UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

Excon · Dec 16, 2014

Peter King said:
Excon said:

The UN, as it is, needs to be disbanded.

Click to expand...

That would be possible if there was a better solution than the UN but as we do not have any such a thing and it is very unlikely that something like that can be formed again, this is what we have and all we can strive to do is make it better than it is now (not very difficult in some areas but still, there is no alternative).

Your answer assumes that something else is needed. It isn't.

Excon · Dec 16, 2014

Henry David said:
It was immoral and illegal,

Immoral? iLOL

The procedures were designed not to run afoul of the law and they didn't.
They were not illegal.
This report doesn't change that.

Henry David said:
whether done for grins 'n giggles or punishment.

Your failure to understand that it wasn't a Constitutional argument is not my problem, but your's.
I even went as far as to give you the proper context in which to frame your arguments (law or treaty), and yet you still haven't. :doh

Henry David said:
Your sophistry is Oh So Inside the Beltway.

It is your sophistry,
Do you not even know what the word means?
You are the one who introduced the fallacious Constitutional argument. That means you were engaged in sophistry.
And since you can't admit that, even your rebuttals are sophistry.

shrubnose · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
No there will be no surprise.

:doh
You might want to review the information you think you know to determine if what you said is even relevant.

For what again? Supposed crimes within their jurisdiction, right?

Has it yet dawned on you why I brought up jurisdiction in the first place?

:doh:lamo:doh

No they can't be.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the UN and Italy. :roll:

Excon · Dec 16, 2014

shrubnose said:
Tell that to the UN and Italy. :roll:

Tell them what?
That you don't understand jurisdiction, or what you are replying to?
I am more than sure they couldn't care less.

Capster78 · Dec 16, 2014

Bob0627 said:
All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

It's not clear, however, how human rights officials think these prosecutions will take place, since the Justice Department has declined to prosecute and the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said it's "crystal clear" under international law that the United States, which ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, now has an obligation to ensure accountability.

"In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture ? recognized as a serious international crime ? they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency," he said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hopes the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques at secret overseas facilities is the "start of a process" toward prosecutions, because the "prohibition against torture is absolute," Ban's spokesman said.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said the report released Tuesday shows "there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration, which allowed (it) to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law."

He said international law prohibits granting immunity to public officials who allow the use of torture, and this applies not just to the actual perpetrators but also to those who plan and authorize torture.

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture - ABC News

The only CIA agent who has been jailed to date for anything to do with torture is John Kiriakou, for whistleblowing on the CIA torture program.

Let me get this strait... soooooo, when there is trouble in the backyard, everyone runs to the US for assistance. But, they don't like how we handle it. Why don't they invest a fair share into solving the issue, and maybe they will have more of a voice when it comes to how these things get resolved.

Threegoofs · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
Tell them what?
That you don't understand jurisdiction, or what you are replying to?
I am more than sure they couldn't care less.

You're confused. Go back to bed and they'll bring you your medicine.

Excon · Dec 16, 2014

Threegoofs said:
You're confused. Go back to bed and they'll bring you your medicine.

That is obviously you.
Go back and read the article that you obviously didn't understand.

Threegoofs · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
That is obviously you.
Go back and read the article that you obviously didn't understand.

I did. Since the U.S. won't prosecute or extradite, that means whoever is involved better think twice about leaving the country if not under diplomatic cover.

Peter King · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
Your answer assumes that something else is needed. It isn't.

The past decades have shown that we do.

Excon · Dec 16, 2014

Threegoofs said:
I did.

Great, then you should know your original statement was false.

Threegoofs said:
Since the U.S. won't prosecute or extradite, that means whoever is involved better think twice about leaving the country if not under diplomatic cover.

Look at that. :doh
Obviously you don't know that your statement was false.
No one can be tried outside of this Nation for (especially as no crime was committed). No one else has jurisdiction but the US.
And what is a representative of our Justice department supposedly quoted as saying? (which is in line with what we already know)

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

So the investigation was limited to a determination if a crime had been committed, and they decided no charges were to be filed.
Also please note, it said interrogation methods.

So all you have done is shown that you failed to understand what you did read.

And stop while you are ahead. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon does not have the authority to declare anything a violation.

Excon · Dec 16, 2014

Peter King said:
The past decades have shown that we do.

No, they haven't.
There actions and inaction over that time period is what say they are useless.

Peter King · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
No, they haven't.
There actions and inaction over that time period is what say they are useless.

You can think that, the reality however is very different IMHO. And their actions have been very useful.

Threegoofs · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
Great, then you should know your original statement was false.

Look at that. :doh
Obviously you don't know that your statement was false.
No one can be tried outside of this Nation for (especially as no crime was committed). No one else has jurisdiction but the US.
And what is a representative of our Justice department supposedly quoted as saying? (which is in line with what we already know)

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

So the investigation was limited to a determination if a crime had been committed, and they decided no charges were to be filed.
Also please note, it said interrogation methods.

So all you have done is shown that you failed to understand what you did read.

And stop while you are ahead. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon does not have the authority to declare anything a violation.

You just go with your own fantastical interpretation and pretend it's the absolute truth, no matter what the reference actually says.

That's hilarious.

Thoreau72 · Dec 16, 2014

Excon said:
Immoral? iLOL

The procedures were designed not to run afoul of the law and they didn't.
They were not illegal.
This report doesn't change that.

Your failure to understand that it wasn't a Constitutional argument is not my problem, but your's.
I even went as far as to give you the proper context in which to frame your arguments (law or treaty), and yet you still haven't. :doh

It is your sophistry,
Do you not even know what the word means?
You are the one who introduced the fallacious Constitutional argument. That means you were engaged in sophistry.
And since you can't admit that, even your rebuttals are sophistry.

You and I see the world through 2 different lenses.

Two different sets of values. I've read the Constitution enough times to understand what the document and the 8th Amendment declare, that no cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.

You are my polar opposite in that regard. :mrgreen:

Excon · Dec 18, 2014

Peter King said:
You can think that, the reality however is very different IMHO. And their actions have been very useful.

I can think that? Gee thanks. :doh I think that because it is true, the reality is not different from that.
It is not needed, nor was it needed to accomplish anything you think it has or was "very useful".

Excon · Dec 18, 2014

Threegoofs said:
You just go with your own fantastical interpretation and pretend it's the absolute truth, no matter what the reference actually says.

That's hilarious.

You clearly are not able to understand the clearly wording of the Constitution, the article provided or even of that which can occur under international law.
You are obviously uneducated in these areas.

That isn't my problem but yours.

Since you clearly didn't read what you yourself quoted, let me provided it for you again.

Excon said:
Look at that. :doh
Obviously you don't know that your statement was false.
No one can be tried outside of this Nation for (especially as no crime was committed). No one else has jurisdiction but the US.
And what is a representative of our Justice department supposedly quoted as saying? (which is in line with what we already know)

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

So the investigation was limited to a determination if a crime had been committed, and they decided no charges were to be filed.
Also please note, it said interrogation methods.

So all you have done is shown that you failed to understand what you did read.

And stop while you are ahead. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon does not have the authority to declare anything a violation.

Your failure to understand that they found no prosecutable offenses in the interrogation methods is your own problem. Not mine. Your failure to realize that only leads to you making fantastical fanatical interpretations.

But here is your chance to support your absurd claim.

Threegoofs said:
I did. Since the U.S. won't prosecute or extradite, that means whoever is involved better think twice about leaving the country if not under diplomatic cover.

Go ahead and try to support that absurd claim.
Proof that can happen.

Excon · Dec 18, 2014

Henry David said:
You and I see the world through 2 different lenses.

Two different sets of values. I've read the Constitution enough times to understand what the document and the 8th Amendment declare, that no cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.

You are my polar opposite in that regard. :mrgreen:

You are spewing nonsense.
If we see things through two different lenses that would be because your prescription is off, as you clearly have established that you have no concept of what the 8th applies to.
The 8th makes torture as punishment for a crime unconstitutional.
Which was why your argument was and still is wrong.
We did not use torture as a punishment, or as punishment for a crime, which is why your argument fell flat on it's face.
Which has nothing to do with actually viewing things through different lenses.
Either the argument applies or it doesn't. And in the case of your argument, it doesn't apply one bit.

As you were already told, I gave you the proper context in which to frame your arguments (law or treaty).
But even then, if you come to realize just how infirm your 8th Amendment argument is, and try to frame one under (law or treaty) our Justice Department has already decided there was no violation with the interrogation methods.

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

So you have no valid argument.

Thoreau72 · Dec 18, 2014

Excon said:
You are spewing nonsense.
If we see things through two different lenses that would be because your prescription is off, as you clearly have established that you have no concept of what the 8th applies to.
The 8th makes torture as punishment for a crime unconstitutional.
Which was why your argument was and still is wrong.
We did not use torture as a punishment, or as punishment for a crime, which is why your argument fell flat on it's face.
Which has nothing to do with actually viewing things through different lenses.
Either the argument applies or it doesn't. And in the case of your argument, it doesn't apply one bit.

As you were already told, I gave you the proper context in which to frame your arguments (law or treaty).
But even then, if you come to realize just how infirm your 8th Amendment argument is, and try to frame one under (law or treaty) our Justice Department has already decided there was no violation with the interrogation methods.

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

So you have no valid argument.

You suggest that "punishment" applies only to "a crime". Webster does not agree with you. "An act of punishing, or the state of being punished" It may be for a crime, or it may not. "To handle harshly, to injure"

Nor does the 8th Amendment specify "punishment for a crime".

You torture apologists are on desperately thin ice, and my guess is you're all aware of it. I'm going through the identical conversation with a good friend of mine who considers himself Mr. Constitution, and he was not even aware of the language of the 8th Amendment.

Desperate men make desperately silly claims. Because of the subject matter, it is impossible to LOL. It is sad and pathetic.

Excon · Dec 21, 2014

Henry David said:
You suggest that "punishment" applies only to "a crime". Webster does not agree with you. "An act of punishing, or the state of being punished" It may be for a crime, or it may not. "To handle harshly, to injure"

Nor does the 8th Amendment specify "punishment for a crime".

You torture apologists are on desperately thin ice, and my guess is you're all aware of it. I'm going through the identical conversation with a good friend of mine who considers himself Mr. Constitution, and he was not even aware of the language of the 8th Amendment.

Desperate men make desperately silly claims. Because of the subject matter, it is impossible to LOL. It is sad and pathetic.

:doh
Yes your claim was desperate, silly, sad and pathetic. There was no Constitutional violation.

What your friend may or may not think is irrelevant.
What you think of what your friend supposedly indicated is also irrelevant.
Neither are relevant to this discussion.

And you thinking that Webster disagrees with me is also irrelevant.
Punishment (in general) is something given for a perceived wrong.
Interrogation is not punishment. Period.

Secondly, this is a legal argument and not an in-general Websters definition argument.
You were wrong for asserting such a flawed argument to begin with. And despite being told this is not a Constitutional argument and informed as to what would be an appropriate argument to make. (One of Law or Treaty.) you continued on insisting otherwise. Which was really quite silly.

So now lets get on with the facts

Henry David said:
You suggest that "punishment" applies only to "a crime".

I didn't suggest anything. I clearly stated what it was.

But since you obviously don't know and want to continue arguing this silliness ...

INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT
430 U.S. 651
(1977)

1. [...]

[...]
(a) The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime. Pp. 664-668.

[...]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if you do not understand what the U.S. stands for in the above site reference. It is a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

So stop this misunderstanding you have in regards to the Eighth Amendment. It's intent is as punishment for crimes committed. Period.
And if your friend is real, inform him of this so he also wont be wrong in the future.

As for being on thin ice?
The ones decrying these actions as torture are the ones on thin ice.
As already shown, the Justice department already looked into the "interrogation methods" and found nothing to pursue.

Threegoofs · Dec 21, 2014

Excon said:
:doh
Yes your claim was desperate, silly, sad and pathetic. There was no Constitutional violation.

What your friend may or may not think is irrelevant.
What you think of what your friend supposedly indicated is also irrelevant.
Neither are relevant to this discussion.

And you thinking that Webster disagrees with me is also irrelevant.
Punishment (in general) is something given for a perceived wrong.
Interrogation is not punishment. Period.

Secondly, this is a legal argument and not an in-general Websters definition argument.
You were wrong for asserting such a flawed argument to begin with. And despite being told this is not a Constitutional argument and informed as to what would be an appropriate argument to make. (One of Law or Treaty.) you continued on insisting otherwise. Which was really quite silly.

So now lets get on with the facts

I didn't suggest anything. I clearly stated what it was.

But since you obviously don't know and want to continue arguing this silliness ...

INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT
430 U.S. 651
(1977)

1. [...]

[...]
(a) The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime. Pp. 664-668.

[...]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if you do not understand what the U.S. stands for in the above site reference. It is a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

So stop this misunderstanding you have in regards to the Eighth Amendment. It's intent is as punishment for crimes committed. Period.
And if your friend is real, inform him of this so he also wont be wrong in the future.

As for being on thin ice?
The ones decrying these actions as torture are the ones on thin ice.
As already shown, the Justice department already looked into the "interrogation methods" and found nothing to pursue.

So why don't the local police waterboard robbery suspects? Totally cool, according to your 'interpretation'.

Excon · Dec 21, 2014

Threegoofs said:
So why don't the local police waterboard robbery suspects? Totally cool, according to your 'interpretation'.

My interpretation?
iLOL
You quoted the relevant portion of a Supreme Court decision indicating that that prohibition in the Constitution is related only to punishment for a crime.

So maybe you want to follow the advice I gave to the other person and formulate an argument around another angle.

Next.

Threegoofs · Dec 21, 2014

Excon said:
My interpretation?
iLOL
You quoted the relevant portion of a Supreme Court decision indicating that that prohibition in the Constitution is related only to punishment for a crime.

So maybe you want to follow the advice I gave to the other person and formulate an argument around another angle.

Next.

Torture was meted out to many people as punishment, not just during interrogations.

Punishment and Amusement (washingtonpost.com)

matchlight · Dec 21, 2014

To whozit, the U.N. high poobah for whatever: Do not pass go--go straight to hell. And take your fellow America-hating UN officials with you. There would not ever be a UN, if the United States no longer wanted it.

Excon · Dec 21, 2014

Threegoofs said:
Torture was meted out to many people as punishment, not just during interrogations.

Punishment and Amusement (washingtonpost.com)

Were these soldiers acted wrongly not charged and prosecuted?

And stop trying to conflate the issue. That wasn't torture.

Thoreau72 · Dec 22, 2014

Excon said:
:doh
Yes your claim was desperate, silly, sad and pathetic. There was no Constitutional violation.

What your friend may or may not think is irrelevant.
What you think of what your friend supposedly indicated is also irrelevant.
Neither are relevant to this discussion.

And you thinking that Webster disagrees with me is also irrelevant.
Punishment (in general) is something given for a perceived wrong.
Interrogation is not punishment. Period.

Secondly, this is a legal argument and not an in-general Websters definition argument.
You were wrong for asserting such a flawed argument to begin with. And despite being told this is not a Constitutional argument and informed as to what would be an appropriate argument to make. (One of Law or Treaty.) you continued on insisting otherwise. Which was really quite silly.

So now lets get on with the facts

I didn't suggest anything. I clearly stated what it was.

But since you obviously don't know and want to continue arguing this silliness ...

INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT
430 U.S. 651
(1977)

1. [...]

[...]
(a) The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime. Pp. 664-668.

[...]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if you do not understand what the U.S. stands for in the above site reference. It is a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

So stop this misunderstanding you have in regards to the Eighth Amendment. It's intent is as punishment for crimes committed. Period.
And if your friend is real, inform him of this so he also wont be wrong in the future.

As for being on thin ice?
The ones decrying these actions as torture are the ones on thin ice.
As already shown, the Justice department already looked into the "interrogation methods" and found nothing to pursue.

And clearly sir, what you think is irrelevant too.

A person attempting to rationalize the "goodness" or "necessity" of torture can be described as "irrelevant". Humans must fool themselves before they can attempt to fool others. eace

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

Excon

Excon

shrubnose

Excon

Capster78

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Excon

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Peter King

Excon

Excon

Peter King

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Thoreau72

Excon

Excon

Excon

Thoreau72

Excon

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Excon

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

matchlight

Excon

Thoreau72

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Sophisticated man-about-town

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency