06-03-2004, 10:45 AM
|
#81 | | Member
Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: South East
Posts: 65
| Philistine. Are you conversant in these manuals, been to any schools that used them? You seem to be eithr a military man or former. Atleast you know where to pull Fm's off the internet. But is that all you know to do? Why don't you private message me with the Fm's that aren't accessable to the public. The totality of the circumstances under article 5 and subparagraphs dictate the use of non standard techniques that are acceptable under military policy.
__________________
Honestus Scientia Fortitudo
| 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
06-03-2004, 07:46 PM
|
#82 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,433
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Philistine Article 27
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.
| I am struck by that second paragraph. If all PP are equally covered by the conventions, why are women singled out in this way? If women are to be "especially" protected against these behaviors, does that mean that men may be LESS protected against them? Does this in fact establish two classes of PP, having differing levels of privilege?
I suspect that it's things like this which still have international legal scholars wrangling over what the Conventions mean half a century later.... | |
| | |
06-03-2004, 07:50 PM
|
#83 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,433
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by Philistine Are you also familiar with, and trained in AR 190-8? | You know, it's funny, but a lot of those very things are standard training practice in the military...applied against our own soldiers. I have personally undergone a number of them: in basic training, in Ranger School, and especially in Escape and Evasion schools, where one is held "captive" in a mock detention camp and "interrogated" using several of those tactics. How "against the law" can they really be? | |
| | |
06-03-2004, 08:44 PM
|
#84 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Ypsilanti, Mi USA
Posts: 1,591
| A lot of horrid stuff that I can't believe has been done to our soldiers. Like medical testing. I think one of the things that really made my hair stand on end was an old film of when they were doing tests on nuclear weapons, and they gave soldiers a photographic cell to wear around their neck, and told them to rush in after setting off nukes, and their protection was that they'd know they were dead if the cell became exposed.  Quote: |
Originally Posted by Inquartata You know, it's funny, but a lot of those very things are standard training practice in the military...applied against our own soldiers. I have personally undergone a number of them: in basic training, in Ranger School, and especially in Escape and Evasion schools, where one is held "captive" in a mock detention camp and "interrogated" using several of those tactics. How "against the law" can they really be? | | |
| | |
06-04-2004, 09:38 AM
|
#85 | | Member
Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: South East
Posts: 65
| Inquartata. Hey bud I went through those schools. SERE at JFK was a trip.
They used sleep deprivation on me. I was trying to eat the buttoms from my uniform, thinking they were juji fruits after a couple of days. Those were good times.
__________________
Honestus Scientia Fortitudo
| |
| | |
06-04-2004, 07:02 PM
|
#86 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Ypsilanti, Mi USA
Posts: 1,591
| The lady running the prison did interviews where thats what she said in great detail. Ironically, the stuff I read said that they put the same guy in charge of 'reforming' the prison who told her what she was supposed to do that caused all the trouble to begin with. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Inquartata How do we know that they are right, though? None of the "stuff" has been published, we just have to take their word for it. ( And of course, Rumsfeld is not "the CIA" or "military intel". ) | | |
| | |
06-04-2004, 07:07 PM
|
#87 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,433
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by MikeHarm The lady running the prison did interviews where thats what she said in great detail. Ironically, the stuff I read said that they put the same guy in charge of 'reforming' the prison who told her what she was supposed to do that caused all the trouble to begin with. | Wasn't a guy named Terry Stewart, was it?
Anyway, where was this interview published? And was it done under oath? | |
| | |
06-05-2004, 08:54 PM
|
#88 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Ypsilanti, Mi USA
Posts: 1,591
| I read the Detroit Free press. Not under oath. But the folks being acussed kept talking to the press trying to defend themselves, much like we see FencerJim trying to defend things on here. They had lots of interviews and articles. They were even nice enough to mention that 'civilian contractors' meant CIA to help out. The person running the prison wasn't a guy it was a woman from the articles I can't remember the name off the top of my head. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Inquartata Wasn't a guy named Terry Stewart, was it?
Anyway, where was this interview published? And was it done under oath? | | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
