Why America Must Prosecute War Crimes

GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Folks this report is for those bushwhacked assholes that kept claiming no one was ever killed by the US during those "enhance interrogations" ... more proof they do nothing but parrot bushwhacked talking points and blow it out their ass ... :spew:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/06/us-interrogators-killed-dozens-human-rights-researcher-and-rights-group-say/US interrogators may have killed dozens, human rights researcher and rights group say
United States interrogators killed nearly four dozen detainees during or after their interrogations, according a report published by a human rights researcher based on a Human Rights First report and followup investigations.

... and you know what folks ... it a safe bet that there have been much more killed by these people ... it you can call them that ... :roll:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/it-criminal-yet-human-rights-report-uIs It Criminal Yet? Human Rights Report: U.S. Interrogators Killed 98
 Do you think it might be okay if we sort of looked into this? I mean, I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings or keep the country from "moving forward", but isn't murder still a crime?
Or should we sweep this under the rug, too?
United States interrogators killed nearly four dozen detainees during or after their interrogations, according a report published by a human rights researcher based on a Human Rights First report and followup investigations.
In all, 98 detainees have died while in US hands.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/index.asp2006 Human Rights First report that underwrites the researcher’s posting. The causes of 48 more deaths remain uncertain. Thirty-four homicides have been identified, with at least eight detainees — and as many as 12 — having been tortured to death, according to a
The researcher, John Sifton, worked for five years for Human Rights Watch. In a posting Tuesday, he documents myriad cases of detainees who died at the hands of their US interrogators. Some of the instances he cites are graphic.
Most of those taken captive were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They include at least one Afghani soldier, Jamal Naseer, who was mistakenly arrested in 2004. “Those arrested with Naseer later said that during interrogations U.S. personnel punched and kicked them, hung them upside down, and hit them with sticks or cables,” Sifton writes. “Some said they were doused with cold water and forced to lie in the snow. Nasser collapsed about two weeks after the arrest, complaining of stomach pain, probably an internal hemorrhage.”
Another Afghan killing occurred in 2002. Mohammad Sayari was killed by four U.S. servicemembers after being detained for allegedly “following their movements.” A Pentagon document obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2005 said that the Defense Department found a captain and three sergeants had “murdered” Sayari, but the section dealing with the department’s probe was redacted.

Perhaps the most macabre case occurred in Iraq, which was documented in a Human Rights First report in 2006.
“Nagem Sadoon Hatab… a 52-year-old Iraqi, was killed while in U.S. custody at a holding camp close to Nasiriyah,” the group wrote. “Although a U.S. Army medical examiner found that Hatab had died of strangulation, the evidence that would have been required to secure accountability for his death – Hatab’s body – was rendered unusable in court. Hatab’s internal organs were left exposed on an airport tarmac for hours; in the blistering Baghdad heat, the organs were destroyed; the throat bone that would have supported the Army medical examiner’s findings of strangulation was never found.”

In another graphic instance, a former Iraqi general was beaten by US forces and suffocated to death. The military officer charged in the death was given just 60 days house arrest.
“Abed Hamed Mowhoush [was] a former Iraqi general beaten over days by U.S. Army, CIA and other non-military forces, stuffed into a sleeping bag, wrapped with electrical cord, and suffocated to death,” Human Rights First writes. “In the recently concluded trial of a low-level military officer charged in Mowhoush’s death, the officer received a written reprimand, a fine, and 60 days with his movements limited to his work, home, and church.”
Oh, so his murderer was a church-goer! Never mind, then. I'm sure he's prayed about it since.


Can't wait to hear the bushwhacked bullshit excuse on this one ...



Well folks it's like I stated before our only hope will be Spain and other countries in Europe to bring these war criminals to justice ... I pretty much figured the corrupted DOJ wasn't going to do their job ... too many elite lives would be at risk if an open, public investigation took place ...and everyone know their lives are way more important and valuable than those peons murdered during 911 ...and their illegal wars ...



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/countdown-convictions-unlikely-bush-lawyersCountdown: Convictions Unlikely for Bush Lawyers Who Authorized Torture

From the AP:
Bush administration lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects should not face criminal charges, Justice Department investigators say in a draft report that recommends two of the three attorneys face possible professional sanctions.
The recommendations come after an Obama administration decision last month to make public legal memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation methods but not to prosecute CIA interrogators who followed advice outlined in the memos.


The DOJ is a fucking joke!
Perhaps more later ... :-|


 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Wow!

So apparently law doesn't mean shit in this country huh GR! Whoever has the biggest pocket book writes the laws...

CJ and May - Seriously, you can look at all this shit and STILL say nobody should be prosecuted??? How do you explain that?
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Okay, I got it, we'll rebuild the towers, take your family and put them in the tower, and then we'll invite Osama to crash a plane into the tower.

Then, when you object to us doing nothing about the fact that Osama killed your relatives, and refusing to torture the people we have captured that we believe are responsible, we'll just laugh in your face.

Because you're a Commie-Pinko Bitch
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Okay, I got it, we'll rebuild the towers, take your family and put them in the tower, and then we'll invite Osama to crash a plane into the tower.

Then, when you object to us doing nothing about the fact that Osama killed your relatives, and refusing to torture the people we have captured that we believe are responsible, we'll just laugh in your face.

Because you're a Commie-Pinko Bitch
Click to expand...
You are clearly missing the ENTIRE POINT of this discussion man.

Listen to me, I want to make this clear. If my family was in one of the towers as it came crashing down, I knew who was completely responsible for it and we had that person in custody, I STILL would not advocate torturing them. This is probably hard for someone not completely bent on American justice to understand as you people only know violence, that's all there is, someone does something terrible to you, fuck the law, fuck justice, the only thing that matters is finding a person to blame and getting back at them. This is the same reason I'm against capital punishment, I don't think putting someone through excrutiating pain or killing them is justification for the crimes they may have committed. I don't get my rocks off on putting someone else through pain, I don't get how you guys see that as a form of justice. That's the moral issue I have with it first.

Second, it doesn't work, I don't know how many times I have to say that in this one thread, TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. If you disagree with that, fine, but you need to show some evidence of when torture DID work, how it worked and why no other form of interrogation could have been used, because from where I sit, with the information that's been released, other existing forms of interrogation could have been used effectively, just like they were the past 50 years.

None of you people advocating torture has still answered my question;

What's to stop a suspected terrorist (or completely innocent person) from telling you exactly what they think you want to hear to get you to stop torturing them? How do you know if they're telling you the truth? What is it, is it magic...? If you can't answer those simple questions, you really should start asking yourself why your advocating torture in the first place.

I thought you were a little different than the other right wing nut jobs on this forum TBT, but I guess not.

Commie-Pinko Bitch huh? For holding the US Constitution in higher regard than the fuckin' patriot act, k, for opposing internationally illegal interrogation methods, k, for believing in the rule of law over the rule of authority, ok... yeah, you make perfect sense man, that's exactly what commies are pushing for huh, a completely free nation that abides by laws and has limited government... yeah, you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Emotions dont have any bearing on law in our society and just because you get some sick, twisted form of justification for putting an 'enemy' (sure as FUCK use that term loosly) through extreme pain or hummiliation doesn't mean the rest of us will.

Seek help.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
You are clearly missing the ENTIRE POINT of this discussion man.

Listen to me, I want to make this clear. If my family was in one of the towers as it came crashing down, I knew who was completely responsible for it and we had that person in custody, I STILL would not advocate torturing them. This is probably hard for someone not completely bent on American justice to understand as you people only know violence, that's all there is, someone does something terrible to you, fuck the law, fuck justice, the only thing that matters is finding a person to blame and getting back at them. This is the same reason I'm against capital punishment, I don't think putting someone through excrutiating pain or killing them is justification for the crimes they may have committed. I don't get my rocks off on putting someone else through pain, I don't get how you guys see that as a form of justice. That's the moral issue I have with it first.

Second, it doesn't work, I don't know how many times I have to say that in this one thread, TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. If you disagree with that, fine, but you need to show some evidence of when torture DID work, how it worked and why no other form of interrogation could have been used, because from where I sit, with the information that's been released, other existing forms of interrogation could have been used effectively, just like they were the past 50 years.

None of you people advocating torture has still answered my question;

What's to stop a suspected terrorist (or completely innocent person) from telling you exactly what they think you want to hear to get you to stop torturing them? How do you know if they're telling you the truth? What is it, is it magic...? If you can't answer those simple questions, you really should start asking yourself why your advocating torture in the first place.

I thought you were a little different than the other right wing nut jobs on this forum TBT, but I guess not.

Commie-Pinko Bitch huh? For holding the US Constitution in higher regard than the fuckin' patriot act, k, for opposing internationally illegal interrogation methods, k, for believing in the rule of law over the rule of authority, ok... yeah, you make perfect sense man, that's exactly what commies are pushing for huh, a completely free nation that abides by laws and has limited government... yeah, you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Emotions dont have any bearing on law in our society and just because you get some sick, twisted form of justification for putting an 'enemy' (sure as FUCK use that term loosly) through extreme pain or hummiliation doesn't mean the rest of us will.

Seek help.
Click to expand...

At some point, I get sick of hearing some cock-sucking Commie Pinko attempt to defend the rights of those that have killed our citizens.

Now, personally, I wouldn't even waste time trying to torture the terrorists, or enemy non-combatants, I'd put them to death, as is properly condoned by the Geneva Covention.

But even if our military was doing that you would be whining about how inhumane it is to put them to death.

Fuck that, I don't know what weird retarded universe you live in, but I don't think there's any logic in going into a fight with your hands tied behind your back. Especially fights like this where the alternative is death.

As Patton would say, you people don't know jack shit about fighting or fornicating having not been involved in either one.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
You are clearly missing the ENTIRE POINT of this discussion man.

Listen to me, I want to make this clear. If my family was in one of the towers as it came crashing down, I knew who was completely responsible for it and we had that person in custody, I STILL would not advocate torturing them. This is probably hard for someone not completely bent on American justice to understand as you people only know violence, that's all there is, someone does something terrible to you, fuck the law, fuck justice, the only thing that matters is finding a person to blame and getting back at them. This is the same reason I'm against capital punishment, I don't think putting someone through excrutiating pain or killing them is justification for the crimes they may have committed. I don't get my rocks off on putting someone else through pain, I don't get how you guys see that as a form of justice. That's the moral issue I have with it first.

Second, it doesn't work, I don't know how many times I have to say that in this one thread, TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. If you disagree with that, fine, but you need to show some evidence of when torture DID work, how it worked and why no other form of interrogation could have been used, because from where I sit, with the information that's been released, other existing forms of interrogation could have been used effectively, just like they were the past 50 years.

None of you people advocating torture has still answered my question;

What's to stop a suspected terrorist (or completely innocent person) from telling you exactly what they think you want to hear to get you to stop torturing them? How do you know if they're telling you the truth? What is it, is it magic...? If you can't answer those simple questions, you really should start asking yourself why your advocating torture in the first place.

I thought you were a little different than the other right wing nut jobs on this forum TBT, but I guess not.

Commie-Pinko Bitch huh? For holding the US Constitution in higher regard than the fuckin' patriot act, k, for opposing internationally illegal interrogation methods, k, for believing in the rule of law over the rule of authority, ok... yeah, you make perfect sense man, that's exactly what commies are pushing for huh, a completely free nation that abides by laws and has limited government... yeah, you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Emotions dont have any bearing on law in our society and just because you get some sick, twisted form of justification for putting an 'enemy' (sure as FUCK use that term loosly) through extreme pain or hummiliation doesn't mean the rest of us will.

Seek help.
Click to expand...
Oh,

and perhaps you should get help there genius, there's nothing in the Constitution about Torture, or using it or not using.

And even if there was the Constitution only applies to Citizens, Voluntary Alien Residents, and people who are trying to become citizens.

There's nothing in the Constitution that applies to Involuntary Alien Residents.


The Constitution is for Citizens, not non-citizens.
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
Okay, I got it, we'll rebuild the towers, take your family and put them in the tower, and then we'll invite Osama to crash a plane into the tower.
Click to expand...
First of all what proof do you have that Osama was responsible for 911? NONE ... If you have it I suggest you give it to the FBI because they don't have 911 listed as one of Osama's crimes ... I wonder why? ... so you are blowin it out you ass as the bushwhacked usually do ... second Osama Bin Laden is dead ... so you can't "invite" him to crash any planes ... perhaps you should ask members of the bush regime where they got the people to crash the planes into those buildings on 911...

TheBrutalTruth said:
Then, when you object to us doing nothing about the fact that Osama killed your relatives, and refusing to torture the people we have captured that we believe are responsible, we'll just laugh in your face.
Click to expand...
Why would I object to "us" doing nothing about Osama ... the man's dead ... what are you going to do to him ... dig up his corpse and torture it ... you'd like that wouldn't you ... nor would I object to refusing to torture people ... it doesn't work ... so why would I what something done I know doesn't work ... especially on a dead man ... that had nothing to do with 911 ... how bout I laugh in your face right now for coming up with that stupid senerio ... :lol:


TheBrutalTruth said:
Because you're a Commie-Pinko Bitch
Click to expand...
I'd much rather be a commie - pinko bitch than a bushwhacked, believe the lies, disregard the facts war criminal supporting asshole ... like you ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
At some point, I get sick of hearing some cock-sucking Commie Pinko attempt to defend the rights of those that have killed our citizens.
Click to expand...
At some point I get sick of hearing some asshole sucking war criminal lover defending their rights to commit war crimes ... What proof do you have other than government lies that anyone other than the government themselves killed our citizens ... they kill our citizens came up with a cock and bull story that only the bushwhacked and brainwashed sheeple believe ... so come off that bullshit ... the government pull the false flag shit before and now you falling for the exact same bullshit ... is that stupid or what ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
Now, personally, I wouldn't even waste time trying to torture the terrorists, or enemy non-combatants, I'd put them to death, as is properly condoned by the Geneva Covention.
Click to expand...
Ladies and gentlemen here again the bushwhacked parrot blowin' shit out his ass ... we're really not interested in what your twisted mind would do with people you believed to be the enemy ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
But even if our military was doing that you would be whining about how inhumane it is to put them to death.
Click to expand...
... you simply don't get it ... and your mind is so warped that you never will ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
Fuck that, I don't know what weird retarded universe you live in, but I don't think there's any logic in going into a fight with your hands tied behind your back. Especially fights like this where the alternative is death.
Click to expand...
We are all well aware of the weird retarded universe you live in ... and I thank God I not in it ... you fight your stupidity with your hand behind your back ... and the alternative isn't death ... only the bushwhacked people who love to be afraid of the boogie man ... feel that way ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
As Patton would say, you people don't know jack shit about fighting or fornicating having not been involved in either one.
Click to expand...
And as Ganhdi would say ... you are one unenlighten soul ... you will never get it ... too bad ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
Oh,
and perhaps you should get help there genius, there's nothing in the Constitution about Torture, or using it or not using.
Click to expand...
Well dummy ... our laws state that we have to abide by any treaties we sign ... and the GC is one of them and it clearly states torture is a war crime ... so save us your parroting spin ...

TheBrutalTruth said:
And even if there was the Constitution only applies to Citizens, Voluntary Alien Residents, and people who are trying to become citizens.
Click to expand...
Same bushwhacked parrot talking point ... wrong again ... like I said we signed a treaty ... that's why Spain and possibly other countries are investigating the bush regime for war crimes ... since the US won't uphold the law I guess they have to.

TheBrutalTruth said:
There's nothing in the Constitution that applies to Involuntary Alien Residents.
The Constitution is for Citizens, not non-citizens.
Click to expand...
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong and looking stupid ... :neutral:
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/cia-document-19-dems-routinely-briefeCIA Document Claims 19 Dems 'Routinely' Briefed on Interrogation Techniques
The CIA releases a detailed document at the request of Republicans that says 19 Democrats were routinely briefed on interrogation techniques. The Republicans are playing hardball, and this one's a little chin music for anyone who dares to try to prosecute BushCo over torture. (Here's a link to the document.)
And maybe this is why Democrats are so evasive over torture. If true, this is what happens when Democrats embrace Republican policies

Folks this is exactly why the DOJ refuses to prosecute those for war crimes ... too many in congress in high positions are involved ... they all knew that they were breaking the law ... they just when along for the ride ... these people must be held accountable otherwise the war crimes will continue and get worst ... mark my words ...
Here's another report on pelosi ...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.htmlCIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174688873899443.htmlCIA Says It Briefed Congressional Leaders
The document appears to conflict with recent statements from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was then the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Ms. Pelosi has said she hadn't been told that the CIA was using the technique known as waterboarding, or simulated drowning. According to the document, Ms. Pelosi was one of the first lawmakers briefed on the interrogations in 2002.
Now we know why Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, worked so hard to protect President Bush, a Republican, from investigation; because her own complicity in war crimes would have been exposed!MR WRH


More news on those killed by the bush bootjacks ...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death/full/The Bush Administration Homicides
A simple fact is being overlooked in the Bush-era torture scandal: the number of cases in which detainees have been tortured to death. Abuse did not only involve the high-profile cases of smashing detainees into plywood barriers (“walling”), confinement in coffin-like boxes with insects, sleep deprivation, cold, and waterboarding. To date approximately 100 detainees, including CIA-held detainees, have died during U.S. interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death.





 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
I'll be back in about 4 hours to epicly pwn your ass TBT, get ready for that.
 
jfgordon1

jfgordon1

Well-Known Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
Oh,

and perhaps you should get help there genius, there's nothing in the Constitution about Torture, or using it or not using.

And even if there was the Constitution only applies to Citizens, Voluntary Alien Residents, and people who are trying to become citizens.

There's nothing in the Constitution that applies to Involuntary Alien Residents.


The Constitution is for Citizens, not non-citizens.
Click to expand...
TBt: we havn't disagreed much lately.. but on this subject we do.

this is exactly what i told cracker like a week ago....

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

VIII Amendment


Quote:
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​
^
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

International Convention Torture signed by Ronald Reagan and ratified by the Senate, thus part of the supreme Law of the land...that makes torture unconstitutional
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
jfgordon1 said:
TBt: we havn't disagreed much lately.. but on this subject we do.

this is exactly what i told cracker like a week ago....

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

VIII Amendment


Quote:

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​


​
^
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

International Convention Torture signed by Ronald Reagan and ratified by the Senate, thus part of the supreme Law of the land...that makes torture unconstitutional
Click to expand...

I can't give you +Rep, but I sure as fuck would if I could for this post.

Thank you for putting what's right first and political affiliation second. That's rare from conservatives.

Pwnage part 1 submitted by jfgordon, don't worry TBT, I'll still be back later on for more...
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
Oh,

and perhaps you should get help there genius, there's nothing in the Constitution about Torture, or using it or not using.

And even if there was the Constitution only applies to Citizens, Voluntary Alien Residents, and people who are trying to become citizens.

There's nothing in the Constitution that applies to Involuntary Alien Residents.


The Constitution is for Citizens, not non-citizens.
Click to expand...

hey bro, just so you know, if it isn't in the Constitution, the govt is prohibited from doing it. Torture is not in the US Constitution, therefore the gov't is prohibited from its use. Oh and another thing, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS the suspension of Habeus Corpus. Anyway the constitution is just a piece of paper written by a bunch of old rich white dudes who didn't know nuthin about anything. rrrriiiiigggghhhhhtttt!
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
At some point, I get sick of hearing some cock-sucking Commie Pinko attempt to defend the rights of those that have killed our citizens.
Click to expand...
Of course you do, because that's all that matters to you, AMERICAN citizens lives. You couldn't give a fuck less about any other human being on the planet if they don't have American background. Just a little shallow on your part, you would have made a great addition to the Bush administration.

Now, personally, I wouldn't even waste time trying to torture the terrorists, or enemy non-combatants, I'd put them to death, as is properly condoned by the Geneva Covention.
Click to expand...
You're a liar. Nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it say anything about putting a terrorist or enemy non-combatant to death, you just pulled that completely out of your ass.

But even if our military was doing that you would be whining about how inhumane it is to put them to death.
Click to expand...
It is inhumane to put people to death. Killing someone is not compassionate or kind behavior, the exact definition of inhumane. Maybe you should have used a different adjective...

But howabout the innocent 'terrorists' in American custody? Should we just put them to death too? What about a trial, fuck law?

What if these people's native countries, the countries we've been rounding all of them up from, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. enacted this same exact bullshit you're proposing the American military does, put captured American soldiers to death without a trial or conviction? Bet your retarded ass would have something to say about that, huh... As would I BECAUSE IT'S WRONG, it's wrong if the suspect is American, British, Afghani, Iraqi, Muslim, Christian... None of that shit matters, NONE OF IT. The only thing that matters is, did the guy break the law that is INTERNATIONALLY AGREED UPON, and did we hold a fair trial for the suspect. That's it, nothing else. EVERYONE on the face of this fucking planet is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty motherfucker, if you don't like the law of the land, I suggest you fly your happy ass out of here, nobody would miss you.

Fuck that, I don't know what weird retarded universe you live in, but I don't think there's any logic in going into a fight with your hands tied behind your back. Especially fights like this where the alternative is death.
Click to expand...
Great logic, it's unfair if America is the underdog (how you would ever come to that conclusion I have no idea, being that we spend more than twice the amount of money on 'defense' than the rest of the entire world combined...) in a war, but not unfair when the 'enemy' is... Again, American lives (and probably just the conservative retards that already agree with you anyway, when it comes to a liberal or democrat, you probably hold them in the same regard as the 'terrorists'!) clearly mean more to you than any other human being.

...and since when the fuck is NOT using torture fighting with one hand tied behind your back? Grow some balls pussy.

As Patton would say, you people don't know jack shit about fighting or fornicating having not been involved in either one.
Click to expand...
Fighting doesn't always have to be the number one resolution to all international problems. Patton was a good general, but that's it. Diplomacy is much more important than which country has the biggest ego, something the man never understood because he was just as hellbent as you 'conservatives' are on warfare and he couldn't see past his own military gains. If you beat the fuck out of the enemy and steal his land yeah, you might not get anymore shit from that particular guy, but that doesn't make what you did right, asshole.

Fuck Pattons quote, this one's a lot better, and it's from one of the smartest minds in human history, Einstein.

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" - I hope you can see the point he was trying to make with that quote.

and perhaps you should get help there genius, there's nothing in the Constitution about Torture, or using it or not using.

And even if there was the Constitution only applies to Citizens, Voluntary Alien Residents, and people who are trying to become citizens.

There's nothing in the Constitution that applies to Involuntary Alien Residents.


The Constitution is for Citizens, not non-citizens.
Click to expand...
Others have already addressed this point (real conservatives), so I won't touch on it.

I hope you learned something.
 
GrowRebel

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Still more proof that torture is a war crime and it doesn't work ... Ventura makes an excellent point ... you can get any "confession" you want using illegal torture ...

[URL="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jesse-ventura-you-give-me-water-board-dick"]Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders[/url]
On Larry King Live Jesse Ventura takes on the Bush administration chickenhawks and Rush Limbaugh, and defends Colin Powell. After being waterboarded himself in the SERE program, Ventura makes no bones about it. Waterboarding is torture. I'd like to see Hannity have Ventura on his show to debate the issue.
King's reaction to Ventura's straight talk on how terrible of a President W was is amusing. He's shocked...just shocked I tell you, that anyone would talk so badly about our former President.
King needs to take his ass somewhere ... like Texas ... so he doesn't have to embarrass himself every night ...



http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/liz-cheney-waterboardinghttp://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/liz-cheney-waterboarding[URL="http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/liz-cheney-waterboarding"]Liz Cheney on waterboarding: It's not torture, and besides, the end justifies the means
[/url]
Liz Cheney went on Morning Joe today and tried to defend her father's recent media appearances, in which he attacked the Obama administration's policies in the war on terror, and moreover his role in enacting the torture regime that he's now so vigorously defending as having saved "thousands of lives."
To which Eugene Robinson responded in the Washington Post:
The fallacy lies in the fact that it is impossible for Cheney to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have failed to prevent new attacks. Nor, for that matter, can Cheney demonstrate that torture and other abuses were particularly effective.

Well the fruit didn't fall very far from the war criminal tree ...



http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.htmlhttp://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html[URL="http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/07/15/hersh/index.html"]Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape[/url]
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it.


After Donald Rumsfeld testified on the Hill about Abu Ghraib in May, there was talk of more photos and video in the Pentagon's custody [URL="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/08/RUMSFELD.TMP&type=printable"]more horrific [/url] than anything made public so far. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse," Rumsfeld said. Since then, the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43785-2004May20.html"]Washington Post [/url]has disclosed some new details and images of abuse at the prison. But if Seymour Hersh is right, it all gets much worse.
There is no doubt in my mind that it's far worse than the reports that have been leaked ... lot of dirty things going on ... with a criminal complicit congress that doesn't want to do a damn thing about it ... they refuse to uphold their oaths to the constitution and the country ... may they all rot in hell ...



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22470.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22470.html[URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22470.html"]Obama reverses on releasing detainee photos[/url]
In a dramatic and high-profile reversal for his young administration, President Barack Obama is seeking to block the release of 44 photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Justice Department had already agreed to release the photos by May 28 in response to a lawsuit, but Obama is shifting course.
This is a huge mistake.
Obama is now seen to be waffling, not decisive. Obama is seen as bowing down before Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham.
Contrary to the GOP position, releasing these photos does not weaken national security. The actions DEPICTED in the photos endanger national security by creating enemies of this country and convincing those enemies that it is far better to die in battle than to be captured alive.
The photos are an embarrassment. and by withholding them, Obama is not only obstructing justice, he is an accessory after-the-fact in war crimes.
In the end, by withholding these photos (and the rest of the evidence), it leaves the rest of the world free to assume (probably correctly) that far worse things were done to prisoners than just waterboarding. MR - WRH
Couldn't agree more ... Obama is an obstructionist and should be treated as such ...



[URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/spielberg9.html"]Barak Obama-Mass Murderer[/url]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Barack Obama sold himself to the country as someone who would bring massive "change" to the policies of the U.S. government, but of course when it comes to the favorite activity of that cancerous organism, warring against wholly innocent civilian populations in foreign countries, there will be no change. In fact, even the pleas of the President of the supposedly free and democratic country of Afghanistan are meaningless in the face of the U.S. government's desire to enforce its will on as much of the Earth as possible. I wonder if Americans would feel like they lived in a "free democracy" if the U.S. was occupied by a foreign military power that regularly killed our people and refused to stop? A power that calls refraining from murder as fighting with "one hand tied behind our back" as White House "National Security" Advisor James Jones recently did? I am pretty sure they emphatically would NOT.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/05/yes-obama-threatened-britain-over-torture-evidence.htmlhttp://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/05/yes-obama-threatened-britain-over-torture-evidence.html[/FONT][URL="http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/05/yes-obama-threatened-britain-over-torture-evidence.html"]Yes, Obama Threatened Britain Over Torture Evidence[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/url][/FONT]
Glenn Greenwald has the actual text of the letter the Obama administration sent to the UK government, threatening to halt intelligence co-operation if the details of Binyam Mohammed's torture were publicly revealed by the UK High Court.No, this wasn't some holdover from the Bush administration. The threat was clear and simple. And, recall, Obama sent a second letter to the British government thanking it for capitulating to those threats!
Which leaves only one question: do progressives feel it's still OK to support someone who is complicit in torture when he does other stuff they agree with, or does the enormity of the crime of covering up torture and helping torturers evade justice overshadow anything else that man might do?
Good question for the folks that supported Obama ... is this cool with you? I'm very curious ... these reports are the very reason I didn't support Obama during the election ... all his actions in congress indicated to me that he was going to go along with the program ... and that is exactly what he is doing ...



http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/891-cia-refuses-to-turn-over-torture-tape-documents-to-aclu.htmlhttp://www.pubrecord.org/torture/891-cia-refuses-to-turn-over-torture-tape-documents-to-aclu.html[URL="http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/891-cia-refuses-to-turn-over-torture-tape-documents-to-aclu.html"]CIA Refuses to Turn Over Torture Tape Documents to ACLU [/url]
The CIA claims the integrity of a special prosecutor’s criminal investigation into the destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes will be compromised if the agency is forced to turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union detailed documents related to the purge, according to newly released court documents
One law after another continues to be broken ... the elite can commit crimes with impunity yet if a lowly peon commits a slight crime ... jail time ...



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6258404.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6258404.ece[URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6258404.ece"]CIA terror suspects 'kept awake for 11 days'[/url]
More than 25 of the CIA's war-on-terror prisoners were subjected to sleep deprivation for as long as 11 days at a time during the administration of former president George Bush, according to The Los Angeles Times.
At one stage during the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency was allowed to keep prisoners awake for as long as 11 days, the Times reported, citing memoranda made public by the Justice department last month.
The limit was later reduced to just over a week, the report stated.
Sleep deprivation was one of the most important elements in the CIA's interrogation programme, seen as more effective than more violent techniques used to help break the will of suspects
I posted another report on the torture to show those pinheads that claim the US doesn't torture ... how many of you assholes can stand for 11 days straight? I doubt any of you could ... :-|


 
jfgordon1

jfgordon1

Well-Known Member
I've been thinking a lot lately, and i believe we might need to torture to get information. Besides, they did use it during the Salem witch trials. That obviously worked to get people to confess they rode brooms. Might work to get people to confess that they are terrorist. It's just a hunch though.
 
jrh72582

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
Of course you do, because that's all that matters to you, AMERICAN citizens lives. You couldn't give a fuck less about any other human being on the planet if they don't have American background. Just a little shallow on your part, you would have made a great addition to the Bush administration.



You're a liar. Nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it say anything about putting a terrorist or enemy non-combatant to death, you just pulled that completely out of your ass.



It is inhumane to put people to death. Killing someone is not compassionate or kind behavior, the exact definition of inhumane. Maybe you should have used a different adjective...

But howabout the innocent 'terrorists' in American custody? Should we just put them to death too? What about a trial, fuck law?

What if these people's native countries, the countries we've been rounding all of them up from, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. enacted this same exact bullshit you're proposing the American military does, put captured American soldiers to death without a trial or conviction? Bet your retarded ass would have something to say about that, huh... As would I BECAUSE IT'S WRONG, it's wrong if the suspect is American, British, Afghani, Iraqi, Muslim, Christian... None of that shit matters, NONE OF IT. The only thing that matters is, did the guy break the law that is INTERNATIONALLY AGREED UPON, and did we hold a fair trial for the suspect. That's it, nothing else. EVERYONE on the face of this fucking planet is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty motherfucker, if you don't like the law of the land, I suggest you fly your happy ass out of here, nobody would miss you.



Great logic, it's unfair if America is the underdog (how you would ever come to that conclusion I have no idea, being that we spend more than twice the amount of money on 'defense' than the rest of the entire world combined...) in a war, but not unfair when the 'enemy' is... Again, American lives (and probably just the conservative retards that already agree with you anyway, when it comes to a liberal or democrat, you probably hold them in the same regard as the 'terrorists'!) clearly mean more to you than any other human being.

...and since when the fuck is NOT using torture fighting with one hand tied behind your back? Grow some balls pussy.



Fighting doesn't always have to be the number one resolution to all international problems. Patton was a good general, but that's it. Diplomacy is much more important than which country has the biggest ego, something the man never understood because he was just as hellbent as you 'conservatives' are on warfare and he couldn't see past his own military gains. If you beat the fuck out of the enemy and steal his land yeah, you might not get anymore shit from that particular guy, but that doesn't make what you did right, asshole.

Fuck Pattons quote, this one's a lot better, and it's from one of the smartest minds in human history, Einstein.

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" - I hope you can see the point he was trying to make with that quote.



Others have already addressed this point (real conservatives), so I won't touch on it.

I hope you learned something.
Click to expand...
Yes sir. Now that is what we call a TKO. You successfully own the person to whom you're responding.

Might I add a bit of Shakespeare to this discussion? Knowing that torture only causes the torturee to say whatever it is (s)he thinks the man torturing them wants them to hear, Shakespeare devised a witty line (excuse the paraphrase) - He who is upon the rack will say anything.
 
NorthwestBuds

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
jfgordon1 said:
I've been thinking a lot lately, and i believe we might need to torture to get information. Besides, they did use it during the Salem witch trials. That obviously worked to get people to confess they rode brooms. Might work to get people to confess that they are terrorist. It's just a hunch though.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous.:spew:
 
jrh72582

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
jfgordon1 said:
I've been thinking a lot lately, and i believe we might need to torture to get information. Besides, they did use it during the Salem witch trials. That obviously worked to get people to confess they rode brooms. Might work to get people to confess that they are terrorist. It's just a hunch though.
Click to expand...
Torture can cause ANYONE to say ANYTHING. I guarantee that if you torture me, I will tell you anything that I think you want to hear. ANYTHING.





And I mean anything......





So how is torture an effective method of finding truth?
 
jrh72582

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
jfgordon1 said:
I've been thinking a lot lately, and i believe we might need to torture to get information. Besides, they did use it during the Salem witch trials. That obviously worked to get people to confess they rode brooms. Might work to get people to confess that they are terrorist. It's just a hunch though.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see.....you're joking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top