Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Yes, so it would govern those Americans who carried out the enhanced interrogation techniques. If we classify these people as POW's then they are entitled to multiple treaties that we are party to, which by US law are on equal footing with the Constitution. Therefore, if we classify them as POW's, we criminalize those who carry out enhanced interrogation techniques.

I am all for enhanced interrogations, however you need to understand that there is a clear legal case to be made in why it is acceptable. You are going to get nowhere arguing the point that they are "prisoners of war" (your words) and that we can therefore treat them however we like. That line is simply not true. If they are POW's then under US law they are entitled to certain protections that would forbid enhanced interrogations.

That rarely works. The better approach is to make a legal case that clearly justifies what you are doing. It is harder to argue with that rationale than the rationale of "we won't let anyone know."

Depends on the treaty.

<blockquote data-quote="BigRob" data-source="post: 99906" data-attributes="member: 628">Yes, so it would govern those Americans who carried out the enhanced interrogation techniques.&nbsp; If we classify these people as POW&#039;s then they are entitled to multiple treaties that we are party to, which by US law are on equal footing with the Constitution.&nbsp; Therefore, if we classify them as POW&#039;s, we criminalize those who carry out enhanced interrogation techniques.&nbsp; I am all for enhanced interrogations, however you need to understand that there is a clear legal case to be made in why it is acceptable.&nbsp; You are going to get nowhere arguing the point that they are &quot;prisoners of war&quot; (your words) and that we can therefore treat them however we like.&nbsp; That line is simply not true.&nbsp; If they are POW&#039;s then under US law they are entitled to certain protections that would forbid enhanced interrogations.&nbsp; That rarely works.&nbsp; The better approach is to make a legal case that clearly justifies what you are doing.&nbsp; It is harder to argue with that rationale than the rationale of &quot;we won&#039;t let anyone know.&quot;Depends on the treaty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BigRob, post: 99906, member: 628"] [COLOR="Red"] Yes, so it would govern those Americans who carried out the enhanced interrogation techniques. If we classify these people as POW's then they are entitled to multiple treaties that we are party to, which by US law are on equal footing with the Constitution. Therefore, if we classify them as POW's, we criminalize those who carry out enhanced interrogation techniques. I am all for enhanced interrogations, however you need to understand that there is a clear legal case to be made in why it is acceptable. You are going to get nowhere arguing the point that they are "prisoners of war" (your words) and that we can therefore treat them however we like. That line is simply not true. If they are POW's then under US law they are entitled to certain protections that would forbid enhanced interrogations. That rarely works. The better approach is to make a legal case that clearly justifies what you are doing. It is harder to argue with that rationale than the rationale of "we won't let anyone know." [/COLOR] Depends on the treaty. [/QUOTE]

Verification