John Yoo and John Stewart

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

No rights? Is that the argument you want to make?

Can we dissect OBL Dexter-style?

So I suppose your answer would be, "While they have no legal rights, and can be summarily executed and tortured, we choose not to do those things, and instead use harsh interrogation, where needed, and military courts for disposition. But we certainly need not hold ourself to this. We are within our rights to do whatever we want."

Is this the argument?

I've never watched Dexter, so I don't get that reference.

I said "no rights" in the context of what is "okay" (your word) for terrorists to do to captured American soldiers. Why should we grant that terrorists are permitted to do anything at all? Merely holding them as POW's by itself is outside their right to do, much less waterboarding them.

The reason that terrorists we capture aren't executed, tortured, or any number of other unpleasant things is because they are protected by American law. We are within our rights to do whatever American law says we can do, and if the people don't like it, they can change the law. Welcome to a democratic republic.

But I don't understand why that has any bearing on what is "okay" for terrorists to do.

[MikeWaters]

In what way is a captured terrorist protected by American law?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In what way is a captured terrorist protected by American law?

There are rules that outline what is permissible to do with enemy combatants.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

There are rules that outline what is permissible to do with enemy combatants.

What rules? Code of Uniformed Justice?

Or are the rules whatever the hell Yoo/Bush/Obama/Holder say they are?

Where is the basis in law? Let me repeat that. Where is the basis IN LAW?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What rules? Code of Uniformed Justice?

Or are the rules whatever the hell Yoo/Bush/Obama/Holder say they are?

Where is the basis in law? Let me repeat that. Where is the basis IN LAW?

I'm not an attorney, so I don't have the chapter and verse for you. I assume some of them are in the UMCJ, and some of them are in the civilian books. Both forms of law are created by Congress and signed by the President, who, based on legal counsel from his Justice Dept, enforces them.

Let me turn this around a little: are you alleging that there are no laws at all governing the treatment of enemy combatants?

[MikeWaters]

Yes, it's very clear you are not a lawyer.

So, I'm puzzled. I thought you were saying that the entire basis of us being allowed to water-board or otherwise torture a captured terrorist was because of who has and who has not signed the Geneva Convention.

But now you are telling me that the rules governing their treatment are actually in actual laws, but you do not know what those laws are, or what they say, other than you think they do or did allow waterboarding and torture.

Is this a correct summary?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yes, it's very clear you are not a lawyer.

So, I'm puzzled. I thought you were saying that the entire basis of us being allowed to water-board or otherwise torture a captured terrorist was because of who has and who has not signed the Geneva Convention.

But now you are telling me that the rules governing their treatment are actually in actual laws, but you do not know what those laws are, or what they say, other than you think they do or did allow waterboarding and torture.

Is this a correct summary?

No, it's really not. And I'm not sure why you're puzzled.

If an enemy who is a lawful combatant--say, a uniformed German soldier--is captured on the field, he gets Geneva protections, because the United States and Germany have both ratified those agreements and have agreed to follow those rules.

If an enemy who is an unlawful combatant--like KSM--is captured on the field, he gets no Geneva protections, because he represents no group who has made any promise to follow any rules of war. Does that mean we can pull his fingernails off, and pour hot wax down his nostrils? No, because there are a separate set of laws--American laws--that govern the treatment of prisoners, no matter the distinction. Those laws as interpreted by the Bush admin do not preclude waterboarding. The Obama admin has obviously interpreted them differently. That is the right of each, as the chief executive.

I should note here, too, that if Congress wanted to prevent waterboarding as a technique it could at any time legislate against it. So far, it hasn't.

Now, can I cite you these aforementioned existing laws? No, I can't. I'm not an expert, and I haven't memorized legislation. However, I'm guessing that if you crack open John Yoo's book or Marc Thiessen's book, you will find plenty of citations that can direct you to the texts you're seeking. In his Stewart interview, John Yoo specifically talks about looking at the various pieces of Congressional legislation to determine what was permissible and what wasn't. Or, you can try your luck with Google.

Part of the problem is discussing this with you--and it probably contributes to your puzzlement--is you continue to conflate torture and waterboarding, using the terms interchangeably. You are welcome to your belief that they are one and the same, but if you expect to understand (and be understood by) others who have a different belief, you're going to have to adjust your terminology to accomodate.

[MikeWaters]

Waterboarding is torture.

It's just that for some reason, there are people who have decided to deny the obvious.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

High roads, low roads.

I'm on the right and don't agree with the torture angle of Bush. I may be morally bankrupt but Mike convinced me long ago it was wrong. Such sweeping allegations.

"of the right on this issue."

No, I am not suggesting you are morally bankrupt. The right's position on torture (which you do not hold), however, is.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Exactly.

Wow. Surprised you agree that waterboarding is torture. Why do you support it, then?