• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture


Actually, if people continue to justify American aggression, intrigue, intervention, nation building, CIA atrocities, and the like, then that part of America may well remain the same. I can't see the harm in pressing for better though. And stop calling me anti-American, un patriotic and the rest of your personal insults. I don't do that to you. You just finished calling Obama and all his supporters lying assholes, that's your prerogative as an American and much as I think that that broad brush defamation is inaccurate, I don't deny you the right to speak it. Come on j, we've had these discussions in the past. Defend and justify US heavy-handedness all you wish and dispense with the name calling.
 
Not alone, but yes I can make that judgement.

Oh, I wasn't aware that you were a foreign affairs expert....What are your qualifications in that area?

1.) We all should make it 2.) and not merely accept whatever we want to believe.

1.) If you are talking about arriving at a personal opinion then sure, why not....Everyone has an opinion, they are like rear ends, and most of them stink.

2.) You couch your qualification to make a judgement in justification of holding an opinion, then in the same sentence talk about basing that on which one believes? Are you serious? pfft.

But as I've told you before, I don't use the poor sources used by many conservatives here.

I certainly wouldn't expect a died in the wool liberal progressive to use anything other than sources that confirm their own biases...You are no different.

And the reason is because they are poor.

No, the reason is because YOU BELIEVE they are poor....

They are often inaccurate.

No, YOU BELIEVE they are often inaccurate...

What matters to me is accuracy.

I would believe that if it were ever demonstrated.

it should matter to you as well.

Overall, I believe it does, as much as you think it does for you.
 
I've already said JMAC--I don't know who they are. Are you going to ask me the same question next post?

But I do not doubt they exist--I know humans well enough. :lol:

Sorry, I prefer to not live in the Twilight Zone....:lol:
 
AQ, and like affiliates don't apply to the GC....If the UN want's to say that we violated our Convention obligations, let them enforce it....Come get some.

Do the Geneva Conventions documents actually say that AQ, and like affiliates are exempt from the protection they provide for POWs?
 
Do the Geneva Conventions documents actually say that AQ, and like affiliates are exempt from the protection they provide for POWs?

Actually, there is language in there that addresses non state aggressors....the interpretation of which is still argued today....But, the fact remains, throwing the GC up at the US while remaining silent on the terrorists depravity, and lawlessness is a tactic of propaganda of our enemies, and means that you either support our enemies, or are a dhimmi. Which is it?
 
Oh, I wasn't aware that you were a foreign affairs expert....What are your qualifications in that area?

Didn't say I was. I'm a source expert, educated to evaluate sources.


Opinions are not equal. They are only as strong as their reasoning and their support. The better the reasoning and support, the better the opinion.


I certainly wouldn't expect a died in the wool liberal progressive to use anything other than sources that confirm their own biases...You are no different.

Do you ever recognize your pot to kettle statements? However, the one who uses accurate sources.


No, the reason is because YOU BELIEVE they are poor....

No, because they are poor, as I've shown to you many are inaccurate.


No, YOU BELIEVE they are often inaccurate...

No, they have proven to be inaccurate.


I would believe that if it were ever demonstrated.

You should pay attention better.

Overall, I believe it does, as much as you think it does for you.

I wish you would show it more than and use accurate sources.
 


A very well articulated response!!!
 

I could waste my breath going on about how awful terrorists are but there's no point. Just because others in the world act badly doesn't mean that the USA should stoop to their level. As long as we hold ourselves up as a model of democracy and rule of law we should behave accordingly. We fought WWII without torturing prisoners, and the USA's POWS captured by Germany were spared torture as a result. My proposed solution for those extremely rare ticking time bomb scenarios when torture may be justified is to allow the decision to be made and carried out, but putting the people involved on trial (a real trial) to determine if a judge and jury considers their decision justifiable considering the circumstances.
 
.. . . . Just because others in the world act badly doesn't mean that the USA should stoop to their level.. . . . .

What a ridiculous ignorant thing to say. We did not waterboard people just to do it, just because they were enemies. . . . . we did it to only three individuals in order to prevent the deaths of thousands more Americans. That is not stooping to their level, that is saving lives. And if pouring some water on some piece of sh*t Muslim Fascist will save American lives, then waterboard them all and the camels they rode in on.

And by the way: Waterbioarding is not torture. We waterboard Nave SEAL during training. This whole subject is just anti-Bush derangement. First call waterboarding torture, then you can call Bush a criminal. Hardy har harr. Pure stupidity.
 

Waterboarding, AKA the Drowning Torture, was considered torture when the Japanese did it. Last I checked no one claiming it isn't torture has volunteered to undergo it, despite some saying that they would. Having your fellow military personnel do it under supervision is not the same as the real thing. A We have no idea how many people have been tortured and/or killed by other nations as part of the renditions program. We do know that innocent people have been tortured.

Waterboarding is not the only form of torture used by the USA. A few people have died from our torture. There is a reason why they are doing all or most of the torture outside the USA's territory-otherwise it is a criminal act. Torture and murder is considered fun by many of the people who do it, that is why it nearly always is done to more and more people over time under every cruel dictatorship.
 
Waterboarding, AKA the Drowning Torture, was considered torture when the Japanese did it......

So we are are like the Japs? They attacked and conquered and tortured to gain, we waterboadred to save lives. . . are you that STUPID, you can't see how IGNORANT your comparison is?

Your brains is fried. I'll bet money right now that you smoke dope. That would explain your stupidity
 

LOL.

I'm amazed that someone could write the above and still have the cognitive ability to type.
 

Does no one else see the irony in a Jordanian prince heading a human rights body and having the audacity to lecture a modern liberal democracy on the subject?

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/jordan
 
LOL.

I'm amazed that someone could write the above and still have the cognitive ability to type.

The japanese filled their victims with water until their stomachs descended and then kicked and beat them in he belly with sticks, that was there version of waterboarding, it's not the same thing.
 
I see you are not paying attention to what has been said. :doh
1. A specific and false argument was made.
The Constitution does not prohibit torture for interrogation purposes. It only prohibits torture as punishment for a crime.

As previously provided.

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.

2. And it is not a name change. The techniques were for interrogation purposes and purposely designed not to run afoul of the law.
They were even investigated and no charges followed.


So you either understand or you do not.





Torture is banned under the Geneva Conventions which the USA ratified.
Again. The enhanced interrogation techniques were specifically designed not to run afoul of the law.
They were investigated and no charges came from it.
 
:lamo

The UN making demands....

:lamo
 



And I see that you still have not learned proper discourse and debate.

I figure anyone who can't ever reply to a post without a personal insult in the first line isn't really up on ****.....

I do not care that your constitution which is pretty much a joke prevents or allows anything. I do not care that you people and especially your president change the name of things to get away with anything they want......

It is though a matter of morality and conscience. based on the hurling of insults, your president, It's pretty clear there is no character and soon, your leaders will be justifying genocide because they can.

Remember "It all depends on what your definition of is, is.
 
And I see that you still have not learned proper discourse and debate.
Wrong.


I figure anyone who can't ever reply to a post without a personal insult in the first line isn't really up on ****.....
:doh
Pointing out that you had not paid attention is not a personal insult. It is factual.


I do not care that your constitution which is pretty much a joke prevents or allows anything. I do not care that you people and especially your president change the name of things to get away with anything they want......
Irrelevance accompanied by a false statement.
The argument you jumped into was about torture and the Constitution. If you do not care what the Constitution says then you should have stayed out of that specific argument.
I even went as far as to point out to others what argument they should be making, one of Law/Treaty. But of course those who are biased never pay attention to such recommendations.
But even then the techniques were specifically designed not to run afoul of the law.


It is though a matter of morality and conscience.
:naughty
No, it is a matter of law.
The techniques were specifically designed not to run afoul of the law.
 
...

Again. The enhanced interrogation techniques were specifically designed not to run afoul of the law.
They were investigated and no charges came from it.

Torture was investigated by the same people who were involved in the practice. When the Senate tried to investigate information was withheld, yet they still concluded that there was illegal torture. The Obama administration granted to defacto amnesty to the Bush administration for their law breaking when it was decided that they would not investigater.

If any of the defenders of waterboarding are willing to undergo it, I'll help with making arrangements.

Another challenge: name a nation that tortures where it has worked out well. (well=it is a nation with liberty, justice and equality under the law and the people are not in fear of government tyranny)
 
:doh
Not.
Stop making things up.
1. It wasn't the same people.
2. The senate doesn't get to decide if something is torture or not. That is what the law is for, and no charges came from the investigation.
 
Last edited:
I'll need to look into this intriguing topic tomorrow... for now...sleeeeeeep....
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…