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.
hw many violations of a UN treaty does it take before a country has violated the terms of a UN treaty?
Do we only incarcerate murderers after they have murdered more than three innocent victims?
What terms of a UN treaty has been violated? Who has been murdered? Who are these "innocent victims?"
Waterboarding has not been leagally defined as "torture." Only the opinions of the bleeding hearts and anything-to-try-and-label-Bush-a-criminal crowd's opinions claim it is.
The three people who were subjected to waterboarding have since been found innocent of any wrongdoing by courts of law?
Just curious...But you seem to think the UN is the end all be all...Tell me...Do you think a one world order is the way to go? And why do other countries get a say in American morals when they give NOTHING in return? Why have you placed what other countries think of America above that of Americans?
Tell that to John McCain and other Vietnam POWs. And the Genva Conventions were in place since 1949, what about them? Guess those treaties aren't worth the paper they were written on.
quit avoiding the fact that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about!
The Administration is using legal technicalities to support immoral practices. It's true, for example, that the combatants like al-qaeda aren't under the umbrella of the Geneva Convention. But you can't just look at that and decide it is ok to do whatever we want. You still have to consider right and wrong.
They have no rules, they abide by no moral code, they are willing to not only kill us, but themselves.
Wrong, that is part of their moral code, it's just nothing like what we in Western cultures have. Now Yoo is basically saying we can use their code of torture because they use it.
Until you understand what their code is and how they think, you will have trouble beating them. If a person is willling to make themself into a self killing bomb, you better fucking understand that it will take non convetional tactics to beat them.
The only one who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about is YOU!
Answer the fucking question and quit avoiding the truth or shut your fucking piehole.
the question is all for you: do you support pissing on Article VI(2) of the constitution, or don't you?
the question is all for you: do you support pissing on Article VI(2) of the constitution, or don't you?
Wrong, that is part of their moral code, it's just nothing like what we in Western cultures have. Now Yoo is basically saying we can use their code of torture because they use it.
Until you understand what their code is and how they think, you will have trouble beating them. If a person is willling to make themself into a self killing bomb, you better fucking understand that it will take non convetional tactics to beat them.
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
So your moral superiority is more important than saving American lives....
I didn't say that, you did. That is so typical of the right who don't have answers, then give instead bullshit personal attacks we see every day. I will put my ass on the line to save America lives, but generalized torture that Yoo and Bush are proposing doesn't do this at all. What a fucking cop out.
How do you call yourself a man? How can you call yourself a Marine?
But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.
Rayboy,
For someone who was a marine, you are such a fucking dumbass. Fear of the unknown allows for a lot of leeway in interrogations (having done a few of those myself I would know). If you can convince someone that really bad shit is going to happen, they will tell you what you're asking for without ever having to lay a finger on them. It's all a mindfuck.
However, if you start out with them knowing nothing bad is going to happen to them, they know you're bluffing and you aren't going to get shit from them. If you would listen, I'm not saying we should torture everyone, I'm saying we should be telling people we will do WHATEVER it takes to protect our country (just like any other country would and has done) and that will add to their fear when caught.
that is technically torture, under the geneva convention...the THREAT of hurting them or their loved ones etc.... fyi
Care
Marriage is a contract too. However with your line of reasoning you would rather have your daughter ( if you have one) stay in a marriage even if that means putting up with an abusive husband. And if she tried and hit him back you would probably want her punished so severly for breaking that commitment because that is how you raised her. To stay with a contract NO MATTER WHAT. Because that is the morally right thing to do.
You are a tool who gets people killed.
Time to rewrite some treaties and bring a sense of reality to them or just junk them altogether.
It is morally right to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
If my daughter were in an abusive relationship, I would let her know that it was perfectly acceptable to divorce her husband.
It is perfectly acceptable for America to abrogate our particpation in and association with any treaty or convention. Until we do, however, it remains the law of the land.
You are a domestic enemy of the constitution.
