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

[mudwhistle]

Some opinion of what is torture, and nothing is dismissed. Torture is torture dudley, for whatever reason it is done. For fun, for information, for resentment, etc. You haven't a clue what it was used for Dudley, as you try to justify it in that lil marble of yours. LOL! Torture is still torture, and still a war crime, and some war criminals went to prison for it. So you might take your lame excuses up with the judges who sent them there.

Oh, my strawman is still standing Dudley.

You concern for terrorists is touching, but they still want you dead. Luckily, there are brave men and women who will protect you from them.

Yes, how touching you can justify torture, murder & rape of innocent human beings who are chained & detained, by war criminals. You are such a hero Dudley..........


Again,................... So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I think they should be buried up to their heads and the victims' families allowed to take out their anger on them till they pass away from this world.

 

[Sallow]

You concern for terrorists is touching, but they still want you dead. Luckily, there are brave men and women who will protect you from them.

Yes, how touching you can justify torture, murder & rape of innocent human beings who are chained & detained, by war criminals. You are such a hero Dudley..........


Again,................... So you agree that people who murder other people should be tortured?

I think they should be buried up to their heads and the victims' families allowed to take out their anger on them till they pass away from this world.

Seems the extremists of the world already do that..

 

[daveman]

Best way for a rotten scoundrel to get in good with a lib is take up their causes. They ignore the fact that he's a piece of shit.

Indeed. The left never met a criminal, thug, or terrorist they didn't love.

Neither did the Constitution when it provided them with certain rights

So...the Constitution applies to everyone in the world?

 

[mudwhistle]

Go back.

Read what I posted. Or read the Constitution.

This would only apply to a person born here or naturalized. I agree you cannot use those techniques on american citizens. Where i do not see this applying is to basically brigands operating outside american and interntational law. They respect no treaties, so they deserve no protection.

To allow them the benefits of legal protection without them following the rules as well defeats the purpose of law and treaty. if they dont feel like following it, they abandon any protections and are at the whim of whoever captures them.

Again..read the Consitution. It doesn't make any distinct between citizens and non-citizens.

Doesn't the convention rules require you wear a uniform or some kind of insignia that identifies you or else face execution? Also it says the following;
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. The Fourth Geneva Convention Rules

Also most of the convention rules apply to persons captured in occupied countries. Wasn't KSM captured outside of occupied territory?

Why don't we deal out punishment to anyone or any country that has committed offenses that have been deemed war crimes or abuse in the past first. Let's start with genocidal regimes that murdered millions of their own people....the Mao and Stalin regimes for example....and work our way back to wrapping a wet towel around someone's head.

 

[Samson]

A REAL WORLD where Americans openly torture others while we hold ourselves up as an example of freedom and human rights?

You're right: Perhaps we should stop "holding ourselves up as an example."

Do you think 20 million Illegal Mexicans will return home then?

Maybe if we tortured them

You mean, we stop giving them the option of, "Escucha Los Instrucsiones en Espanole?"

O
M
G


The Horror.....THE HORROR!!

 

[martybegan]

Go back.

Read what I posted. Or read the Constitution.

This would only apply to a person born here or naturalized. I agree you cannot use those techniques on american citizens. Where i do not see this applying is to basically brigands operating outside american and interntational law. They respect no treaties, so they deserve no protection.

To allow them the benefits of legal protection without them following the rules as well defeats the purpose of law and treaty. if they dont feel like following it, they abandon any protections and are at the whim of whoever captures them.

Again..read the Consitution. It doesn't make any distinct between citizens and non-citizens.

Um, the equal protection clause only applies to those born in the US or naturalized, and subject to the jurestiction therof. Than means citizens.

By common sense a laws apply only to the citizens of a country, or those guests that a country deems worthy by law of protection under said laws. Thats why a NYPD cop cannot arrest someone in London, and a london bobby has no juristiction in NYC. Same reason why the anti-fox hunting laws in england do not apply here.

 

[mudwhistle]

This would only apply to a person born here or naturalized. I agree you cannot use those techniques on american citizens. Where i do not see this applying is to basically brigands operating outside american and interntational law. They respect no treaties, so they deserve no protection.

To allow them the benefits of legal protection without them following the rules as well defeats the purpose of law and treaty. if they dont feel like following it, they abandon any protections and are at the whim of whoever captures them.

Again..read the Consitution. It doesn't make any distinct between citizens and non-citizens.

Um, the equal protection clause only applies to those born in the US or naturalized, and subject to the jurestiction therof. Than means citizens.

By common sense a laws apply only to the citizens of a country, or those guests that a country deems worthy by law of protection under said laws. Thats why a NYPD cop cannot arrest someone in London, and a london bobby has no juristiction in NYC. Same reason why the anti-fox hunting laws in england do not apply here.

Why is Obama is desperately trying to try KSM on US soil? Because they can argue that once he crosses the border he is afforded protections under the Constitution. That was the reason for all of this flap over GITMO. They wanted to bring all of them here so they would have our rights.

 

[Trajan]

Again..read the Consitution. It doesn't make any distinct between citizens and non-citizens.

Um, the equal protection clause only applies to those born in the US or naturalized, and subject to the jurestiction therof. Than means citizens.

By common sense a laws apply only to the citizens of a country, or those guests that a country deems worthy by law of protection under said laws. Thats why a NYPD cop cannot arrest someone in London, and a london bobby has no juristiction in NYC. Same reason why the anti-fox hunting laws in england do not apply here.

Why is Obama is desperately trying to try KSM on US soil? Because they can argue that once he crosses the border he is afforded protections under the Constitution. That was the reason for all of this flap over GITMO. They wanted to bring all of them here so they would have our rights.

yes and speaking to that what the heck is going on with the KSM trial anyway? whats " O " waiting for? 2013?

 

[Samson]

Um, the equal protection clause only applies to those born in the US or naturalized, and subject to the jurestiction therof. Than means citizens.

By common sense a laws apply only to the citizens of a country, or those guests that a country deems worthy by law of protection under said laws. Thats why a NYPD cop cannot arrest someone in London, and a london bobby has no juristiction in NYC. Same reason why the anti-fox hunting laws in england do not apply here.

Why is Obama is desperately trying to try KSM on US soil? Because they can argue that once he crosses the border he is afforded protections under the Constitution. That was the reason for all of this flap over GITMO. They wanted to bring all of them here so they would have our rights.

yes and speaking to that what the heck is going on with the KSM trial anyway? whats " O " waiting for? 2013?

Heh.........a KSM trial in 2012, that finds the paintiff not guilty.

That would do wonders for Barack Hussein's Re-election Campaign...

 

[Sallow]

This would only apply to a person born here or naturalized. I agree you cannot use those techniques on american citizens. Where i do not see this applying is to basically brigands operating outside american and interntational law. They respect no treaties, so they deserve no protection.

To allow them the benefits of legal protection without them following the rules as well defeats the purpose of law and treaty. if they dont feel like following it, they abandon any protections and are at the whim of whoever captures them.

Again..read the Consitution. It doesn't make any distinct between citizens and non-citizens.

Um, the equal protection clause only applies to those born in the US or naturalized, and subject to the jurestiction therof. Than means citizens.

By common sense a laws apply only to the citizens of a country, or those guests that a country deems worthy by law of protection under said laws. Thats why a NYPD cop cannot arrest someone in London, and a london bobby has no juristiction in NYC. Same reason why the anti-fox hunting laws in england do not apply here.

Again..the Constitution makes no such distinction. None.

Any person in an area under US jusdiction are granted the rights outlined in the United States Constitution. This is an extremely important concept..and isn't one that is new. It allows for free commerce and the exchange of ideas with other nations..and reciprocity.

It's one of the reasons this nation has..and will continue to prosper.

 

[martybegan]

Again..read the Consitution. It doesn't make any distinct between citizens and non-citizens.

Um, the equal protection clause only applies to those born in the US or naturalized, and subject to the jurestiction therof. Than means citizens.

By common sense a laws apply only to the citizens of a country, or those guests that a country deems worthy by law of protection under said laws. Thats why a NYPD cop cannot arrest someone in London, and a london bobby has no juristiction in NYC. Same reason why the anti-fox hunting laws in england do not apply here.

Again..the Constitution makes no such distinction. None.

Any person in an area under US jusdiction are granted the rights outlined in the United States Constitution. This is an extremely important concept..and isn't one that is new. It allows for free commerce and the exchange of ideas with other nations..and reciprocity.

It's one of the reasons this nation has..and will continue to prosper.

So anyone in the US is allowed to vote? A person here illegally has the right to stay here, just as a citizen does?

For one thing you cannot deport a US citizen. You can deport a foreign national. So by that logic your point is already wrong.

Thanks for playing, drive on through.

 

[BlindBoo]

So basically it bans you from even looking at someone cross-eyed. First of all the UN has no enforcement power, so they can go pound sand on this. Second, I'm not sure if this is even a treaty yet, or if the US has signed it.

No you can look cross-eye if you want to.

The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. The United States became the 63d nation to sign the convention, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987, after it was ratified by 20 nations.

Then we were idiots. And again, lets see them enforce it. The UN has the same power as a 24V beenie hat propeller.

I hate to derail this into a tangent, but how do all you humanists propose we get intelligence information out of people we capture without any coercive methods?

If you go with the blank statement of "we cant do it' then fine. Next time we get gibbed by some extremist asshats anyone who has the position of we cant use anything coercive to get information out of captured combatants loses every moral standing to question why the government didnt stop the attack. We will just capture and try whoever we manage to snag, regardless of the intel we can have. That way your weak ass conciences can be safe, and more of our people can die. At least you will be able to sleep better at night, as you seem to care more about criminal scum than our own citizens.

Well the President then was in fact out of his mind at the time. But that doesn't mean it was itiotic to sign these conventions. Without a Security Counsel resolution the UN is powerless. And since we have Veto power over the SC it is not likely that the UN will act against us anytime soon

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture'

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture' - Telegraph


"...a general you may have heard of named David Petraeus — he’s the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia and is the most distinguished Army general since Colin Powell — graced your television. He was asked about whether the U.S. ought to torture Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy commander of the Taliban, recently captured in Pakistan. “I have always been on record, in fact since 2003, with the concept of living our values,” Petraeus replied. Every time the U.S. took what he called “expedient measures” around the Geneva Conventions, those deviations just “turned around and bitten us on our backside.” The effect of torture at Abu Ghraib is “non-biodegradable,” he continued, and boasted that as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, he ordered his men to ignore any instruction to use techniques outside the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Besides, the non-torture techniques that manual has long instructed? “That works,” he said. “That is our experience.”

An Open Letter to Liz Cheney on Torture The Washington Independent

Oh, I sleep just fine at night.

 

[martybegan]

No you can look cross-eye if you want to.

The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. The United States became the 63d nation to sign the convention, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987, after it was ratified by 20 nations.

Then we were idiots. And again, lets see them enforce it. The UN has the same power as a 24V beenie hat propeller.

I hate to derail this into a tangent, but how do all you humanists propose we get intelligence information out of people we capture without any coercive methods?

If you go with the blank statement of "we cant do it' then fine. Next time we get gibbed by some extremist asshats anyone who has the position of we cant use anything coercive to get information out of captured combatants loses every moral standing to question why the government didnt stop the attack. We will just capture and try whoever we manage to snag, regardless of the intel we can have. That way your weak ass conciences can be safe, and more of our people can die. At least you will be able to sleep better at night, as you seem to care more about criminal scum than our own citizens.

Well the President then was in fact out of his mind at the time. But that doesn't mean it was itiotic to sign these conventions. Without a Security Counsel resolution the UN is powerless. And since we have Veto power over the SC it is not likely that the UN will act against us anytime soon

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture'

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture' - Telegraph


"...a general you may have heard of named David Petraeus — he’s the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia and is the most distinguished Army general since Colin Powell — graced your television. He was asked about whether the U.S. ought to torture Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy commander of the Taliban, recently captured in Pakistan. “I have always been on record, in fact since 2003, with the concept of living our values,” Petraeus replied. Every time the U.S. took what he called “expedient measures” around the Geneva Conventions, those deviations just “turned around and bitten us on our backside.” The effect of torture at Abu Ghraib is “non-biodegradable,” he continued, and boasted that as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, he ordered his men to ignore any instruction to use techniques outside the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Besides, the non-torture techniques that manual has long instructed? “That works,” he said. “That is our experience.”

An Open Letter to Liz Cheney on Torture The Washington Independent

Oh, I sleep just fine at night.

First of all abu-gharib was not what we are discussing. That was a bunch of assholes violating army regulations, and they were punished, and thier superiors were punished. I love when people try association tricks. We are talking about the mandated use of coercive interrogation on a select few leaders of a terrorist organization operating outside the rules of warfare.

And just because you got one point of info by not using intensive techniques, doesnt mean you will never get more information by using them.

Petreus is following the line an army commander has to follow. His concern is his own troops, not intelligence gathering. Thats why you leave the wet work to the CIA. thats what they are there for.

 

[BlindBoo]

Amnesty International can go **** themselves. The Waterboarding stopped terror attacks. Works for me.

Boo yah.

One could make the case that the people who oppose waterboarding support terror attacks.

Nope. The only case is that people who support waterboarding of suspected terrorist support torturing suspected terrorist, period.

 

[BlindBoo]

American soldiers also have valuable information. The US openly engaging in torture because the end justifies the means only gives our enemies the same rights to use it against our soldiers

RW, let's see, beheading or water boarding???

Also, in a perfect world water boarding would not be needed at all.....

We are talking about three people that where water boarded who are known terrorist, they are not solders, the only reason this has anything relevance is for campaign purposes.....

Not me. I'm including the systematic torture the CIA used in Iraq against Iraqi civilians too.

 

[daveman]

Amnesty International can go **** themselves. The Waterboarding stopped terror attacks. Works for me.

Boo yah.

One could make the case that the people who oppose waterboarding support terror attacks.

Nope. The only case is that people who support waterboarding of suspected terrorist support torturing suspected terrorist, period.

"Torture". Do you think Amnesty International should investigate our military for waterboarding our own troops who are waterboarded as part of SERE training?

If you want to be consistent, you do.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Amnesty International can go **** themselves. The Waterboarding stopped terror attacks. Works for me.

Boo yah.

One could make the case that the people who oppose waterboarding support terror attacks.

Nope. The only case is that people who support waterboarding of suspected terrorist support torturing suspected terrorist, period.

Ok, fine with me! WHATEVER. Call me when we start torturing Lindsay Lohan or Bill Mahar... I'd like to be there for that. God knows they've tortured us all for years.

 

[BlindBoo]

Then we were idiots. And again, lets see them enforce it. The UN has the same power as a 24V beenie hat propeller.

I hate to derail this into a tangent, but how do all you humanists propose we get intelligence information out of people we capture without any coercive methods?

If you go with the blank statement of "we cant do it' then fine. Next time we get gibbed by some extremist asshats anyone who has the position of we cant use anything coercive to get information out of captured combatants loses every moral standing to question why the government didnt stop the attack. We will just capture and try whoever we manage to snag, regardless of the intel we can have. That way your weak ass conciences can be safe, and more of our people can die. At least you will be able to sleep better at night, as you seem to care more about criminal scum than our own citizens.

Well the President then was in fact out of his mind at the time. But that doesn't mean it was itiotic to sign these conventions. Without a Security Counsel resolution the UN is powerless. And since we have Veto power over the SC it is not likely that the UN will act against us anytime soon

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture'

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture' - Telegraph


"...a general you may have heard of named David Petraeus — he’s the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia and is the most distinguished Army general since Colin Powell — graced your television. He was asked about whether the U.S. ought to torture Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy commander of the Taliban, recently captured in Pakistan. “I have always been on record, in fact since 2003, with the concept of living our values,” Petraeus replied. Every time the U.S. took what he called “expedient measures” around the Geneva Conventions, those deviations just “turned around and bitten us on our backside.” The effect of torture at Abu Ghraib is “non-biodegradable,” he continued, and boasted that as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, he ordered his men to ignore any instruction to use techniques outside the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Besides, the non-torture techniques that manual has long instructed? “That works,” he said. “That is our experience.”

An Open Letter to Liz Cheney on Torture The Washington Independent

Oh, I sleep just fine at night.

First of all abu-gharib was not what we are discussing. That was a bunch of assholes violating army regulations, and they were punished, and thier superiors were punished. I love when people try association tricks. We are talking about the mandated use of coercive interrogation on a select few leaders of a terrorist organization operating outside the rules of warfare.

And just because you got one point of info by not using intensive techniques, doesnt mean you will never get more information by using them.

Petreus is following the line an army commander has to follow. His concern is his own troops, not intelligence gathering. Thats why you leave the wet work to the CIA. thats what they are there for.

You were the one who went off on the tangent. But the torture they used in Iraq was systematic and was used at more than one prison.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well the President then was in fact out of his mind at the time. But that doesn't mean it was itiotic to sign these conventions. Without a Security Counsel resolution the UN is powerless. And since we have Veto power over the SC it is not likely that the UN will act against us anytime soon

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture'

FBI agent 'got valuable information without torture' - Telegraph


"...a general you may have heard of named David Petraeus — he’s the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia and is the most distinguished Army general since Colin Powell — graced your television. He was asked about whether the U.S. ought to torture Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy commander of the Taliban, recently captured in Pakistan. “I have always been on record, in fact since 2003, with the concept of living our values,” Petraeus replied. Every time the U.S. took what he called “expedient measures” around the Geneva Conventions, those deviations just “turned around and bitten us on our backside.” The effect of torture at Abu Ghraib is “non-biodegradable,” he continued, and boasted that as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, he ordered his men to ignore any instruction to use techniques outside the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Besides, the non-torture techniques that manual has long instructed? “That works,” he said. “That is our experience.”

An Open Letter to Liz Cheney on Torture The Washington Independent

Oh, I sleep just fine at night.

First of all abu-gharib was not what we are discussing. That was a bunch of assholes violating army regulations, and they were punished, and thier superiors were punished. I love when people try association tricks. We are talking about the mandated use of coercive interrogation on a select few leaders of a terrorist organization operating outside the rules of warfare.

And just because you got one point of info by not using intensive techniques, doesnt mean you will never get more information by using them.

Petreus is following the line an army commander has to follow. His concern is his own troops, not intelligence gathering. Thats why you leave the wet work to the CIA. thats what they are there for.

You were the one who went off on the tangent. But the torture they used in Iraq was systematic and was used at more than one prison.

So what. You progressive hypocrits have been torturing us for decades.

 

[BlindBoo]

Boo yah.

One could make the case that the people who oppose waterboarding support terror attacks.

Nope. The only case is that people who support waterboarding of suspected terrorist support torturing suspected terrorist, period.

"Torture". Do you think Amnesty International should investigate our military for waterboarding our own troops who are waterboarded as part of SERE training?

If you want to be consistent, you do.

Troops undergoing training are not being tortured for information or punishment.