Waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed DID NOT LEAD TO THE CAPTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN!!

It's not been proven wrong.. The CIA guy sez so is NOT evidence, it is heresay.

The enhanced torture program was meant to be secret, but since it got leaked, it has been a huge and regretable stain on the CIA.. It makes PERFECT sense that OBL's death would attempt to be tied in to this program in order to try to retroactively justify this program. Opportunistically taking credit for something doesn't prove anything.

The CIA HAD the proof about what the interrogations accomplished, in video form. They DESTROYED it. NOW all they have are unsubstantiated claims.

Even if it were true, it doesn't prove that enhanced torture programs were the ONLY way to get this information, and therefore STILL doesn't justify breaking the law.

 

I am a full supporter of any type of Torture.....Especially when it applies to a Muslim prisoner.

I remember some torture techniques used in the deep jungles durring the Vietnam War years...There were special ways to make the enemy talk. They would sing like canaries.

 

We do it in every war we engage in do you mistakenly believe we gave German and Japanese captures trials and habeas corpus?

 

ROFL! The head of the CIA Leon Panetta publicly admitted the enhanced techniques from Gitmo worked.... and you deny it. You liberals are fun.

So in short... Obama was:

1. Wrong on Gitmo
2. Wrong on enhance interrogation techniques.

It's sketchy having a CIC that is this inexperienced as a leader and ignorant on all things military.

 

No he didnt. He stated that useful information was gained from interrogating suspects and agreed that some of this may have been obtained by torture. This doesnt mean that the information would not have been obtained under normal interrogation methods.

 

You were never in Vietnam, cut out the BS.

 

I don't deny it... Waterboarding may or may not have provided the information.

I'm denying the stupid claim made by you and many others as definitive fact that which you have no real evidence for.

You are trying to pass off a claim made by a CIA representitive without supporting evidence as evidence in and of itself.

Pretending that since you found some other guy who say the same thing as you, that this must therefore be proof that said thing is factually true.

The CIA are LIARS... That is a fact. I also illustrated how OF COURSE they would claim their enhanced torture program helped bring down OBL, because this is all too convenient away to gain retroactive vindication for illegal human rights violations.

The only thing you've proven is that you and the others like you cling to every word your leaders make as gospel truth, triumphantly proclaiming their unubstantiated words by themselves as definitive evidence for factual reality. You don't look for objective independent confirmation of what they say, just them saying it is good enough for you because they are your leaders.

You think the CIA would never lie or something?

So in short... Obama was:

OBL is dead.. Is that not results? First the guy delivers the head of Pakistani Taliban to you, now the head of AQ and the world's most wanted terrorist... That's the leader of Taliban and AQ both dusted in his first term... This is due to military ignorance?

 

There's a difference between capturing armed soldiers from an actual battlefield who fought on behalf of a belligerent nation in an interntional armed conflict, and holding them, as opposed to abducting unarmed people away from any battlefield in residential raids on non-belligerent neutral countries.

I hope you know the difference between these.. First category is combatants treated as POW's and the second is non-combatants labelled as combatants with alleged yet unproven roles in hostilities in other nations.

 

Specious, it wasn't. EIT broke them, then they used other techniques.

 

I hope you do, you expect us to give rights to unlawful combatants that lawful combatants do not have. That so of that war involves urban war is of no matter.

 

Yes they should have more rights if they are not combatants. I'm wondering how they get this classification. I find the closest description being "criminal suspect" which would, unlike a POW, warrant a trial to justify detention.

I just don't see how somebody who has NO weapons, is not on ANY battlefield, is not engaging in any hostilities, and is sat inside a private residence living room in a NEUTRAL non-belligerent country can be classed as "combatant" at all.. In other words how do you get a "combatant" without combat first?

I'll give you a chance to explain this. The circumstances I described apply to many detainees held w/o charge or trial, most eminantly Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed.

So, please tell me what is specifically the definition of "unlawful combatant", where you got this definition, and how KSM and the others fit this description.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed
In March 2007, Mohammed testified before a closed-door hearing in Guantánamo Bay. According to transcripts of the hearing released by the Pentagon, he said, "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z." The transcripts also show him confessing to:

* Organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
* The Bali nightclub bombings,
* Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing,
* Planning the attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London,
* Daniel Pearl's murder in 2002,
* Planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton.

I'd call that an enemy combatant.

What would you call him?

 

Can you show me some REAL evidence to veriy he's done these things or even made these alleged confessions? Something verifiable as opposed to Pentagon unsubstantiated heresay?

I am fully aware that the United States CLAIMS he said these things, however the tapes which would have him saying it are destroyed so we have nothing but heresay.

Anyway you're not even answering the question... The question was according to WHAT DEFINITION of "unlawful combatant" where this definition came from and how he fits into it.

Can you do that or no?

I'd call him a criminal suspect and an alleged terrorist. If you show me the definition for "unlawful combatant" and where it came from and how he fits it, then I'll call him that.

 

On March 15, 2007, BBC News reported that "Transcripts of his testimony were translated from Arabic and edited by the U.S. Department of Defense to remove sensitive intelligence material before release. It appeared, from a judge's question, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had made allegations of torture in US custody".

Yes... that sounds like just what I would make up to then redact for my super cool conspiracy plot to frame that poor innocent cleric.

To directly answer your question, organizing war crimes against a nation, building bombs, etc, is directly participating in hostilities. LOAC

Of course he is just a suspect. That is why we put him on trial.

Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so.

 

No doubt transcripts would be heavily edited by the DOD, there's nothing there that shows ANY evidence... Allegations of torture no doubt.. Corraborating evidence of the confessions? I'd like to see it. Maybe you can put the tapes back together.

Nobody said he was an innocent cleric.. He's clearly a terrorist.. IF you need a convenient fall guy for a certain terrorist plot, you'd choose a known terrorist, not some old Catholic nun, don't you think?

You did NOT answer my question, directly or not... Cite the definition, where it came from.. What was the "armed conflict" on 9/11?

You cancelled his trial. He's now in indefinate detention withOUT charges against him.

Cite where this came from please.

 

What are you so afraid of? What if you are wrong? Why do you care? Are you a terrorist?

 

They are illegal combatants.

They are engaged in war not crime.

Cooks in warfare don't carry weapons but are combatants if they are members of the group engaged in warfare against us.

You've never educated yourself in the matter yet come here to debate it?

 

No, I am educated and can clearly see that you guys are making up your own stuff as far as "illegal combatants" and such.

That is why I am asking you to PROVE your assertions about international law by showing me the relevant verbiage. The rest of your post here was more such assertions.

So just show me where you got THIS definition from the law and explain how you make them fit.

What if the Israelis came and abducted you from your home and kept you locked up indefinatily, claiming you were Hamas.. Does this make you an unlawful combatant because the Israelis took you from your home in the U.S. and arbitrarily branded you as their enemy? Does mere accusation make one an "illegal combatant"?

 

You don't have to be a terrorist to be arrested and then jailed indefinatily.

That's the beauty of extrajudicial punishment w/o due process of law.

 

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

 

Its detainment to keep them from getting back into the fight. Generally combatants are at a minimum detained until hostilities cease. Because we could also detain him for punishment, following a conviction, doesnt imply that we must do so.

 

Happy fun dude appears to have the wrong nom de plume. Might I suggest "Unhappy paranoid dude" instead?

 

Then you know what an illegal combatant is, no need for me to go chase it down for you.

I have no reason to believe any such thing would ever occur.

 

Not there.. There's no such term as "illegal combatant" in any of these treaties.

THAT is why I ask you to show these definitions... So you can PROVE your claims.. I am familiar with these laws which is how I KNOW that you people are just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up...

If it's there then why don't you show us.

 

Yea you better put that all caps to try to get your point through.... Gonna need caps to make it look reasonable...