Damned if you do; damned if you don't.Originally Posted by red states rule
Looking for a hero
Damned if you do; damned if you don't.
If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.
Liberal moonbat
The truth is the truth. If Saddam was guilty of "war crimes," then so should Dubya. I have listed many of them here in the past. Not that anyone was listening, since that topic seems to bring out the deaf, dumb and blind monkeys.
And if not guilty of war crimes, Dubya was guilty of gross negligence and stupidity. He stated to several insiders involved in his 2000 presidential campaign that his top priority was to invade Iraq. But it wasn't reported on Fox or published in a right-wing blog, so none of you chose to believe it.
Senior Member
your rep precede's you. climb back in your palm tree and swing like the dumb and blind monkey you are
Senior Member
Of course Gabby libs can always tell bold face lies to make their points or to excuse what they have said in the past
Notice how this panel is made up of 4 libs and one conservative. Not one liberal corrects the lie of Mark Shields
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m73_DoTcp9A&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m73_DoTcp9A&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
Last edited by red states rule; 11-21-2010 at 09:21 AM.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Member
TERRORIST HAVE NO RIGHTS! They know going in what lays ahead if they are caught. they made the choice to kill innocents, i say waterboarding is too good for them.
Ignored by the alt-right
All truth should be run through Mark Shields; he's smart.
Senior Member
Sorry to interfer in the subject, but since you are looking up terrorist in the wrong treaty then read my post......
International humanitarian law: "Geneva Conventions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...manitarian_law
Violations and punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...and_punishment
During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.
Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.
Spies and "terrorists" are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.
The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.
After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.
So lets look at the UN Convention Against Torture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Conv...gainst_Torture
Definition of torture
Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.
Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment:
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction.
This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.
Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised. Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.
Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.
Signatories of CAT "Convention Against Torture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Conv...atories_of_CAT
IT Includes: United States of America
The current membership of the Committee Against Torture is:<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#dae4f8><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom width=283>Ms. Felice GAER (Vice-Chairperson)
</TD><TD vAlign=top width=248>United States of America
</TD><TD vAlign=bottom width=134>2011
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Rest of the committee members:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/members.htm
Last edited by abso; 11-27-2010 at 10:26 AM.
People show you and tell you who they are and you need to be listening and watching, not deciding that you know better.
Senior Member
As I pointed out to another terrorist defender - TERRORISTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION
Terrorists do wear uniforms, display their arms in the open, hide behind civilians, and last I cheked, the terrorists did not sign the Geneva convention
Again, only THREE TERRORISTS WERE EVER WATERBOARDED!!!!!!
Unlike our captives, the people the terrorists take hostage usually end up dead and hung upside down from bridges
So spare me your BS and pity party for those bastards
The best way to put an end to this crap over the treatment of terrorists is for our military to stop taking these pigs alive
They want to die for Allah? Good. Let our troops do what is needed for a fast intorduction
Last edited by red states rule; 11-27-2010 at 10:32 AM.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
actually i agree with you, they should be killed at sight, i dont want them alive at all, but since you were talking about laws, i wanted to show you that i won the debate, not you.
but if you debate with me about feelings, i will share the same feelings as you, they should be killed, not taken as prisoners and then spending money on keeping them alive while they are killing us.
and as i said, terrorists are not covered in geneva convention, but they are covered in CAT, and your country is a member of CAT who agreed to prevent torture wutever the reason, even for terrorists, and even if its for the puplic safety, so about laws, torture is always illegal even for terrorists.
but anyway, i dont care if they torture terrorists or not, i dont care if they burn them alive or not, all i want is for them to be very sure that they are actually terrorists not just suspects, then i wont have any problem with torturing them with any possible mean.
and by the way, i dont even know what waterboarding is, and i didnt even bother to look it up in google, cuz i dont care, but if you consider water boarding not torture, then what happened in Abu Gharib was surely a torture, so dont think that USA doesnt actually torture people, because it does, and anyone who believe otherwise is mistaken.
Last edited by abso; 11-27-2010 at 10:40 AM.
People show you and tell you who they are and you need to be listening and watching, not deciding that you know better.
Senior Member
You won NOTHING
Waterboarding is not torture and lives were saved from using it. I guess some people would rather had innocent people kiled rather then violate the "rights" of terrorists
Yet those same idiots wil be the first to demand "why" and "how" if the terrorit bastards pull off another attack
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
as i said, i won it in the legal aspect which you used as your argument, but in general i agree with you.
about if torture is legal or not, its not, and even for terrorists, so admit it unless you dont like to be proven wrong.
about me, i agree with torturing any terrorists, thats all, i think CAT is a useless treaty which limits the abilities of security agencies from protecting people like us while it give more protection to terrorists who kill us.
my opinion is simple enough, if we should treat them as humans and not torture them, then they should treat us as humans and not kill us, but since they treat us like pigs and kill us, then we should treat them like pigs and kill them or torture them.
Last edited by abso; 11-27-2010 at 10:48 AM.
People show you and tell you who they are and you need to be listening and watching, not deciding that you know better.
Senior Member
Then why post the usual crap about the Geneva Convention and "international law"?
Seems you were saying how the US can defend itself as long as we wear the handcuffs while the terrorists do what they do best
Kill from the shadows and for Allah
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
i posted it because you used law as your argument, so i used law as mine, then i stated my opinion that i dont agree with the law.
proving you wrong about the law doesnt mean that i agree with the law, i agree with you, but i just disagreed with you about the point that says that law permits torturing terrorists.
i approve of torturing terrorists but i admit that its not legally allowed, but i hope that they cancel CAT and allow it, anyway, none respect that law, and everyone uses torture, so its useless
People show you and tell you who they are and you need to be listening and watching, not deciding that you know better.
Senior Member
Red this is just BS.
the reason the 9-11 attacks weren't stopped wasn't because of lack of Torture.
We had more than enough info in our intel agencies to stop it. The problem was connecting the dots, incompetence and complicity.
Dealing with potential terrorist attacks we don't need any application of Illegal "ENHANCED" methods.
That's what we've been told. Until we have details how can we know that.
3 they've admitted to, there are reports of more and much evidence was shredded.
Believe the best if you will but the best is still illegal under U.S. law.
Some how your assuming that Torture is the only method to get information. Many have explained that's it's unreliable and counterproductive. And there has yet to be a ticking time bomb scenario where 1 guy is the key to the whole thing. that's TV fiction. I would be PISSED if the Gov't decided that the only thing to Do was to question ONE guy when we have a billion dollar intel industry that can be brought to bear on an issue.
Last edited by revelarts; 11-27-2010 at 10:54 AM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Senior Member
The point is we are not violating any laws. We are defending our country and saving innocent livesi posted it because you used law as your argument, so i used law as mine, then i stated my opinion that i dont agree with the law.
proving you wrong about the law doesnt mean that i agree with the law, i agree with you, but i just disagreed with you about the point that says that law permits torturing terrorists.
i approve of torturing terrorists but i admit that its not legally allowed, but i hope that they cancel CAT and allow it, anyway, none respect that law, and everyone uses torture, so its useless
Again, waterboarding is not torture
But then again the people ranting about waterboarding is torture have nothing to say about innocent people being beheaded and the video shown on the internet
Case closed
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote