(no subject)

Date: 2013-10-30 07:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lafinjack.livejournal.com
What, no "I love living in the future" for this one too?

(no subject)

Date: 2013-10-31 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spartonian.livejournal.com
Have you received a flyover from the black helicopters yet?

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-01 06:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com
Did you ever find that article of the Geneva Conventions which specifically and explicitly allowed for the torturing of terrorists? (I mean, I looked up the citation you gave me, and it covered allowances made for how chaplains were to be treated, but I never heard back from you when I asked for clarification...)

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-01 07:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spartonian.livejournal.com
Was that me…? I kind of remember of discussion along these lines sometime in the past, but I'm blanking on when.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-02 12:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spartonian.livejournal.com
Nothing I've read says its ok to torture terrorists, but it also doesn't say that its illegal to torture terrorists in the GC, since the legal argument is they don't qualify as uniformed combatants or civilians.

Depending on which branch of folks in the U.S. military (and I'm guessing intelligence agencies too…) you ask, if something isn't expressly forbidden in an operating procedure instruction, you can do it until otherwise instructed.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-02 06:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] torrain.livejournal.com
Ah, yes, that was it! You were arguing that the Conventions specifically supported that definition of terrorists not qualifying, and I was asking for a cite.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-02 11:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spartonian.livejournal.com
Yeah… the real world version of rules' lawyering. :/

"It doesn't say I CAN'T do this, so obviously I CAN!"

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-02 11:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Meanwhile, the point those of us out here were trying to make is that Geneva defines only two categories of people: Soldiers who you must treat in X way, and not-soldiers who you must treat in Y way.

Neither X nor Y contains "torture", and it is not possible for any person to fall into the nonexistent "neither soldier nor not-soldier" category that DOESN'T EXIST.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-11-03 01:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spartonian.livejournal.com
I'm not defending the practice. I'm only conveying the justification.

Folks in AQ and similar groups don't exactly fall into either the soldier or civilian categories.
Edited Date: 2013-11-03 01:19 am (UTC)

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Mar. 4th, 2026 10:00 pm