Reply With Quote
I'm sorry that they only waterboarded the guy responsible for this:
BooHooHoo
Laws broken:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...I/chapter-113C
American Convention on Human Rights (1977)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed 1977; ratified 1992).
UN Convention Against Torture(signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified by the US Senate in 1994)
The War Crimes Act of 1996
the alien tort act allows tortured aliens to bring suit in district courts: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350
the Army Field Manual prohibits torture:
In late 2006, the military issued updated field manuals on intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations, September 2006) and counterinsurgency (FM 3-24. Counterinsurgency, December 2006). Both manuals reiterated that "no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in U.S. law."[15] Specific techniques prohibited in the intelligence collection manual include:
- Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner;
- Hooding, that is, placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes;
- Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain;
- Waterboarding;
- Using military working dogs;
- Inducing hypothermia or heat injury;
- Conducting mock executions;
- Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.[16]
I'm sorry that they only waterboarded the guy responsible for this:
BooHooHoo
Where are the prosecutions?
My understanding is that most of what you listed does not apply because the provision are only applicable to signatories and uniformed armies and, to my knowledge, al Qaeda and the Taliban aren't member of the UN, nor did they identify as a regular army.
All of your examples pre-date 2001 and, apparently, everyone was satisfied that the Department of Justice adequately addressed the provisions of these do ents. If not, I'm sure there would have been more than just the caterwauling about "torture" and "war crimes."
Besides, there has yet to be a legal finding that any of the enhanced procedures used cons uted torture.
And, I don't believe the CIA is subject to the Army Field Manual...or, wasn't at the time.
Neither is the murder of 3,000 people.
no doubt, he was an ACA consultant.
probably 10s or 100s of people contributed to bill, but health executive/lobbyist Liz Fowler was lady, along with her s bag health insurance lobbyists, who had overall responsibility for the text.
but keep trying to stick Gruber with sole and/or primary responsilibity for
grubergate! the ankle biters and mad dogs are out for blood!
Benghazigate!
btw, The American People ARE pretty stupid, esp the right wingers, rednecks, bubbas, Christian Taliban, Bible humpers, Repug voters
But, Gruber was the resident expert on the topic of controversy, federal subsidies of State Exchanges.
You keep saying it is the Right that is stupid but, they saw right through the ruse from the very beginning -- No, Gruber was talking about his friends on the Left that will drink from whatever cup of Koolaid the Obama administration hands them.
You know, words matter.
DOJ Lawyers Bybee and Yoo did extensive expositions on the relevant laws and, to their credit, made a convincing argument that the technique use were not in violation of any U.S. Law or International Convention.
That their findings only produced a gnashing of teeth and not any successful legal challenges, tells me all I need to know.
Good on them.
You all should read the Bybee memo sometime, it is a masterpiece of legal understanding on the laws of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment.
There don't have to be prosecutions, genius.
It's just a lawyer lawyering, but he's on your team so hooray torture!
Memos < > law.
You would think with 12 years of this nonsense someone would have the balls to file a criminal complaint -- somewhere. Are the complainers just going to go on making themselves look silly?
Complaining <> law either. At least Bybee and Yoo spoke to each specific element of the law, individually and in detail. And, they obviously made a compelling case.
It's not necessary, there is plenty of precedent for such things not actually being prosecuted. If Obama wants to make a nice statement about it, he could just pardon those involved.
They simply worked in an echo chamber to get the result they wanted, which was halfway plausible legal cover for torture. It's not difficult to say you think torture is dandy.
Except that there's nothing to pardon.
I think the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques against the very few high-value terrorist targets is okay. Yes.
Here's another question to ponder...
Why, when the House, with a Republican majority, issued a report criticizing government misdeeds or failures (Benghazi or IRS political harassment), the media dismissed it as a mere "partisan" exercise but, when Senate Democrats issue a partisan report attacking the CIA, it's treated as gospel by the media?
Just another example of the left-leaning bias of the media.
Sure there is.
Why is it bad in other cases?I think the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques against the very few high-value terrorist targets is okay. Yes.
Why can't it be used against anyone in any interrogation? You never answer that question when asked.
Well, the latest bipartisan Benghazi report confirms that the partisan conspiracy talk was just that.
Given the overall credibility of the CIA since its creation, I feel quite comfortable with the notion they are lying through their teeth no matter who is President. What reason do you have to believe differently?
No, there's not.
Never said it was; I just said I'm okay with it in the cases discussed in the Senate report.
Don't recall it being asked. First, the people against whom it was was used fit into a very finite set of people -- terrorists with no nation-state or formal army who had information that could lead to the disruption of further terrorism that would claim countless more innocent lives, and the location of other key terrorists leaders. Should we ever have to extract information, similar to what was being sought from those discussed in the report -- I'd be fine with it, all over again.
You betcha!
Actually, it doesn't. However, I'm confident a bi-partisan report on the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques would result in an exoneration of them.
No evidence needed for you, eh. Nice position.
Sure there is.
So you need to tell me when you think it wouldn't be good and why. Otherwise, I will have to assume you think it is acceptable in any situation since it is so effective and harmless.Never said it was; I just said I'm okay with it in the cases discussed in the Senate report.
But why limit it to those conditions? What is to stop anyone from using it for any purpose?Don't recall it being asked. First, the people against whom it was was used fit into a very finite set of people -- terrorists with no nation-state or formal army who had information that could lead to the disruption of further terrorism that would claim countless more innocent lives, and the location of other key terrorists leaders. Should we ever have to extract information, similar to what was being sought from those discussed in the report -- I'd be fine with it, all over again.
You betcha!
The only evidence you cite is the word of the CIA. My position is that isn't enough. Given the agency's history of lying to the public since it's creation and the actual do ents where they plan to lie to Congress, what specifically makes these statements more credible other than it's peripherally supporting your team?
good discussion here: http://theotherjournal.com/2009/05/0...ular-imaginat/
Yep, there is.
I did in the very next paragraph.
I suggest you read the Bybee and Yoo memos, it's explained there; probably better than I could do for you.
The report provides no evidence of the contrary, just the word of the CIA...an incomplete account, at that.
No, you need to tell me where you think it is applicable and where it is not.
I am asking you, not them.
Think for yourself for once.
I don't need to tell you anything, pack sand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
