Skip to comments.What is the law that congress passed regarding torture
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.
The Geneva conventions outline what are valid military targets. Not how to treat POWs, banning weaponry, or anything like that.
I’ve asked the same question. No one seems to know.
A very large portion of these documents deals with who IS and who IS NOT covered by the Conventions.
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.
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.
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?
Both houses of congress passed a torture bill but it wasn’t enough to beat Bush’s veto.
The Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949.
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.
If there is no law, there is no problem and no reason to keep anything secret.
“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!
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.
Big News! The Terrorists are not signatories to the “Geneva Convention”.
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.
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.
Obama is not an American.
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.