Reply With Quote
I don't think anything done was torture.
But, to answer your question, torture was legal until about 2004 or 05 when Congress passed a law banning it...and, I believe they threw in waterboarding, but, I'm not certain.
you think torture is legal?
I don't think anything done was torture.
But, to answer your question, torture was legal until about 2004 or 05 when Congress passed a law banning it...and, I believe they threw in waterboarding, but, I'm not certain.
why do you hate the geneva convention?
I don't.
Is there anything the Bush Administration did that didn't cons ute torture?
Seriously, what would you have allowed?
yoni is like george costanza....if you believe it, it is not a lie.
So, Joe...what would you have allowed?
I like how Yoni is depending on everyone else to tell him about the hearings of which he is completely ignorant.
Tell me what body of knowledge the CIA relied upon to formulate their "enhanced" techniques. What history of effectiveness do they have?
So, Chumpy, what would you have allowed?
If you had a high value terrorist you suspected of having actionable intelligence, how far would you go?
Anything and everything within the law......you do remember the law right?
In all seriousness I've always known that the US uses torture and naive enough to think that we were above it. Did I have proof? No, but things go on all the time that we citizens have no idea about but that was back when things like EIT could be hidden from the public.
In today's world secrets are much harder to keep. Bush knew what was going on but had to distance himself enough where the buck didn't stop with him and Cheney too.
Justifying it doesn't make it right.
But you are so far up Bush and Cheney's ass that you cannot find fault in their judgement and now you will not find any reasons to give Obama credit. Just like Limpballs and insHannity cannot do.
At least there are some republicans giving credit to Obama for changing course in regards to the pics of detainees being released.
I know there are people on the left who are up in arms about that but it is, IMO, the right call.
It's a simple question...
Well, the law -- at the time didn't prohibit torture -- and it damn sure didn't prohibit the techniques used.
The Geneva Conventions, on the other hand, prohibit EVERYTHING. You can only ask a captive their name, rank, and serial number and, then, you have to feed 'em and give 'em a comfortable place to stay until the end of hostilities.
Which brings up another topic, if you want to abide by the Geneva Conventions in this case, why not in the detentions case? After all, it allows detention until the end of hostilities yet, a bunch of you want them tried in our courts or released.
Contemporaneously, not many people were finding fault with their judgement and, it's only due to politics, the Democrats have peeled off.
I give Obama credit for changing his stupid foreign policy agenda on the war and on national security.
I would have let Soufan and the FBI do their job.
Now answer my question.
Why do you hate the Geneva Conventions? It specifically says they cannot do their jobs.
So, you apparently draw the line somewhere North of the Geneva Conventions.
I'm fine with running it as a criminal investigation in the case of the two waterboarded suspects, if that's what it took -- but it's not necessary.
The conventions say that is all that prisoners are required to give, not that no other questions may be asked.
Now answer my question.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-13-2009 at 06:47 PM.
Congratulations, yoni.
You proved yourself ignorant of the Geneva Conventions as well!
You're on a roll
Because the hearings are show...If anyone had called the enhanced interrogation techniques torture, it would of headlined.
If anything of any substance had been learned today, it would have led the news.
I have no idea.
And, as for your interpretation of the Geneva Convention, if the prisoner just sits there and refuses to answer? Or, as did KSM, simply resonds, "You'll see."
What would you recommend?
Remember now, to paraphrase Chuck Schumer, we're in the aftermath of September 11 and suspect more plots are underway.
did he say that to you in english? because you were there....right?
That's what was reported. And, I have no idea in what language he said it.
who reported that? the very people whose character is in question?
You're welcome.
But, to answer the question, I'm not sure if Pelosi or Schumer reported that. I read it in a news account somewhere.
where?
Soufan directly contradicts Kiriakou -- and also Bush and Cheney. Soufan was there. He got significant results using traditional techniques.
EIT's were used on Zubaydah by contractors without any experience in intelligence or interrogation, before the procedures had been legally approved. As soon as they began, Zubaydah clammed up.
Soufan calls EIT's "inefficient, slow and unreliable."
All of that is newsworthy IMO. Did you fake reading it, Yoni?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions