Snow discusses torture for bushco

[bobbieinok]

http://www.tbogg.blogspot.com/

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The Genocide Convention

There is no shortage of people in this administration who will say anything that they are told to say. Tony Snow discussing the Geneva Convention:


.....



Q Tony, I'm confused. Everybody I talked to today on the Hill says, look, you've had the Geneva Conventions in place since 1947. This isn't the Migratory Birds Treaty we're talking about. This is the Geneva Conventions.

....

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because Common Article III had never been construed as applying to any conflict in which the United States had ever been a party. And furthermore, it has not been construed as applying to conflicts for the most part that afflicted any of our allies, to which they've been a party. It is something that they had never had to think about, and for which there was not a substantial and settled body of law that would define what the terms mean. And this is a key point. Nobody has defined in law what the terms mean. And we think it's important not only that we define what the terms mean, but that our -- the people who are working for us, either as soldiers in the field, or those who are doing the questioning for the CIA, they have to know that it passes constitutional muster, and it is defined and approved as abiding by our international treaty obligations.

....

MR. SNOW: Well, and let me just make the point here, the predicate of your question was, it had been sitting around and everybody knew what the meaning was, and the fact is, nobody knew what the meaning was."

Until John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales came along, nobody had ever dusted off the Geneva Convention's rules and actually read them.

That is a dazzling statement.

....(tbogg quotes all of Article III of the Geneva Convention)


Alberto Gonzales regards this as "quaint".

Jesus.

And we thought that Henry Kissinger was a war criminal....

*****

Just WOW. Try to get into the mindset of a group that can make this statement with a straight face:

"Well, that's because Common Article III had never been construed as applying to any conflict in which the United States had ever been a party."

And

"Well, and let me just make the point here, the predicate of your question was, it had been sitting around and everybody knew what the meaning was, and the fact is, nobody knew what the meaning was."

[Webster Green]

1. Absolutely amazing!...and I don't have enough points for Canada..

This is getting to be unbelievable.

We need to drag the little prick out of the White House, and get him behind bars, ASAP.

[knowbody0]

2. and the word that stumped them all

"dignity"

Putting a naked man in a freezer for a week listening to Red Hot Chillie Peppers non stop, that's dignified, right?

I wish we could laugh at the insanity but it is just shameful.

[EFerrari]

3. Sadistic criminals.

K&R

[Kagemusha]

4. I think it's news to the US Military that the conventions didn't apply.

In fact, until John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales came along, there had never been any doubt in the military that the conventions did apply... or what their meaning actually was.

[ShortnFiery]

7. There is an Unclassified Army Field Manual FM 34-52 entitled

INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION :wow:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/


Guess what? It's a valuable resource that provides all Army Interrogators essential information that FULLY complies with Article 3 of The Geneva Conventions.

Note: I didn't just stay at A Holiday Inn Express last night, but can claim as former Intelligence Officer I attest to the fact that there are numerous "techniques and skills" that result in effective interrogations. And no, none of these techniques involve torture.

Further, applying even "the unclassified techniques" within U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52 has proved "time and time again" to be far more valuable than THE EXACT TECHNIQUES (Tortures) that Our Dear Leader wants to re-term as "coerced interrogation."

It should come as no surprised that former Military Leaders (with integrity) know that torture provides, at best, unreliable information. :thumbsdown:

On Edit: Here's a thought - Tell The Executive Branch to have their CIA Operatives use Army Field Manual 34-52. With FM 34-52, the CIA can be guided by detailed CLARIFICATION! :patriot:

[Kagemusha]

8. Right. It's lawyers and politicial leaders who brought doubt into it.

And that's how the WH press sec magically has no idea what the conventions mean. Because the government of the US of A stopped wanting anyone to know - and suddenly, the knowledge vanished.

Is that Orwellian or what?

[justgamma]

5. Very important question

At what point in the torture, do they decide that the detainee really doesn't know anything. Before or after the electrodes on the genitals or is it before or after the pole up the ass.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

9. IMO - The Most Important Question

What Government Entity DEFINES exactly WHO is "a terrorist" or WHAT domestic GROUPS can be labeled "terrorist organizations?" :scared:

[Kutjara]

10. It's probably the old 'witch-trial' test.

If the detainee dies under torture without giving up any information, they probably didn't know anything and were therefore innocent.

If they do give up information, they are a terrorist and are sentenced to summary execution.

[gumby]

6. They got that Three Thing goin' on.

They're talking about "Common Article 3" as if it's some brand new, hocus-pocus, dire quandary for the United States Of America to immediately respond to as a National Security issue.

IIRC, U.N. Resolution 1443 was continuously (and still is) parroted in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. 1443, 1443, 1443. We heard that number repeatedly and repeatedly as the excuse for the Iraq invasion.

Now, were on to Common Article 3.

Same bullshit. Same #3. As if that gives BushCo some legal cover. HA!