>>>>> non-harmful, non-painful, non-life threatening) tactics. �But >> again, those >> > >>>>>>>> provisions are not applicable to these homocidal murderers. >> > >> > >>>>>>>> � On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE < >> > >>>>>>>> markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Keith, >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Just a SMALL sampling of the convention rules that Gitmo >> violated >> > >>>>>>>>> on a >> > >>>>>>>>> daily basis. It was not ONLY the torture clause. >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Please point out ANY ambiguous clauses.....rule of law is what >> used >> > >>>>>>>>> to >> > >>>>>>>>> give the US an advantage both on and off the field of battle.. >> They >> > >>>>>>>>> have thrown it out as well as any advantage they had in the >> field. >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Countries that go to war and KNOWINGLY throw the law to the >> four >> > >>>>>>>>> winds >> > >>>>>>>>> simply field what they fight.. a gang of thugs whose deaths >> are NOT >> > >>>>>>>>> to >> > >>>>>>>>> be mourned. >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited >> at >> > >>>>>>>>> any >> > >>>>>>>>> time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the >> > >>>>>>>>> above-mentioned >> > >>>>>>>>> persons: >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all >> kinds, >> > >>>>>>>>> mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> (b) Taking of hostages; >> > >> > >>>>>>>>> (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating >> and >> > >>>>>>>>> degrading >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more �- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
