06-11-2004, 08:06 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: MetroCity
Posts: 3,181
|
Another one of those torture apologists.
Quote:
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment
...
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
|
And let me quote an article from the Miami Herald
Quote:
What is most disturbing, however, is not the memo's legal missteps but the fact that lawyers from the Department of Justice, as well as the Department of Defense, have signed off on memos that represent ''how to'' guides to circumventing U.S. laws and the Constitution. And the laws that these memos dodge are not the technical details of the internal revenue code but the ban on the use of torture by U.S. government and military officials.
This administration apparently believes that our physical security is more important than our Constitution and 200 years of respect for liberty and divided government. But the 6,000 graves at Omaha Beach are a tangible reminder that our values may be more important than our physical safety.
|
|
|
|