Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes

[Twin Fist]

on an issues with nebulous (at best) legality, some legal experience would lend one's opinion some clout.

Genius. Would you believe me if I said theft and murder were illegal too, or would you solicit a lawyer's opinion first?

 

[Twin Fist]

no, seriously, if you think we are so bad, and it is soooo bad here

leave

i woulnt live in an area I didnt like.

I mean, if i dont like the smell of cheesesteak, i wouldnt move to philly

if you dislike americas actions so much, leave

it is very simple

No.

A perfect demonstration of my point how some would rather simply call themselves Good rather than struggling to actually be that way.

 

[billc]

I first heard about the following case on Dennis Prager's radio show. He was interviewing the author of Black Hawk Down and the author brought up this case. In Frankfurt Germany, they had a child killer in custody. He refused to tell the police where he was keeping an 11 year old boy. After a questioning the guy, the deputy police chief authorized a subordinate to threaten the suspect with torture if he didn't tell them where the boy was. The guy gave up the location on just the threat of torture, unfortunately, he had already killed the boy. Here is the article:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1119490,00.html

Daschner allegedly ordered officers to threaten the suspected kidnapper of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, Magnus Gäfgen, with "intense pain" during questioning in October 2002. Gäfgen, who had given the police a number of false locations for the boy's whereabouts, immediately told officers where he had hid Jakob's body and belongings after the threats. A Frankfurt judge sentenced Gäfgen, who had kidnapped the boy Sept. 27, 2002 and received €1 million ($1.26 million) in ransom money, to 15 years to life in prison on July 29, 2003

Deputy chief says threats were crucial to finding boy
The 50-year-old police veteran has defended his actions. He said his threats to employ a martial arts expert to hurt Gäfgen were necessary to locate Jakob, who police believed was still alive. Gäfgen told them after his confession that he had killed the boy four days before police found the body on Oct. 2, 2002.
He was backed initially by Frankfurt Police Chief Harald Weiss-Bollandt. But Weiss-Bollandt dropped his support as prosecutors began gathering evidence.
International human rights organizations, like Amnesty International, as well as the police union, have greeted the decision by Frankfurt's chief prosecutor.
"We hope that the decision will also make clear that torture, in any case and without restraint, is not allowed and will continue not to be allowed," said Wolfgang Genz of Amnesty International Germany, according to wire reports.

This case is a real life ticking bomb case, with the life of an 11 year old boy hanging in the balance. The boy was already murdered, but the police did not know that at the time of the questioning of the suspect. What would you do? Remember, there was just the threat of pain, no real pain was ever inflicted. Since this is a civillian case, I could not condone waterboarding, but I also would not have punished the men involved since no real torture happened.

 

[Twin Fist]

its always different when it is thier kid on the line

 

[Makalakumu]

on an issues with nebulous (at best) legality, some legal experience would lend one's opinion some clout.

If there is any legal doubt about anally raping people with flashlights or crushing testicles, then there is something seriously wrong with the legal system of that country.

 

[Makalakumu]

I first heard about the following case on Dennis Prager's radio show. He was interviewing the author of Black Hawk Down and the author brought up this case. In Frankfurt Germany, they had a child killer in custody. He refused to tell the police where he was keeping an 11 year old boy. After a questioning the guy, the deputy police chief authorized a subordinate to threaten the suspect with torture if he didn't tell them where the boy was. The guy gave up the location on just the threat of torture, unfortunately, he had already killed the boy. Here is the article:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1119490,00.html





This case is a real life ticking bomb case, with the life of an 11 year old boy hanging in the balance. The boy was already murdered, but the police did not know that at the time of the questioning of the suspect. What would you do? Remember, there was just the threat of pain, no real pain was ever inflicted. Since this is a civillian case, I could not condone waterboarding, but I also would not have punished the men involved since no real torture happened.

Waterboarding is the least of the tortures the Bush Administration approved, but it is the one that gets the most attention.

Regardless, about your argument, the Rule of Law protects everyone equally. It even protects the bad guys sometimes. The reason why is because societies without the Rule of Law turn into complete hell holes. If we can make one excuse to torture, we can make another. For example, it used to just be okay to torture the terrorists. Now, according to your example, it's okay to torture kidnappers. Next it will be whoever else society rationalizes. It's a slippery slope that has proven itself again and again.

 

[Makalakumu]

no, seriously, if you think we are so bad, and it is soooo bad here

leave

i woulnt live in an area I didnt like.

I mean, if i dont like the smell of cheesesteak, i wouldnt move to philly

if you dislike americas actions so much, leave

it is very simple

It's not so easy for the sheeple to leave their tax farms. If you haven't tried, then you don't know what kind of barriers are erected when it comes to emigration. Essentially, another country has to want you there. Americans are, on the average, dumb. We speak one language and do it poorly. Our general education system sucks and most of our professional licenses don't transfer. We are hated abroad. People hear an American accent and assume you are a warmongering fool with medieval attitudes in regards to people, religion, and science. Americans are swimming in debt and most countries don't want to take someone in who might have to be economically supported later. Lastly, the American government sinks deep claws into it's tax slaves. In order to pay for the rampant warfare and wellfare they make it very difficult to simply pay taxes in the new country in which you are living.

Leaving for most people is just not an option and is very daunting for the people who can. It takes time and planning and more time and more planning and you still might not be successful.

 

[WC_lun]

no, seriously, if you think we are so bad, and it is soooo bad here

leave

i woulnt live in an area I didnt like.

I mean, if i dont like the smell of cheesesteak, i wouldnt move to philly

if you dislike americas actions so much, leave

it is very simple

Sorry, this advice is pure crap. If you don't like what your country is doing, say something! Work to change it! It is the patriot that sees lacking in his home and works to change it. In fact, that is built into our form of government. Telling people to leave if they don't like what America is doing is...well un-American.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry, this advice is pure crap. If you don't like what your country is doing, say something! Work to change it! It is the patriot that sees lacking in his home and works to change it. In fact, that is built into our form of government. Telling people to leave if they don't like what America is doing is...well un-American.

The spirit in which this advice was given is not productive. Is essentially like saying, "if you don't like it, get the **** out." Yeah, that's being a responsible citizen...

On the other hand, eventually people do have to make a decision. When the society has moved to a point where the social contract is broken, what is the point of living in that society anymore? Moving is a valid and valuable option. It's something that people should consider if they look around and completely disagree with the direction the society is going and have no political outlets to change anything.

That said, moving is not as easy as it sounds. The roadblocks to getting out are enormous, so if you are even considering this, start planning now. You won't be able to simply pull up the stakes and run when the society really turns to ****. Another country will send you back if you haven't done the work. People always say, "oh yeah, well I'm just going to move to Canada." And I have to laugh. These people don't have a clue.

Moving is an option, but it is not an option that people can exercise spontaneously.

 

[billc]

In the police case this is what I said in my post:

Since this is a civillian case, I could not condone waterboarding, but I also would not have punished the men involved since no real torture happened.

And by "no real torture happened..." I mean they never touched the child killer, they just threatened that they would begin to beat him up, but they never laid a hand on him.

Where exactly did you get the info. on the rape and testicle crushing being U.S. interrogation policy? I've seen a bit about what they were allowed to do and those two items were not on the list.

 

[billc]

I believe the unlawful enemy combatant is only recently covered by the Geneva convention protections. We always treat all prisoners of war according to Geneva, but the unlawful enemy combatants were not supposed to be covered in order to protect our soldiers and the civilians in war zones from war crimes. By protecting the unlawful combatant, you are degrading the protections offered by Geneva. Soldiers need to understand that if they violate the laws of war, then they are outside the protections offered by the conventions, in that way, you might reduce the possibility of soldiers abusing civilians in war zones. By allowing unlawful combatants the same protections as the soldiers of nations, you allow them to commit atrocities and still be covered by the conventions.

 

[Twin Fist]

did that happen?

cus if it didnt happen, than you are blowing meaningless smoke. If all this ******** is just over some lawyer giving an opinion, then either prove him wrong, if he is, or do something about it.

If there is any legal doubt about anally raping people with flashlights or crushing testicles, then there is something seriously wrong with the legal system of that country.

 

[Twin Fist]

my larger point is the constant "gripe gripe moan moan complain" is a waste of air.

DO SOMETHING

lots of options

file charges against that guy that offended you

call your congressman and ask why they having filed charges

make noise, get involved, move, but just DO SOMETHING

or just gripe on a message board

guess which one accomplishes more?

 

[Makalakumu]

Read the thread. It's reported and verified by doctors.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Twin Fist]

i would love to see any proof that it was US policy that rape was ok


not an accusation, PROOF

 

[Makalakumu]

The guy who interpreted the law for the White House, says that crushing the testicles of children in front of there parents is okay. If its not against the law, its fair game.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Twin Fist]

did it happen or not?

 

[cdunn]

For what it's worth: Some available medical evidence about what was actually done, not authorized or unauthorized, at Guantanamo.

 

[billc]

From an article about the exams:

[h=2]Health of detainees prior to detention not known[/h]Physicians for Human Rights' medical examiners did not have access to the 11 patients' medical histories prior to their imprisonment, so it was not possible to know whether any of the prisoners' ailments, disabilities and scars pre-dated their confinement. The U.S. military says an al-Qaeda training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation.

 

[Twin Fist]

and the only evidence of any of those 11, ELEVEN, not 1100, not 11,000, ELEVEN accusations is the accusations themselves, but hey, the enemy NEVER lies about how they are treated............................from that report


"He denied having been beaten during the lengthy interrogations or while being held in the interrogation room. Youssef described these episodes as some of his most painful experiences at Guantánamo. "


so...NOT being beaten was the most painfull thing? yeah, ok. my give a **** is starting towear thin......but it gets better

"He was chained and forced to assume stressful positions; at times, ice-water was poured on him and, at
other times, loud music was played. He was deprived
of access to the toilet and time for prayer"

not allowed to pray?


THOSE BASTARDS


give me a ****ing BREAK. I was treated worse in bootcamp