I'll see your british writer and shock jock and raise you two medal of honor winning former P.O.W.'s who actually experienced torture.
Bin Laden is dead
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
- Status
Edmund BlackAdder
<B>Rabid Wolverine</B>
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 29
Edmund BlackAdder
<B>Rabid Wolverine</B>
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 29
Some people, are too stupid to get it.
You can't bloody well fix stupid, you just hope it doesn't reproduce.
Actually, the cartoon is not accurate. The U.S. Soldier is a prisoner of war covered by the geneva convention. The two terrorists are in violation of the convention since they are unlawful combatants and should stand trial for war crimes. So no, George bush did not say what they were doing would be acceptable. Some people are too stupid to get it, get it.
To engage in torture is to violate United States law, International Law, and common decency.
US law prohibits using evidence obtained illegally or under duress in US courts.
The use of torture IS allowing our enemies to go free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#United_States
US law prohibits using evidence obtained illegally or under duress in US courts.
The use of torture IS allowing our enemies to go free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#United_States
that's why military tribunals were set up and why Obama almost lost the first terrorist case that he put into civillian court. None of the captured terrorists were mirandized on capture so right there, they all need to be released if you use United States criminal law to prosecute them. they were not captured in the united states so they could make a claim, in U.S. courts that they were kidnapped, in civillian court. If they were not given immediate access to lawyers, once they recieved their miranda warning, which they once again did not recieve in the first place, then once again, they need to be freed, in civillian criminal law.
If the terrorists are "unlawful combatants" and their treatment does not fall under International Law & Treaty, then their actions also do not fall under those laws.
Hence, there are no laws that apply to them therefore they cannot be tried under non-applicable laws.
We cannot be a nation of laws, if we change the enforcement to suit our whims.
If torture is ok when dealing with POW's, it's legal when dealing with shoplifters.
Lets go waterboard a few highschoolers. It being safe and all.
If you'll note, I state that you cannot waterboard P.O.W's, and terrorists and other unlawful combatants were not traditionally covered by the geneva convention, specifically to give actual soldiers, who behaved in accordance with the laws of war, protection at the time of their surrender or capture. By allowing unlawful combatants under the geneva convention, you are giving protection to people who commit criminal acts during wartime.
The terrorists in the cartoon are not lawful combatants in any way and so they are war criminals. War criminals are going to do whatever they want, regardless of the geneva convention.
This would be as close as you can get to understanding the Ronin in japanese culture. these terrorists are masterless in that they do not fight for a recognized nation. Our soldiers do.
The terrorists in the cartoon are not lawful combatants in any way and so they are war criminals. War criminals are going to do whatever they want, regardless of the geneva convention.
This would be as close as you can get to understanding the Ronin in japanese culture. these terrorists are masterless in that they do not fight for a recognized nation. Our soldiers do.
the geneva conventions are also supposed to protect civillian populations by rewarding soldiers who behave properly toward civillian populations and not protecting those who don't.
Not everyone is a signer of the Geneva Convention. It doesn't apply to non-signatory nations. The US btw, has ignored it on a number of occasions. The US has also NOT ratified protocol I or II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
There's more, long separate topic IMO though.
Regardless of the GC's, there are international laws the US HAS signed on to that make torture a crime, and Bush, Cheney and several other high level members of that administration have warrants out for their arrest in at least 2 European nations, by my last check oh, 2 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention
There's more, long separate topic IMO though.
Regardless of the GC's, there are international laws the US HAS signed on to that make torture a crime, and Bush, Cheney and several other high level members of that administration have warrants out for their arrest in at least 2 European nations, by my last check oh, 2 years ago.
I take that as seriously as I do the idea that we shouldn't have waterboarded KSM.
Because the law should only apply when it is convenient right?
Define that!
Are those the civilians who cheerfully buy US brand sneakers ans soda pop, or are those included that do see their country threatened and want to defend it?
Bear in mind the US has in it's history depended on the latter many times...
Blade96
Senior Master
He actually makes me want to throw up.
You wouldn't think him quite so harmless if you realised his type of talk and justifications were and are still being used to keep people bound up in dictatorships. Look at Nazi Germany, Argentina under Pinochet, Spain under Franco etc etc. It may seem amusing but the reality is that if too many people think his way and get into power you can say goodbye to your freedom.
I'd like to find out more about more about the new stealthy helicopters that made this mission possible. It's not like the OBL villa was in a cave in the middle of nowhere, it is in a military town and near the Pakistan Army Academy, that I would presume would have some sort of air defenses and monitoring; or, at the very least, an increased level vigilence.
Back in the 40's a group of rather evil individuals did all sort of experiments on people. Froze them to death, gasses them, shot them and watched them die, and worse.
In the mid 40's those people were rightfully taken out, and their notes and research captured.
There's been an ethical debate ever since on the use of that data to develop new treatments and procedures.
I see this the same way.
You might be able to get intel by torturing someone. It might even be reliable.
But like setting someone on fire to see how tissue burns, it's not right.
You also run the risk that despite all the efforts and expense you put into it, they send you off to Dantoonie.
There are better methods, legal methods, methods that don't drag us into the darkness too.
Because, once you start justifying that 'this is an exception', you start the slide to more exceptions. And not everyone is as honorable as Torquemada.
In the mid 40's those people were rightfully taken out, and their notes and research captured.
There's been an ethical debate ever since on the use of that data to develop new treatments and procedures.
I see this the same way.
You might be able to get intel by torturing someone. It might even be reliable.
But like setting someone on fire to see how tissue burns, it's not right.
You also run the risk that despite all the efforts and expense you put into it, they send you off to Dantoonie.
There are better methods, legal methods, methods that don't drag us into the darkness too.
Because, once you start justifying that 'this is an exception', you start the slide to more exceptions. And not everyone is as honorable as Torquemada.
once again, as an American who is a conservative who votes for the republicans as the lesser of two bad political parties, I believe in individual human rights, the U.S. constitution, the Bill of rights, I believe in freedom of speech and of the press, I believe that the central government should be small and hedged in by strict checks and balances on its power, that taxes should be low, spending by the government should be low.
I am still curious that individuals who believe in a massive central government that controls your health care, your retirement, with fewer checks and balances, individuals who believe in high taxes, especially on the rich, and massive spending programs by the strong central government thinks that I believe in anything close to the socialism that one saw in the national socialism in Germany or in the right wing governtments in spain and chile.
Tez, you were out when I found some great new information on why the facists in Italy, and the National socialists in Germany were closer to the communists in Soviet russia than the people on the left want to admit. I will post them again when I get home. there is also an explanation of the military dictatorships in Chile and spain that also explains where you are once again mistaken.
Sadly, it is big government that endangers and enslaves people, and those governments always get their starts by saying the rich are bad people, let's take what they have and give it to everyone else. What the people who believe in that philosphy fail to realize, is that once the government has the powere to take everything the wealthy have, they have exactly what they need to take everything that everyone else has as well.
I am still curious that individuals who believe in a massive central government that controls your health care, your retirement, with fewer checks and balances, individuals who believe in high taxes, especially on the rich, and massive spending programs by the strong central government thinks that I believe in anything close to the socialism that one saw in the national socialism in Germany or in the right wing governtments in spain and chile.
Tez, you were out when I found some great new information on why the facists in Italy, and the National socialists in Germany were closer to the communists in Soviet russia than the people on the left want to admit. I will post them again when I get home. there is also an explanation of the military dictatorships in Chile and spain that also explains where you are once again mistaken.
Sadly, it is big government that endangers and enslaves people, and those governments always get their starts by saying the rich are bad people, let's take what they have and give it to everyone else. What the people who believe in that philosphy fail to realize, is that once the government has the powere to take everything the wealthy have, they have exactly what they need to take everything that everyone else has as well.
So is it Big Government or Small Government that can suspend the rule of law at whim? You know, for 'important things'?
- Status
