Administration Urged to Drop CIA Probe in Light of Osama

TLDR - <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10656 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10656<!-- l -->

Yes, I was referring to oversight, not transparency with the CIA; transparency with the gov't. Thank you for the clarification neptune (BTW, we started reading Have Spacesuit, Will Travel - he's loving it! Thank you!)

Nmysys wrote: There sure is a lot of GUESSING going on by the Liberal women on here today.

And what does that have to do with your OP of a CIA probe? I addressed that, and you're happy just taking your pot-shots at the length of my posts?

Nmysys wrote: What is the paragraph in the Constitution or any other law that provides these protections to our enemies?

I want results, not PC namby pamby questioning of enemy combatants. Not that much to ask with the Budgets of our Intelligence Agencies.

It's not in the Constitution, it's in a treaty that we signed. Or is our word in a treaty subject to our own "interpretation" now? Oh, yes they are "enemy combatants", not prisoners of war - what a PC term!

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 17
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Yes, the notion of getting nations to "respectfully" conduct war is laughable, but it's what we vowed we do, and it's an admirable, if not reality-based, notion to which to aspire. And although Afghanistan and Iraq both have ratified that same treaty, we are not at war with countries, we are at war with a ideological group, that has no borders. But when we lower ourselves to treating their prisoners the same or worse than they've treated ours (and yes, I will declare that torture is worse than beheading - that's a quick and painless death, and the choice I would prefer if I were captured, but then I'm a wimp when it comes to pain), then we have lost the moral high ground - we are no better than them.

neptunechimney wrote: Your welcome. If he gets hooked on Heinlein, I can help.

:thumbsup:

Alright, I've spent too much time on this and need to go fix my kids dinner. Be back later...