Wrong. The prisonersof Gitmo do qualify under the Geneva convention. There are geneva convention provisions for both military and non-military personnel. It was the Bush whitehouse that tried to claim that they weren't entitled to any protection under the Geneva Convention. However your stance and that of Bush was over ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp So the defense department came around, and begs to differ with your incorrect assertion. That being said, here is the evidence of torture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html Proof requested, and proof granted. Of course this comes from Bush's top official overseeing trials of Gitmo prisoners.
I think you are having trouble drawing logical connections. That list wasn't three pieces of evidence of torture. That was a line of three items that when put together show evidence of torture. Bush administration admits waterboarding. Obama considers waterboarding to be torture. Others consider waterboarding to be torture. Conclusion - It is a valid viewpoint that the Bush administration authorized torture via waterboarding. Conclusion - Obama was not being disingenuous when he claimed that America would not torture prisoners under his administration as had happened under Bush's. If you think waterboarding is not torture, that's fine. But the basis of the discussion was what Obama was doing during the campaign, therefore the relevant question is whether he feels it is torture and whether that is a legitimate viewpoint. Item B goes to whether he considers it torture, and item C goes to whether that is a legitimate viewpoint. That's evidence of torture whether you have a different definition or not. Now, maybe you got the logical connection and knew you were wrong but preferred not to admit it, so you made a silly response to feign ignorance. That's ok, too. I don't really care that much, although I would certainly prefer an honest discussion.
This guy financed the WTC bombing in 1993, played a major role in operation Bojinka, and is the self proclaimed mastermind behind 9/11. Please don't expect me to feel bad about nasty things being done to him. You'd be shocked what I would have done to him if I were making those decisions.
I don't recommend trying that with basso. There are many people who'd happy engage in a real, honest discussion, but he isn't one of them.
You may not feel bad he was tortured, but that doesn't change the fact that he was tortured. basso's whole premise was wrong. He started out trying to say that the Geneva conventions didn't apply. The U.S. Supreme Court, The defense department, etc. all showed that premise to be bogus.
We have international treaties. We should live up to them. That being said...if it were me...and I had the mastermind behind 9/11 under my control...you just don't want to know.
Okay, leave that aside for a moment. There are only so many masterminds of 9/11, if even more than one. I get a sense for who you are, and I think I know what you'd do with suspects who were not provable in court to be complicit. Probably doesn't involve waterboarding or even indefinite imprisonment.
You'd be right. If you cannot prove it, you have to do some things you don't want to do...including letting them go. Just because you let somebody go doesn't mean you stop surveillance.
