Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
I hope that someday some of you who are convinced that these type of actions are illegal never get to experience the loss of a loved one to terrorism because this action wasn't taken.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
And you are a damned fool. How would you prove that such a thing happened? Just more obfuscation of the fact that we commited War Crimes.
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
Claimed... not determined. I'm sorry, but just because the Bush Admin speaks doesn't mean I believe.
But still thank you for the sentiment about not suffering the loss of a loved one.
We can disagree on this subject, and you and I do, but we need not wish harm upon those with whom we disagree.
Immie
It was already determined that other attacks were prevented.
Claimed... not determined. I'm sorry, but just because the Bush Admin speaks doesn't mean I believe.
But still thank you for the sentiment about not suffering the loss of a loved one.
We can disagree on this subject, and you and I do, but we need not wish harm upon those with whom we disagree.
Immie
The CIA confirmed it. Obama all but agreed.
Sounds like you are saying I wish harm upon somebody? I never said that. If anything, Old Rocks wished that upon us.
If I misunderstand your statement, my apologies.
Regarding the UN Conventions Against Torture, who said this...?
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
No googling either.
Regarding the UN Conventions Against Torture, who said this...?
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
No googling either.
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
My, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
My, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
Thats a stretch and a very poor comparison. Many died at the hands of German interogations. How many died from waterboarding.
Regarding the UN Conventions Against Torture, who said this...?
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
No googling either.
I believe it was reagan who negotiated and signed the ban on torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Those two guys, especially the first one, remind me so much of some of the people here.
3,000 people died. Justice department gave clearance.
It was not torture.
You can't go back five years and say the law was wrong then and prosecute.
My, my, such idiocy. We hung Germans that claimed "Orders are orders". But our own people lack such a moral compass that they cannot be expected to realize that what they are doing is illegal and immoral.
I hope that someday some of you that are endorsing this type of illegal and immoral actions get to experiance them directly.
Thats a stretch and a very poor comparison. Many died at the hands of German interogations. How many died from waterboarding.
THE ULTIMATE LIBERAL DENIAL--If one of these superior brains had a family member that was captured by a terrorist organization--due to be beheaded within a few hours, & the CIA had caught one of them, that was NOT talking--THEY WOULD HAVE Barack Obama & Eric Holder's number on SPEED dial BEGGING them to waterboard this terrorist, in order to save their family members life.
Regarding the UN Conventions Against Torture, who said this...?
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
Ronald Reagan.
I do not support water boarding in all cases but I believe we should use it if needed.
Which is why it's called "enhanced."
Use it as a last resort - when information is needed because there are indication of an imminent attack.
I love that woman,, see how patient she was? didn't shout him down or talk over him... that's a remarkable difference in the way the left operates.
well, it's easy to be patient when one doesn't have to deal with someone as stupid as you are.
oh...and it IS torture. that's why we prosecuted the Japanese for doing it.
No... try looking at the complete reasons for trial and conviction... there was nobody convicted on just waterboarding or harsh interrogation techniques that we use
No... try looking at the complete reasons for trial and conviction... there was nobody convicted on just waterboarding or harsh interrogation techniques that we use
Tell that to Sheriff James Parker.
IV The Texas Water Torture Case
In 1983, the Department of Justice affirmed that the use of water torture techniques was indeed criminal conduct under U.S. law. Sheriff James Parker of San Jacinto County, Texas, was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The officers were charged with violations of the prisoners' civil rights. Count One of the Indictment asserted that the defendants conspired to:
...subject prisoners to a suffocating "water torture" ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning.[113]
The Sheriff and his deputies were all convicted by a jury under Count One,[114] (as well as under other counts alleging constitutional violations for the same conduct),[115] resulting in at least a four year sentence on that Count.[116] The trial included testimony of another former deputy that the Sheriff and the other Defendants "gave [a prisoner] the water treatment:"
A towel was draped over his head. He was pulled back in the chair and water was poured over the towel.
Ex-Deputy Tells Jury of Jail Water Torture, New York Times, 1 September, 1983.
The victims' testimony was strikingly familiar to other instances of water torture at other times and places:
Q: Were you frightened?
A: Yes.
Q: What were you afraid of?
A: Afraid of drowning; it was hard to breath.
Testimony of former inmate Kevin Coffman.[117]
...My hands was handcuffed up under the table and water was poured into the face of the towel until I started suffering a state of suffocation and I felt that my life was in danger.
Testimony of former inmate Craig Punch.[118]
"I thought I was going to drown."
Testimony of former inmate James Hicks.[119]
On an appeal[120] by one of the deputies the Fifth Circuit described the trial below:
Lee was indicted along with two other deputies, Floyd Baker and James Glover, and the County Sheriff, James Parker, based on a number of incidents in which prisoners were subjected to a "water torture" in order to prompt confessions to various crimes. On the morning trial was to begin, Floyd Baker's counsel informed the court and his co-defendants that Baker intended to admit the government's allegations were true but would argue that he did not have the "state of mind" required for criminal liability. Lee, Glover and Parker each intended to defend on the ground that they did not participate in any torture incidents and were unaware that any such incidents were taking place. Counsel for the other defendants immediately moved for severance. The district court deferred a ruling on these motions pending some clarification of exactly what Baker's defense and testimony would be.
At trial, Baker's defense as developed by his counsel and his testimony rested on two points. The first was that he actively participated in only a single torture episode, and then only because ordered to do so by his superiors-a "Nuremberg defense." The second was that while he believed the torture of prisoners immoral, he did not at the time think it was illegal. In the course of Baker's testimony, he identified Lee as a participant in the torture of several prisoners. Seven other witnesses also connected Lee with various torture incidents. At the close of the evidence, the district judge severed Baker, and put the case of the remaining defendants to the jury. Lee was convicted on three counts.
United States v. Lee, 744 F. 2d at 1125.[121]
Lee's conviction was affirmed on appeal, and all the defendants received substantial prison sentences.[122]
United States District Judge James DeAnda's comments at sentencing were telling. He told the former Sheriff that he had allowed law enforcement to "...fall into the hands of a bunch of thugs.... The operation down there would embarrass the dictator of a country." Ex-Sheriff Given Ten Year Sentence, New York Times, 27 October, 1983 (emphasis added).[123]
User:Jmcneill2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Funny that that was on an American citizen.. by someone who is not qualified or allowed to use such a technique.. and appears to have been without the supervision like we have when this technique is used by the military/CIA/FBI etc
I love that woman,, see how patient she was? didn't shout him down or talk over him... that's a remarkable difference in the way the left operates.
well, it's easy to be patient when one doesn't have to deal with someone as stupid as you are.
oh...and it IS torture. that's why we prosecuted the Japanese for doing it.
No... try looking at the complete reasons for trial and conviction... there was nobody convicted on just waterboarding or harsh interrogation techniques that we use
