Torture

Some interesting news on the torture front.

I wonder what Bush and the right will have to say about this development. Not good news for all those right wing advocates of torture.

 

Let me put on my neo-con spinning top hat for a second.
The tecniques we use are not torture.
That is always the very disgraceful canned answer they give on the topic. One man's torture is another man's sexual fantasy. Just ask Justinian.

 

Or ask Republican Senator Larry (the stall stalker) Craig... two adult size men squeezed together in a single bathroom stall doing "things" to each other seems like torture to me. To him... just another day at the airport.

 

I'm starting to wonder about you, my friend. You somehow bring bathroom sex into every discussion you enter. Don't ask me how you managed to squeeze (no pun intended) it into a conversation on torture, but you did.

 

It would be nice to have a link to follow back and read this article in its entirety, but regardless...

I would have to ask if this particular military movement (war in Iraq, or whatever it's called this week) falls under the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.

In other words, does this military action in Iraq qualify as war as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Because if it does not, then we really are talking apples and oranges here and we must realize that the protections that the Geneva Conventions affords POWs does not apply in this case.

Does that make it right? Probably not, but if one is going to cite the Geneva Conventions and speak of violations of that agreement, one must be prepared to provide proof that certain actions taken do indeed fall under those set guidelines to begin with.

Only some food for thought.

 

Here are several links about the story.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/17/america/NA-GEN-US-Senate-Attorney-General.php​

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/...?story_id=D8SB2I2G0&group=ap.online.headlineshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_go_co/senate_attorney_general

 

Without knowing what tecniques are being used and how they are actually defined. The truly ironic part of it, is that physical torture usually gathers much usable information. Most victims will tell thier captors whatever they think they want to hear just to make it stop. Ask John McCain.

 

Thank you, Popeye. I will go and read here after dinner.

I really am only pointing toward Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950.

I do think it's interesting the vagueness of these documents. Leaves open room for interpretation. To be clear, I am not an advocate for torture. I do just believe that all perspectives should be investigated and questions raised in cases such as this.