The point of the enhanced interrogation techniques, at all levels, was to
extract accurate information. Waterboarding is based on a deeply rooted
physiological response which makes an individual believe that he is
drowning, even if he knows that no harm will come to him. See Bradbury's
5/10/05
So you post something supposedly claiming there was no
torture except it cites examples of such -- of course it attempts
to diminish them.
Regard$,
--MJ
Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the
most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every
other.
War
Michael,
There was nothing condoned by our government, (and the few instances where
there was impropriety, the individuals were prosecuted) that, Shocked The
Human Conscience.
If you cannot understand that, then this leaves two options. (A) You have
not read Yoo's, Bradbury's and Rumsfeld's
Hey Michael,
If you are reading this from e-mail, and don't have the thread saved, I
suggest that you go back to the start of this thread in the Group, and read
from the beginning. There is some very good articles and a lot of
information in this thread. Here's the link:
Keith the idea is NOT to kill them while questioning them,
to turtore someone to death without getting the Intel
would be stupid, your reasoning that this is not torture
because he didn't die is sheer stupidity!
On Apr 22, 10:06 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote:
Same
So why did we put Japanese to death who water tortured our troops
if it is not torture?
On Apr 22, 10:27 am, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Mark wrote:
No, it is EXACTLY the same when arrested the accused nterrorists are
simply people with
28 people? Bush said NO ONE was tortured, today it is 28,
what will it be later? How did those 98 people die during questioning?
If we were not torturing them, how did they die? There was a doctor
present,
so what happened? Answer that one please.
On Apr 22, 10:27 am, Keith In Tampa
Never before has the US resorted to these tactics
Clearly you do not know the history of the Vietnam War, or the Civil
War, the the Philippino Resistance in 1901, or thw War of 1812, or the
French Indian War...War almost always involves cases or some very
brutal behavior... Still the US
A version of the old Liberal line - you are just too dumb to debate
with me... MeaNWILE BACK IN REALITY. The UN is showing how broken
it is and by referrence the International law you profess to love...
Seem even the UN is embarass about Durban -- where totalitarian
racists call other racist
The premise for your article is
Some nations are more equal than others, some have an inherent right to be
more sovereign than others.
That same attitude pervaded the US when dealing (from day one as colonies)
with your red, black, brown and yellow populations.
Surely you, as an enlightened
No, the premise was it should be about HUMAN RIGHTS not STATE
RIGHTSIt pointed out the one falacy of your mindse is it
demands equating results with rights...
That same attitude pervaded the US when dealing (from day one as colonies)
with your red, black, brown and yellow populations.
To say that the rest of the world has not been dealing withh stateless
terrorist groups on a successful basis for a long time before the US
involvement is just STUPID.
But within the Geneva Accords??? As to your claimed particulars
1) Afghanistan -- You exclude 9/11 in its deeds, AQ
It DID take such groups into account. It also took US treatment of such
groups into account as the US in the 20th century had at one time a habit
of decapitating the dead stuffing the mouths with meat and burying the parts
separately. Nice history you have there.
It has all been done before
Please Mark stop misrepresenting my words when my words are clear...
I do not understand how or from where you get this idea that stateless
terror is anything new or that was not considered when the Covenants were
written.
1) I did not claim stateless terrorism was new... YOU said I
Mark note the debate here is how we treated AQ leaders, not what the
US did in Vietnam or the Philippines in 1901... You seek to demand a
higher standard than what the US did EVEN THOUGH IT USED A FAR HIGHER
STANDARD THAN IN PRIOR URBAN WARFARE Moral perfection in war
does not exist...
It
Your very basic claim that terror tactics (torture) must all of a sudden be
used because of US involvement
Wrong... I assume the US acts the same way when it is seeking to
combat groups that terrorize... That is using non lethal methods to
extract timely and critical information from
That is why Eisenhower was such a good President, he appreciated the
cost in men for war... And only to be used if no other options are
available...
On Apr 23, 5:04 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wars break all the rules. Generals/Admirals knew how many men they
would sacrifice in WWI
I agree,jgg.
On Apr 23, 4:36�pm, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote:
That is why Eisenhower was such a good President, he appreciated the
cost in men for war... �And only to be used if no other options are
available...
On Apr 23, 5:04�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wars break all
I was ASKED by Keith to give my
opinion of the discussion and did so
you arrogant fool.
Believe it on not, this is NOT your board,
you did NOT start this discussion, and you
do NOT have a monopoly on who and what can
be discussed.
The fact that you seem oblivious to these simple
obvious facts,
Same ChurchDifferent Pew category.
Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad was purportedly subjected to waterboarding 183 times
in March, 2003, and Abu Zubaydah was purportedly subjected to waterboarding
83 times in August, 2002, while being monitored by both a medical doctor and
a psychologist. . *See*
As I suggested, in your POV thousands killed IS AN ACCEPTABLE price
for no torture... That is not the POV of most... You argue for a
consistent AND inhumane RULE OF LAW...At one time Slavery was
supported by RULE OF LAW Would you have then supported Southern
Slavery in 1860???
On Apr
We can all agree that torture used in evey day life in not to be
done We can all agree the all too often individuals and
governments abuse torture.. And we all should be able to agree that
some very bad individual abuse the legal process to get away with
murder... The question here is
That is NOT what I said. I said it is wrong to torture the info from him.
Which is to say you are willing to allow thousand to die if need
be And that is YOUR slippery slope... When does the rights of
the group overweight the non lethal abuse of an individual???To
say never is to
Jgg,
As much as I advocate that most all issues are Black And White...There is
no grey area; I tend to agree with you here. The edges do seem to get a
bit fuzzy.
I was opposed to the release of these documents, and agreed with those who
were claiming that such a release constituted potential
So let me get this straight..
If an individual is thought to have info that would save thousands of lives
and won't give it up it is fine to use enhanced interrogation
techniques..
The more urgent the need for this information, the more advanced the
method needs to be and the more resistant
f an individual is thought to have info that would save thousands of lives
and won't give it up it is fine to use enhanced interrogation
techniques..
That is the logic... Now often this logic is wrongly applied
However in this case, the claim is that critical was gleaned by using
the
I have NEVER claimed that no information useful or not was ever gained
it is beyond the point.
My slope is NOT slippery. It is common sense when considering that which
others find just, moral, and correct under THEIR also perfectly legal
systems.
Your claim the organizations like AQ have
And here is some light reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2008/RAND_CT314.pdf
http://www.funtrivia.com/flashquiz/index.cfm?qid=295271
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:34 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote:
My Dearest Misguided Sean,
Since I was addressing everything from this point (From: VT
VirtualTruth thevirtualtr...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Apr 20 2009 10:05 am) on I find your response ill advised
and lacking in base thought.
As to being arrogant, I
Of the US unsigned protocol 1
Section I.-Methods and means of warfare
Article 35.-Basic rules
paragraph 3. states It is prohibited to employ methods or means of
warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread,
long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. In the
This of course leads to the question Whose signature matters???
That of the invader/occupier (US who did NOT sign the protocol) or
that of the particular Invadee or the home country of the particular
combatant ??
Since Sovereignity is an issue everywhere except the High Seas, the
Arctic
So what did the Founders call the mass extinction of American Indian
tribes? Slavery, white immigrant contracts of seven years, child
labor, unfair laws of labor and conscription?// It seems we need new
testing to root out the brutes but that has little to do with the kind
of war we are fighting.
First, explain the difference between savages and terrorist
combatants and who that applies to during various empires and
colonizing nations versus the latter. And remember we are no longer at
war with with a modern equal- we are warring against the 7th or 12th
Century in reasoning.
On Apr 21,
And you also fail to address the other war going on at present- the
vast redistribution of wealth and capital, which is just as deadly. It
probably calls for a new vocabulary of suckers and thieves- happily,
English is elastic.
On Apr 21, 12:47�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
So what did
One question NOT debated is If these methods did save hundreds of
lives, is it justified??? If one takes the position of no, then you
place yourself into the position of saying not torturing 1 man is
more important than hundreds of lives To date the Left ignores
this question with the
The Left does not understand mental torture/extraction of information.
Mossad does, evidently.//I don't think the ME terrorists have arrived
at the mental category of interrogations which the Left assumes. The
Left is a victim oriented mentality to begin with- pass the Band-Aids.
As unemployment
So the various police forces in the US should return to the day of the
rubber hoses ?? And when your son/daughter/family member does not rat out
its ok to save the many by using it ??
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
The Left does not understand mental
There are courts of law, NOT courts of justice.
jgg, the presumption of innocence is absolute in jurisprudence
It is better than 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent
man to be put to death. This prinicple is embodied in the presumption of
innocence. In 1895, the U.S.
You must have no idea what metropolitan police are dealing with in our
society. Pity.
On Apr 21, 2:19�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
So the various police forces in the US should return to the day of the
rubber hoses ?? And when your son/daughter/family member does not rat out
its ok to
so its fine if they think they have reason to whack on your kid then.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:28 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
You must have no idea what metropolitan police are dealing with in our
society. Pity.
On Apr 21, 2:19�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
So the various
I was saying something else about interrogations. The mental is more
powerful than the physical.
On Apr 21, 2:19�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
So the various police forces in the US should return to the day of the
rubber hoses ?? And when your son/daughter/family member does not rat out
I raised law abiding children and suggest others do the same although
some stories spring to mind from youth's merry pranks. I think there
is more misery with lawyers than cops! :-)
On Apr 21, 2:32�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
so its fine if they think they have reason to whack on your
But that is not the question addressed in this thread is it ?? There are
already limits set that are being crossed by the duly appointed . that
limit is NONE. How do you mentally torture someone without physically
controlling them ??
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com
and the question remains that if your childs very best friend severely
screwed up is it ok to abuse your kid to get info on the friend ??
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
I raised law abiding children and suggest others do the same although
some stories
You are the one talking about physical abuse which is no longer
necessary in this techie age. There are so many tracers now-
electronic, DNA.//This issue actually came up several times raising my
children as a single mother- it is handled differently on a
neighborhood basis. You need several
Nice dodge answer the question or decline to do so but quit dancing and
keep this in the scope of the thread.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are the one talking about physical abuse which is no longer
necessary in this techie age. There are so many
It is better than 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one
innocent man to be put to death.
Your short answer is it is better the thousands die rather than 1
man's rights not be violated.That I suspect is not the answer
of most folks -- by a wide margin... And that Mark is
NOw you are mixing apples and oranges... NO ONE is arguing for a
universial application of torture... The argument here is about
using non lethal means to extract critical life saving information
from PROFESSIONAL terrorists --- a very limited and far greater
specified application than what
No Mark, this your ignore the clear limited framework of application
of these methods... They were not professed to be designed for
general every day police work... But you knew that, and you seek a
strawman here so YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER a basic question Should
these methods be used to
Is it ok to get info on a friend IF they have or are planning to kill
other people???Your POV is no... I suspect the relatives of
those killed would disagree..
On Apr 21, 3:45 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
and the question remains that if your childs very best friend severely
Perhaps you need to refine your question in a less biased fashion...
On Apr 21, 4:34 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice dodge answer the question or decline to do so but quit dancing and
keep this in the scope of the thread.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM, rigsy03
No, it is EXACTLY the same when arrested the accused nterrorists are
simply people with no ID and no proof wrong place wrong time torture
is used to sort them out.
Torture is NOT acceptable on any level, I would not care whose child or
family is at risk, including my own. The is and
BULL!! If your kids were in danger you would do anything. If you
wouldn't then you need to take a look at your role as a father.
Mark wrote:
No, it is EXACTLY the same when arrested the accused nterrorists
are simply people with no ID and no proof wrong place wrong
time
Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not
sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, a passionate man,
seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain
himself, and exclaimed, Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to
deny,
As would the relatives of the tortured... impasse
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:54 PM, jgg1000a jgg1...@hotmail.com wrote:
Is it ok to get info on a friend IF they have or are planning to kill
other people???Your POV is no... I suspect the relatives of
those killed would disagree..
On
So you are saying that it is just fine and dandy for this guy to hold
back info that would save a lot of lives including the lives of the
family just because his relatives might not like it. Your values are
amazing! Antedeluvial but amazing.
Mark wrote:
As would the relatives of the
And I respectfully urge you to think on your feet. I am not a
lawyer- just a voice. Sometimes the frayed thread is a greater
truth.// There is ambivalence about lawyers and laws, doctors and
procedures, politicians and govenance, teachers and knowledge and so
on and that's where I pitch my tent.
Thanks for the dance experience and common sense must teach evasion
now..
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:02 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
And I respectfully urge you to think on your feet. I am not a
lawyer- just a voice. Sometimes the frayed thread is a greater
truth.//
You're welcome.
On Apr 22, 12:05�am, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the dance �experience and common sense must teach evasion
now..
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:02 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
And I respectfully urge you to think on your feet. I am not a
BTW, evasion is usually written into laws or lawyers of conscience
would never defend obvious criminals.
On Apr 22, 12:05�am, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the dance �experience and common sense must teach evasion
now..
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:02 PM, rigsy03
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
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
106 detainees died during 'questioning. If they were not
being tortured and another person was present during
questioning, perhaps even a doctor according to the
Bush torture memos, why did they die? If they were
in need of medical attention why didn't they get it
before questioning?
But you all
Can you document these 106 detainees who were purportedly killed or died??
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:05 PM, VT VirtualTruth thevirtualtr...@gmail.com
wrote:
106 detainees died during 'questioning. If they were not
being tortured and another person was present during
questioning, perhaps
They should have just given them a bikini wax - that would have gotten
the info and the International Red Cross and the NYT would not have had
anything to complain about.
VT VirtualTruth wrote:
106 detainees died during 'questioning. If they were not
being tortured and another person was
LMAO, did you even BOTHER to read the links at
the bottom of the post? Keith try to make this
interesting! I am starting to feel guilty about
abusing you in front of so many people!
On Apr 20, 12:08 pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you document these 106 detainees who were
You got nothing for a real rebuttal, when you torture
a detainee to death someone wasn't doing their job
correctly and you didn't get any Intel.
I am a realists, I know that torture happens in real
life, but it is done by professionals and the prisoners
rarely die, and it is done to individuals
Sean,
I just reviewed the links that you sent, I apologize for not seeing them
initially.
You are aware, that the links you cite are discussing purported torture
allegations that took place in 2002-2003 at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan,
as well as Abu Gharib Prison in Iraq? That those
US personnel torturing, plausible deniability means
nothing and I posted articles written in 2004 that
deaths from torture were already being reported and
Bush was denying this, the Red Cross now verify
that the WH was lying.
To say it was examples of allegations, and then later
claim that all
Actually Sean, Keith and I were NOT discussing actual torture or its
use or non-use but the ramifications of unilaterally side stepping the
Geneva Conventions (and other conventions) in order to institute a
policy that either is or is not in keeping with the intentions,
protections and
KEITH
To begin with, it's not about the persons being tortured. It's about
the people doing the torturing.
Cruel dictators like Saddam, or religious-wacko terrorist groups like
al Quaeda, torture prisoners because THEY are the BAD GUYS.
We and other civilized nations do not legally employ
But we did as agreed by Pelosi and company when it was shown to them in
2002. Now you want to change the rules after the fact and then charge
these people with not abiding by the rules.
Lobo wrote:
KEITH
To begin with, it's not about the persons being tortured. It's about
the people
Hey, the rules were in place when the incidents transpired. Now that it may
apply to you you'd like to reverse the Neurmberg Hangings ?? just following
orders was not allowed as a defense, Neither is my lawyer said* I could.*
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM, dick thompson
Do you support renditions? That was legally OK not long ago but now we
hear it is not. I seem to remember you being against that when it came
up. Yet it has been done for over 15 years at least. Now if you try
you will end up in court. But according to you it should not even be in
question
Changing the rules and then charging the troops is OK though, I guess.
Mark wrote:
Again, bad advise and ignorance are NOT reasonable excuses.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM, dick thompson
rhomp2...@earthlink.net mailto:rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote:
Do you support renditions? That
All that is necessary is responsible leadership
The rules have NOT been changed...link please. please do not link me to
opinions legal or lay... The troops are taught the rules of the
convention... especially those dealing with prisoners... the rules are in no
way ambiguous in any of a
There is a big difference between our government kidnapping a very
limited number of people-- people against whom there were outstanding
foreign arrest warrants -- in order to deliver them to 3rd countries
in order to face criminal charges, as happened under Clinton, Bush I
and Reagan, and
There is NO difference.
Kidnapping is kidnapping There is no justification for the US to act
on a warrant unless the suspect is on US soil.
Imagine what an uproar would take place if other nations went into the US
and started taking people they had issued warrants for...
Rule of law
Mark,
I agree. The policy is misguided. I am still confused as to how we went in
twenty years ago, and took a soverign foreign leader, Manuel Noreiga from
his Nation, and then tried him in a Federal District Court. I have read the
decision, I just disagree with it, and think that the policy is
MARK
I'm not trying to defend Clinton's actions (or Bush Senior's or Ronald
Reagan's). I agree that those renditions were illegal in most cases.
But there are degrees of illegality and of moral wrongness, and to say
that there is no difference between delivering a kidnappee with a
legal
Simple, Noriega was the multi-directional link in the Iran-Contra
dealings... he knew where all the dope went, and where all the guns were
from.
They considered him a rogue CIA agent and nothing more.
I know Eloy Alfaro very well, Normally stay a couple of blocks from there at
14 west and
I do not think that sending armed men from one government into the sovereign
territory of another without formal permission is correct on ANY level
That logic is what sent us to Panama and then Iraq. The US has now violated
the very principals on which it was founded TWICE on the greatest
I was responding to Keith's post to ME about one of MY
posts you arrogant fool.
On Apr 20, 5:03 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually Sean, Keith and I were NOT discussing actual torture or its
use or non-use but the ramifications of unilaterally side stepping the
Geneva
The answer is Articla 5 dangerous or suspected dangerous prisoner
*Article 5*
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied
that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in
activities hostile to the security of the State, such
Thanks Mark!!
Unfortunately, it doesn't say the language that I had remembered from my
school days!! It was also very much considered in Rumsfeld's Working Group
Within The Department of Defense..Hard to get around some of the
language here.As Bradbury and especially Yoo understood!!1
Thats OK, Max penalties for ANY kind of disruption while captive are also
set at 30 days
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks Mark!!
Unfortunately, it doesn't say the language that I had remembered from my
school days!! It was also very
The suspect was on US soil and trying to stay. Canada would not let him
back because he was on their list. The US honored the Canada list.
There was no kidnapping involved. It was a matter of what to do with
the guy. They shipped him back to where he originally came from since
Canada
the declassification of the CIA documents was an attempt by the
Executive Branch of government to show transparency. Yet the
Executive branch of government will NOT declassify and show proof that
Mr. soetore is constitutionally QUALIFIED
On Apr 19, 12:30 pm, Keith In Tampa
Hey Daniel,
I don't doubt that your premise is correct, especially the current
Administration's attempt to besmirch the previous Administration. But once
you read the Memoranda, I honestly don't see how any thinking American can
come to the conclusion that the Memoranda is harmful against
I object. These releases have showed the terrorists how to prepare.
Israel/Mossad has a very different tactic. You don't get valid
information from torture. You get a release from physical pain and bs.
First, learn the language and culture and work their puzzle. Then kill
them.
On Apr 19,
What has saved Isreal? Brains! Even the photo of the former head of
Mossad prompted every secret. O- those eyes penetrating into my soul-
worse than a priest!
On Apr 19, 2:57�pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Daniel,
I don't doubt that your premise is correct, especially
I totally agree Rigs. It was a mistake to have released these documents,
for the very reason that you allude to. It weakens our intelligence
gathering, as well as prepares these homicidal murdering Muslims for what
our tactics and techniques are.
Now that the documents have been released, (and
One of the reasons I despise the NYT. They have made a practice of
releasing info like this which plays right into the hands of our
enemies. Note the cell phone fiasco where they let Al Qaeda know that
we were tracking their cell phones. Same with the SWIFT money
transfers. I was
Well, in this instance, the NYT released this information (as well as the
ACLU) with the Obama Administration's blessing.
Nevertheless, (and I agree that it was a mistake to have released this info)
I do surmise that this is going to come back to bite the Obama
Administration in the ass. These
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
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
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of
which they are not nationals.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Keith In
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
Ad not last but not least They ARE Parties to the Conflict Thus are
directly identified.:
Art. 9. The present Convention shall be applied with the cooperation and
under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard
the interests of the Parties to the conflict. For this
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey Mark!
There is one major flaw with your premise.
These folks are not prisoners of war. They are illegal enemy combatants,
who wear
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
