Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Torcher investigations? If not now then when?


Homz

Recommended Posts

For those who seem to be in the dark as to the meaning of torture, I suggest you look into the Nuremberg war crime trials.

 

If memory serves me correctly, didn't we put a few waterboarders to death. Hmmm, makes you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why should we lower our standards for a bunch of idiots? Why didn't we start baking nazis in death camps? Hitler was doing it.

 

We as a nation abide by a constitution terrorist do not' date=' How can we go around trying to create constitutional governments over seas while we wont even abide to our own constitution?[/quote']

 

When were our standards high? Where did guerrila warfare come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When terrorists stop cutting off heads and spooning out eyeballs. They don't play fair' date=' why should we? [/quote']

 

 

I guess you find blowing heads off innocent women and children with our bombs less brutal than "cutting off heads?" I hardly call our actions in Iraq "fair."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is your solution to fight terrorism?

 

 

I'm not sure there is a real/total solution, only actions that might make it better and protect us here.

 

However, I do know that blowing the head off some 6 year old's innocent mother and dad is not going to solve the problem.

 

That just means the kid doesn't have to be indoctrinated into all that radical Islamic stuff to hate us -- he/she knows firsthand just how barbaric we can be when he/she looks at their parents' graves and the other starving, little kids missing arms, legs, etc., from our bombs and invaders (to them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is waterboarding torture? We do it to our own troops during seer training.

Is depriving people of sleep torture? We do it to our own troops during training.

 

 

This is probably the dumbest post I've seen in a long time. It was reasoning like this that got us into this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Blue' date=' that is the real answer. Seems pretty simple.[/quote']

 

Right, the protection of someone human rights--whether that person is petty criminal, mass murderer, terrorist, or prisoner of war is paramount to the survival of this country and democracy in general. If you start making exceptions in the name of national security, the entire foundation of our democratic principles begins to crumble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not sure there is a real/total solution' date=' only actions that might make it better and protect us here.

 

However, I do know that blowing the head off some 6 year old's innocent mother and dad is not going to solve the problem.

 

That just means the kid doesn't have to be indoctrinated into all that radical Islamic stuff to hate us -- he/she knows firsthand just how barbaric we can be when he/she looks at their parents' graves and the other starving, little kids missing arms, legs, etc., from our bombs and invaders (to them).[/quote']

 

Evil rules the earth. At any given time, somebody, somewhere is at war. You do what you have to to protect your country.

We will NEVER understand the mindset of radical Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Evil rules the earth. At any given time' date=' somebody, somewhere is at war. You do what you have to to protect your country.

We will NEVER understand the mindset of radical Islam.[/quote']

 

 

I don't think invading/occupying Iraq protected us shortterm or longterm (heck, bush managed to kill 2000 more of our guys there than died on 9/11). There's something inherently wrong about attempting to bomb people into democracy.

 

 

For those who will say, "well we weren't attacked here again after 9/11," I would remind you that we weren't attacked here for 8 years after the first WTC bombing. And, we didn't have to kill tens of thousands of innocent people to accomplish that.

 

 

BTW -- I must admit that we were attached here after the first WTC bombing. But it was by a right wing gunnut, supremacist, racist, paramilitary T McVeigh. Those are still the main threat to this country in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is torcher? What is torture?

 

Is waterboarding torture? We do it to our own troops during seer training.

Is depriving people of sleep torture? We do it to our own troops during training.

Is keeping somebody in a restricted position torture? I think not.

Is rough treatment torture? I think not.

 

What is torture now? What was considered torture in 2001' date=' 2002, 2003, and 2004?

Remember that after the laws were changed to redefine torture, the harsh interrogations were stopped. Do we prosecute post facto, after the law was changed? Maybe we should prosecute the Senators and Congressmen that knew about what was going on too, as there were many who did, including Jane Harmon (d) California and other top dem senators and congressmen who were notified of what was occurring.

 

What a bunch of liberal/progressive/democrat bullsh!t. Thanks for the change Obonga!

 

[/quote']

 

What he said, plus ten trillion in stimulus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is probably the dumbest post I've seen in a long time. It was reasoning like this that got us into this mess.

 

 

I've read much stupider posts from other forumites...The question will come down to, what was the legal, US definition definition of torture when the "harsh interrogations" were going on, not what our sensibilities say is torture, but what the law says it is. It is my personal opinion, that waterboarding is not torture. It leaves no permanent physical damage and it has been used on our OWN TROOPS for years. I also, personally do not believe that sleep deprivation and rough treatment is torture. While these things are not something I would want done to me or to US citizens or soldiers, I do not believe that what we did to the prisoners constitutes torture.

 

It really doesn't matter what I think or what any of you think either, it matters what the law says. GW Bush signed the International Treaty on Torture after the US Congress defined what torture means in the US, and THAT treaty is the LAW OF THE LAND and it holds the same status as any US law written by congress and signed by the US President.

 

What is dangerous here, is the criminalizing of policy differences. For one administration to actively pursue policy differences with the previous administration using criminal law is dangerous and chickensh!t....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...