John Yoo and John Stewart

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't want to watch 13 minutes of video. So he says waterboarding of American prisoners is ok treatment? Or does he dodge the question by saying "we have waterboarded our own"?

No to both questions. He says the waterboarding of American prisoners is inappropriate because they are protected by Geneva. Terrorists are not. He brings up the waterboarding of our own soldiers as an example of how the anti-waterboarding folks have a double-standard on whether it's torture.

Someone as interested as you in this topic really should watch the video, so you can get the argument from the horse's mouth. I'll help save you some time: his answer to your question starts around the :30 mark in the 2nd video.

[MikeWaters]

So if an American is captured by a country or group that is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, it is ok to waterboard the American? Is that their argument?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So if an American is captured by a country or group that is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, it is ok to waterboard the American? Is that their argument?

First off, what does "okay" mean? Moral? Legal? Need more definition here.

Re: Geneva. I'll transcribe for you Thiessen's exact quote, since I guess you refuse to watch it:

The Geneva convention--this is one of the biggest myths about the Geneva convention. It is not designed to govern the treatment of prisoners of war. It is designed to protect civilians--to get people to follow the laws of war. So if you give the same protections to someone who violates the laws of war as someone who follows them, you completely undermine the Geneva conventions.

IOW, the only time it would be "okay" to waterboard an American is if he were acting in a role not covered by Geneva. That's never the case with our men in uniform.

[MikeWaters]

Oh, because we are an upstanding country, none of us can be waterboarded. But we can waterboard bad people.

Got it.

That's pretty sophisticated ethical thinking.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Oh, because we are an upstanding country, none of us can be waterboarded. But we can waterboard bad people.

Got it.

That's pretty sophisticated ethical thinking.

It's not sophisticated at all, because that's a total distortion of what Thiessen said.

He didn't say "because we are an upstanding country." Rather, he said, "because we follow Geneva."

He didn't say "the bad people." He said, "terrorists who don't follow Geneva."

It's a very solid argument which has the support of international law. I recognize that upsets you, but distorting the argument does not strengthen your position.

[MikeWaters]

Party A has signed a document.

Party B has also signed document.

Party C has NOT signed document.

Party A can torture Party C, but not Party B. Because Party C is not a signatory.

However Party C CANNOT torture Party A. Because Party C is not a signatory.

Is this the "very solid argument"?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Party A has agreed to follow a defined set of rules about war, thus protecting their innocent citizens and non-combatants as well as their own soldiers.

Party B has also agreed to follow a defined set of rules about war, thus protecting their innocent citizens and non-combatants as well as their own soldiers.

Party C has NOT agreed to follow any rules about war whatsoever.

Party A can waterboard Party C, but not Party B. Because Party C is not a signatory.

However Party C CANNOT waterboard Party A. Because Party C is not a signatory.

Is this the "very solid argument"?

I fixed it for you so that it properly lays out the argument.

In this case, I would argue not only does Party C not have the right to waterboard, but that they have no rights at all. Maybe you can explain to me: what inherent rights does Osama bin Laden possess right now, and whence does he derive them?

[MikeWaters]

So a 14 year old Afghani kid, swept up in the war can be waterboarded by Americans?

Yes, because he has "no rights at all." Because he did not sign the Geneva Convention. He left the signature area "blank". Too bad for him.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So a 14 year old Afghani kid, swept up in the war can be waterboarded by Americans?

Yes, because he has "no rights at all." Because he did not sign the Geneva Convention. He left the signature area "blank". Too bad for him.

Well that's a very contrived example. In practice, Theissen said we only waterboarded 3 people, and so far as I know, none of them were fourteen.

But if we're going to deal in ridiculous hypotheticals, I might as well ask: is that Afghani kid caught on the battlefield with an AK-47 in his hand, having killed a few Americans, with no indication he is fighting for any particular nation, and is assessed as having potentially valuable information in stopping a future terrorist attack?

And while you're answering that question: please answer my other one about bin Laden's rights.

[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?