bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)

[Samson]

torture is against the supreme law of the land. If that is something that bothers the right, they should attempt to abrogate our signing of the UN Treaty regarding torture and inhumane treatment. Until we DO abrogate it, it is international law and it is OUR law and we ought to follow it or abandon this pretense of being a country of laws.

I'm glad to see ya ol' sailor.

The US Government's Torturing US Citizens is against our fundamental law.

Torturing POW's is against international law

But there's no LAW against torturing Non US Citizens, and non-POW's

You may recall William Richard "Rich" Higgins (January 15, 1945 – July 6, 1990) was a United States Marine Corps colonel who was captured in 1988 while serving on a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. He was held hostage, tortured and eventually murdered by his captors. His official status with the United States government was "hostage", not prisoner of war. As such, the government did not insist on treatment consistent with international law.

If the US doesn't insist that their own Colonel's are POW's deserving of treatment consistant with international law, why should the US insist that terrorist "hostages" like KLM deserve treatment consistant with international law?

 

[maineman]

But there's no LAW against torturing Non US Citizens, and non-POW's

The "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment", of which we are a signatory, says otherwise.

 

[Samson]

But there's no LAW against torturing Non US Citizens, and non-POW's

The "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment", of which we are a signatory, says otherwise.

The United Nations?


LMFAO, You've made my morning.......thanks, maineman!!

 

[froggy]

Just give a politican a long enough rope.

 

[maineman]

But there's no LAW against torturing Non US Citizens, and non-POW's

The "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment", of which we are a signatory, says otherwise.

The United Nations?


LMFAO, You've made my morning.......thanks, maineman!!

interesting that you can laugh at and piss on the constitution whenever you like.

It's a treaty. We signed it. It is, therefore, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Don't LIKE it? abrogate it. Until then, follow it or you are a criminal. plain and simple.

 

[martybegan]

The "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment", of which we are a signatory, says otherwise.

The United Nations?


LMFAO, You've made my morning.......thanks, maineman!!

interesting that you can laugh at and piss on the constitution whenever you like.

It's a treaty. We signed it. It is, therefore, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Don't LIKE it? abrogate it. Until then, follow it or you are a criminal. plain and simple.

We signed it but did not ratify it, so as per the constitution it isnt binding.

Signatures to the UN Convention against Torture

 

[JakeStarkey]

The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

Torture and the Law

 

[froggy]

But he didn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, that's why he refused to be under oath he knew he was gonna lie.

 

[martybegan]

The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

Torture and the Law

Ah god bless the democrats and thier squishy little hearts. I guess the page I had was outdated.

So now we have to define what is torture. And for people like Mr Starkey evidently being a big meanie to someone who likes blowing up buildings with civillans in it is cruel and unusual.

I hate to digress from the topic of this post, but I love asking this question. So we take any coercive form of interrogation off the table. How do we get information out of people?

 

[Sallow]

The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

Torture and the Law

Ah god bless the democrats and thier squishy little hearts. I guess the page I had was outdated.

So now we have to define what is torture. And for people like Mr Starkey evidently being a big meanie to someone who likes blowing up buildings with civillans in it is cruel and unusual.

I hate to digress from the topic of this post, but I love asking this question. So we take any coercive form of interrogation off the table. How do we get information out of people?

See that's the thing about terrorists. They don't follow the law. That's why they are terrorists.

Now if we don't follow the law..what does that make us?

 

[martybegan]

The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

Torture and the Law

Ah god bless the democrats and thier squishy little hearts. I guess the page I had was outdated.

So now we have to define what is torture. And for people like Mr Starkey evidently being a big meanie to someone who likes blowing up buildings with civillans in it is cruel and unusual.

I hate to digress from the topic of this post, but I love asking this question. So we take any coercive form of interrogation off the table. How do we get information out of people?

See that's the thing about terrorists. They don't follow the law. That's why they are terrorists.

Now if we don't follow the law..what does that make us?

Answer my question first. if we cant use coercive methods of interrogation how do we get the information out of them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, if you are Republican, I am disappointed for you. Torture does not have to be defined. Why? Because it already has been defined. Water boarding is torture. Your last question is miscast. Ask it this way, "Even if water boarding is torture, if you believed that torturing the suspect would save thousands of lives, would you torture?"

All of you "USA, USA" chanters here have missed the main point, and I honestly thought Samson would have slammed the other side with it. One, legality is not always moral, illegality is not always immoral. Two, "What would you have done in this situation if you knew the sheik had information that would save thousands of lives, despite what the law defines as torture?"

The battalion commander, knowing he would be relieved of his command, still discharged his pistol into the ground next to the prisoners' head in Iraq in the opening days of the invasion, because he believed the prisoner had actionable intelligence that would protect the lives of his troops. He is my hero.

 

[Sallow]

Ah god bless the democrats and thier squishy little hearts. I guess the page I had was outdated.

So now we have to define what is torture. And for people like Mr Starkey evidently being a big meanie to someone who likes blowing up buildings with civillans in it is cruel and unusual.

I hate to digress from the topic of this post, but I love asking this question. So we take any coercive form of interrogation off the table. How do we get information out of people?

See that's the thing about terrorists. They don't follow the law. That's why they are terrorists.

Now if we don't follow the law..what does that make us?

Answer my question first. if we cant use coercive methods of interrogation how do we get the information out of them?

By the book and following the law..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CxT48jIgI&feature=related[/ame]

 

[martybegan]

Marty, if you are Republican, I am disappointed for you. Torture does not have to be defined. Why? Because it already has been defined. Water boarding is torture. Your last question is miscast. Ask it this way, "Even if water boarding is torture, if you believed that torturing the suspect would save thousands of lives, would you torture?"

All of you "USA, USA" chanters here have missed the main point, and I honestly thought Samson would have slammed the other side with it. One, legality is not always moral, illegality is not always immoral. Two, "What would you have done in this situation if you knew the sheik had information that would save thousands of lives, despite what the law defines as torture?"

The battalion commander, knowing he would be relieved of his command, still discharged his pistol into the ground next to the prisoners' head in Iraq in the opening days of the invasion, because he believed the prisoner had actionable intelligence that would protect the lives of his troops. He is my hero.

So basically we take the cowards way out and force someone down the chain of command to sacrifice thier career on you altar of morality. That is a freaking shame.

That is passing the buck, reaping the rewards of someone else making the hard choice you cannot. It is cowardly and chickenshit.

 

[martybegan]

See that's the thing about terrorists. They don't follow the law. That's why they are terrorists.

Now if we don't follow the law..what does that make us?

Answer my question first. if we cant use coercive methods of interrogation how do we get the information out of them?

By the book and following the law..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CxT48jIgI&feature=related[/ame]

Tell me where the bomb is.

No.

Tell me where the bomb is or we imprison you for life

No. i dont care

Tell me where the bomb is.

No.

Sallow, please inform me what to do next that meets your sense of morality.

 

[daveman]

Torture is not an American value

Good thing we don't do it.

But you just spent 28 pages of this thread defending our right to torture

How butthurt leftists define words does not have any bearing on reality. The manner in which we waterboarded three terrorists is not torture.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, if you are Republican, I am disappointed for you. Torture does not have to be defined. Why? Because it already has been defined. Water boarding is torture. Your last question is miscast. Ask it this way, "Even if water boarding is torture, if you believed that torturing the suspect would save thousands of lives, would you torture?"

All of you "USA, USA" chanters here have missed the main point, and I honestly thought Samson would have slammed the other side with it. One, legality is not always moral, illegality is not always immoral. Two, "What would you have done in this situation if you knew the sheik had information that would save thousands of lives, despite what the law defines as torture?"

The battalion commander, knowing he would be relieved of his command, still discharged his pistol into the ground next to the prisoners' head in Iraq in the opening days of the invasion, because he believed the prisoner had actionable intelligence that would protect the lives of his troops. He is my hero.

So basically we take the cowards way out and force someone down the chain of command to sacrifice thier career on you altar of morality. That is a freaking shame.

That is passing the buck, reaping the rewards of someone else making the hard choice you cannot. It is cowardly and chickenshit.

I have no trouble making such a choice. If you had the info, Marty, I would plug you into the electric grid and take the punishment. But there has to be a punishment, because when we torture legally we become like the enemy.

Nobody ever said this was easy.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, if you are Republican, I am disappointed for you. Torture does not have to be defined. Why? Because it already has been defined. Water boarding is torture. Your last question is miscast. Ask it this way, "Even if water boarding is torture, if you believed that torturing the suspect would save thousands of lives, would you torture?"

All of you "USA, USA" chanters here have missed the main point, and I honestly thought Samson would have slammed the other side with it. One, legality is not always moral, illegality is not always immoral. Two, "What would you have done in this situation if you knew the sheik had information that would save thousands of lives, despite what the law defines as torture?"

The battalion commander, knowing he would be relieved of his command, still discharged his pistol into the ground next to the prisoners' head in Iraq in the opening days of the invasion, because he believed the prisoner had actionable intelligence that would protect the lives of his troops. He is my hero.

So basically we take the cowards way out and force someone down the chain of command to sacrifice thier career on you altar of morality. That is a freaking shame.

That is passing the buck, reaping the rewards of someone else making the hard choice you cannot. It is cowardly and chickenshit.

I have no trouble making such a choice. If you had the info, Marty, I would plug you into the electric grid and take the punishment. But there has to be a punishment, because when we torture legally we become like the enemy.

Nobody ever said this was easy.

So as long as we are on record as being against it, you would let someone else go through with it, and reap the benefits of it? Even if you yourself would be willing to do this is stupid.

It is basically a shell game, and even worse in my opinion than making a framework where coercive interrogation is allowed under certain circumstances. In your system you put the decsion at a lower level, where someone may not have the full story.

This idea of yours would lead to MORE use of methods you don't like rather than less. All it does is make you feel morally better because those who did it are punished. A system where approval is needed at the highest level would reserve these methods for only the most extreme circumstances, people at lower levels would know they couldnt do it without approval. it would control itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Marty, no, it is not "a shell game", and if you can't see that, then . . . I will agree to disagree.