Reply With Quote
I don't own a goat.
You really need to learn to read people emotions better. Or, perhaps, you could stick to the topic.
Three years? Wow!this is actually pretty funny, because in this very same thread (page 3 and so on), 3 years ago, you made the same argument without actually knowing any of the laws. I had to actually list them to you, and when pressed on what's your definition of torture that doesn't violate any of these laws and conventions the US is a signatory of, you never responded...
The red-herring of "successful prosecution" was also tackled then. The difference is that it was actually challenged since then, but the challenges suppressed through state secrets. But the fact that it was not brought to justice, for whatever reason, has no bearing on it being legal or not. Some people get away with doing illegal stuff all the time. The fact that they don't get prosecuted doesn't make it any less illegal.
Care to link the thread and posts, I'd like an opportunity to respond to something of which I have absolutely no recollection.
I don't own a goat.
You really need to learn to read people emotions better. Or, perhaps, you could stick to the topic.
This is the topic.
I read your emotions just fine.
Waterboarding is torture.
Lawyers can themselves, especially when they write the position they are told to do so. The people who thought this would do any good went to great lengths to build some bull cover story, regardless of any real ethical or legal cover. AN argument is not the same as a GOOD or VALID argument.
Perhaps we could agree on a definition.
Immoral piece of -- one who advocates torture as somehow useful.
The lawyers that advocated this were immoral pieces of .
Is waterboarding an acceptable technique when used on US service members by other countries?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/waterboa...oss-1407449858
The International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday that waterboarding is torture, the first time the group has publicly declared that a specific interrogation technique—one employed by the U.S.—violates the Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva-based humanitarian organization, which oversees the treaty, weighed in amid renewed U.S. debate over Central Intelligence Agency practices after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which included waterboarding several detainees at so-called black sites overseas. The CIA and lawmakers have been fighting over publication of portions of an extensive Senate Intelligence Committee report said to be critical of the spy agency's conduct.
"The definition of torture is any technique that causes severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, inflicted for a purpose, such as obtaining information or a confession, exerting pressure, intimidation or humiliation," said Anna Nelson, the International Red Cross spokeswoman in Washington. "Waterboarding fits into this category and therefore qualifies as torture" under U.S. and international law, she added.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-internationa/
Good bit that links a few of the relevant laws. FWIW.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/.../waterboarding
Waterboarding, also called water torture, simulated drowning, interrupted drowning, and controlled drowning, method of torture in which water is poured into the nose and mouth of a victim who lies on his back on an inclined platform, with his feet above his head. As the victim’s sinus cavities and mouth fill with water, his gag reflex causes him to expel air from his lungs, leaving him unable to exhale and unable to inhale without aspirating water. Although water usually enters the lungs, it does not immediately fill them, owing to their elevated position with respect to the head and neck. In this way the victim can be made to drown for short periods without suffering asphyxiation. The victim’s mouth and nose are often covered with a cloth, which allows water to enter but prevents it from being expelled; alternatively, his mouth may be covered with cellophane or held shut for this purpose. The torture is eventually halted and the victim put in an upright position to allow him to cough and vomit (water usually enters the eso us and stomach) or to revive him if he has become unconscious, after which the torture may be resumed. Waterboarding produces extreme physical suffering and an uncontrollable feeling of panic and terror, usually within seconds.
Seems pretty common sense to me.
Interesting website with other relevant information:
http://waterboarding.org/torture_definition
Interesting website. Neutral on the subject, just informational.
Perhaps we can agree that the term "waterboarding" is a universal descriptor of just one act.
A Lear Jet and an Cessna are both airplanes.
Is some waterboarding torture? Sure. I am persuaded the iteration used by the CIA was not torture.
And, no one has found otherwise.
How about when it's used on U. S. Service members by their trainers?
Not really an answer to my question. Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions honestly?
Well meant and freely given:
Being honest with such things, both with yourself and others really does improve critical thinking.
I will ask again, if other countries or terrorists used waterboarding on our servicemembers, would you find that acceptable?
Except your question is neither germane to the conversation nor is the hypothetical equivalent.
My response was meant to demonstrate there are different types of waterboarding. A topic germane to the conversation.
The people responsible for overseeing the geneva convention have.
Simulated drowning, despite what any lawyer paid for their opinion, might say, is traumatic to the point of being evil, and is certainly immoral.
It takes some mental gymnastics to convince yourself it isn't.
You really are making me ashamed of my country, we are better than that.
"we are better than that"
all evidence, years of evidence says: You Lie
So, the UN or ICC has rendered an opinion on whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques, used by the CIA in the aftermath of 9/11, cons uted torture, under their convention? I'd like to see that.
But, may not be torture. And, is certainly not more evil or immoral than murdering 3,000 innocent people.
Actually, all it would take is an honest hearing in a court of competent jurisdiction completely rebutting the Department of Justice's opinion on how the enhanced interrogation techniques did not cons ute torture.
Wow, you are easily moved.
All I've ever said is that in the context of the time, the United States did their due diligence in crafting a set of interrogation techniques they believed would elicit (and did elicit) information crucial to the protection of their country. The CIA developed the techniques, the Department of Justice exhaustively vetted the techniques against existing law and international conventions and found them to be legal.
In different time and under different cir stances, I might not be so forgiving. You're obviously not moved by the context in which these acts were developed and used.
However, the fact remains, the enhanced interrogation techniques and the legal opinions that kept the on the good side of torture have yet to be challenged anywhere but in the court of public opinion. Forgive me if that doesn't carry much weight with me in the current climate of our body politic.
No court challenge was necessary; the Bush administration walked back from the precious memos themselves.
They just wrote more memos that superseded the precious memos.
It was that easy. No need to challenge anything that has been rescinded.
And, the last memo affirms the opinions of the first.
And the practices were abandoned, evidence destroyed, officials lied to, oversight thwarted, victims silenced indefinitely -- on the whole it's a steaming pile of that they have been ashamed of and have been dishonest about from the start and at all points thereafter.
Nice opinion you have there, where is the court judgment affirming any of it?
Look, we can keep going in circles, I'm not the least bit bothered by what the Bush Administration's CIA did to a handful of terrorists in the months following 9/11. Not the least bit bothered. You're not going to make me bothered by it either.
What you can do, is leave out all the emotional bull crap and show me where a court had issued a finding that what the Bush Administration's CIA did to a handful of terrorists in the months following 9/11 was torture, in violation of International or U.S. Law. I have on my side, an unchallenged DOJ opinion saying it wasn't.
You have on your side a bunch of people who want to believe it is because they hate George W. Bush.
Doesn't have to be one. They gave up.
I never thought I would.Look, we can keep going in circles, I'm not the least bit bothered by what the Bush Administration's CIA did to a handful of terrorists in the months following 9/11. Not the least bit bothered. You're not going to make me bothered by it either.
You simply aren't a good American. That's fine, there is nothing requiring you to be one.
Actually, the only reason we started torturing was out of pure emotion. You kept bringing up the feelings of people after 9/11. I agree, weak minds break down and do stupid when face with a real crisis. The Bush administration did a lot of stupid out of pure emotion because they failed so miserably in even attempting to prevent the 9/11 attacks. So they went too far in their response. It has happened before and will happen again, and people like you will refuse to acknowledge just how stupid it all is because you work on pure emotion and fear.What you can do, is leave out all the emotional bull crap and show me where a court had issued a finding that what the Bush Administration's CIA did to a handful of terrorists in the months following 9/11 was torture, in violation of International or U.S. Law. I have on my side, an unchallenged DOJ opinion saying it wasn't.
You have on your side a bunch of people who want to believe it is because they hate George W. Bush.
You couldn't shine the shoes of people like Judge Jay Bybee or anyone else left to make some very difficult decisions at a very difficult time.
And, your assertion the techniques have been abandoned may not hold up, either.
This guy seems to believe Bush-era interrogation techniques have survived even the Obama administration...
The Torture Memo Obama Never Rescinded
He and they got it wrong, no matter how shiny their shoes.
Fear has made Americans do stupid, reprehensible things in the past though there was also the added shame of dismissing the threat of AQ in the first place and the resulting overcompensation.
Bushy did some things right after 9/11. This was not one of them. If the Obama administration is still torturing people, he's wrong too.
All I can say is Thank God you're in the minority and I hope people like you never get the reigns of power in this country.
Eh, I would have taken the AQ threat more seriously than the Bush administration did in the first place -- but I can see how you would be totally against anyone who has morals and principles. Your partisan hackery simply will never allow for it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions