Alvin, i just gave you a thumbs down in comment #3, then you go and make me laugh pretty hard with your comment in post #5. Thats not fair. I am so conflicted now :)
Considering the fact the U.S. has always been a proponent of the Geneva Convention, as well as a signatory, the CIA was not justified.
We can't preach to other countries about mistreatment of prisoners, or suspects of terrorist activity, if we're violating those individuals' rights under the GC.
The Geneva Convention was signed by 196 countries. I don't recall terrorist signing it. They don't deserve any protection as far a I'm concerned. These are people that cut off other peoples heads without thinking twice about it. I think they got off easy compared to what they did and do to others.
So how many of the 20+ people tortured who were ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT OF ANY TERRORIST ACTIVITY deserved to be tortured?
And I don't want to hear any bullcrap about "there were innocent Americans killed" as an excuse to torture other innocents, especially if you've ever made a single mention about "American Exceptionalism".... As great as this country is, there is NOTHING exceptional about torture.
Educate yourself Raymond. What country were these "prisoners" of war from? Not all these people were captured in Iraq. Not all these people had enhanced interigation done to them. Less than 1% of those captured in Iraq went to Gitmo. As far as I'm concerned these scumbags have no rights. Nothing we did to any of them to get info to prevent future attacks was any where near as bad as what they did to others. These people are hell bent on destroying and killing anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. I think we should do whatever it takes to wipe these people off the face of the earth. When they decided to take the path they did as far as I'm concerned they gave up any rights they had. From the poll 77% of the people disagree with you. I think you need to pull your head out of you ass and realize what these people want to do to you . You will be the one complaining we didn't do enough the next time they do something like 9-11.
jack, you sound angry and scared....... those "scumbags"? who are they? anybody your government tells you they are?
I'll stick to "the torture of another human being is wrong"
if some terrorist kills me because the government didn't torture them, so be it, you can only live so long anyways....... stop being afraid and please don't believe everything the government tells you. they do lie and that is a proven fact.
David, I'm far from afraid or scared, nice try putting your spin on it though. I just don't let the Government conspiracy theory consume my life and thoughts as clearly as it does to you on a daily basis. I guess your idea of dealing with ISIS is just walk away from and think it's not a real problem for us?
First off, it matters not what the country of origin is of any terrorist captured during the Iraq war, in which the U.S fought.
If they were captured during the war, they are POWs under the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. is a signatory of.
Secondly, I did not say ALL were taken prisoner during the Iraq war, but many were.
Finally, I discount anything you want to post from wikipedia.com to support your fears as having any credibility at all.
Wikipedia is an interactive sight in which anyone with any motive whatsoever, can put a bunch of drivel on regardless of whether it's credible, reliable, or just plan who-shot-John.
jack, who are those "scumbags" ? come on tell us who they are.... what do they look like?..... brief description would really help........ we all need to make sure the scumbags aren't invading Batavia. If I happen to witness any, I will turn the information over to you jack. you and the 77%ers can string them up and skin them alive if it will make you feel safer.
Bob - You are trying to change left-leaning individuals' opinions with a Foxnews.com link that has Cheney in the URL. I'm not sure if you understand how this works...
I know it's a long shot but I am hoping that there might still be 1 or 2 liberals left that will at least listen to opposing views. Call me a dreamer....
". . .there might still be 1 or 2 liberals left that will at least listen to opposing views."
Guilty.
I read "Conscience of a Conservative" in my youth. I read William F. Buckley regularly. A favorite historian is Niall Ferguson. I won't tell you my voting record, but it might surprise you. I draw the line at Fox News -- too much self-respect to subject myself to that. (I don't think Barry Goldwater would stomach Faux News either. He was an honest man.)
Well in reading definitions of the Geneva Convention on it's website the cleanest definition of the situation regarding all the recent wars is that "Terrorists" aren't legal combatants therefore not covered under the Geneva Convention.
This in no way, mind you defends the morality of our torturing these detainees but as far as Geneva Convention goes this is what was said...
Soon after the end of World War II the Geneva Convention of 1929 was revised and set forth in the Geneva Convention of 1949. It continued the concept expressed earlier that prisoners were to be removed from the combat zone and be humanely treated without loss of citizenship. The convention of 1949 broadened the term prisoner of war to include not only members of the regular armed forces who have fallen into the power of the enemy but also the militia, the volunteers, the irregulars and members of resistance movements if they form a part of the armed forces, and persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members, such as war correspondents, civilian supply contractors, and members of labour service units. The protections given prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions remain with them throughout their captivity and cannot be taken from them by the captor or given up by the prisoners themselves. During the conflict prisoners might be repatriated or delivered to a neutral nation for custody. At the end of hostilities all prisoners are to be released and repatriated without delay, except those held for trial or serving sentences imposed by judicial processes. In some recent combat situations, such as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks of 2001, fighters captured on the battlefield have been labeled “unlawful combatants” and have not been afforded protections guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions.
So if they aren't part of a country's armed forces they aren't lawful combatants. Al Queda, ISIL and the Taliban aren't armed forces or guerillas that are attached to a country's armed forces. Thats the way I understand the statement above
Bob - the killing of innocents with drones is NOT OK to many on the left. It may be preferable, though, to a full-scale invasion, which is why many tolerate it.
And never, ever ask reasonable people to waste 13 minutes on Fox, unless it is Fox Sports or The Family Guy. ;-)
I love this debate, while we argue about the rights of terrorists, the terrorists are
killing and maming people all over the world in the name of allah.
Some call them evil, others call them neccesary.
What type of interagation skills would it take to break someone who would strap a bomb to his chest and detonate on a crowded bus or market place?
Sort of reminds me of the situation we found ourselves in when it was decided to use atomic weapons on Japanese cities. I'm quite certain many would call that decision
and the death and destruction that followed as being evil. Others would argue that it
was neccesary.
If this poll is any indication, most agree with neccesary.
Tim....thats what war is about. EVERY side of every war ever fought committed evil acts. Some more evil than others but the argument about the atomic bomb is very valid. There are lesser evils and we automatically accept them.
When I was in the military I heard many many stories either first hand from the participants or from close friends and family. In war you are asked to do some ugly thing and you can lose sight of your humanity. It's almost a necessity to survive. But you have to live with what you do after.
War in of itself is evil, no matter it's reason. Its what makes everyone respect those that participate and survive. A very good movie that focuses on the nuances of this is "Memorial Day".
Its easy to judge from the outside or after the fact about what should be done or could have been done but the reason we have things like the CIA is to have someone or something capable of making distasteful decisions and doing distasteful tasks so we dont have to. We will never know what horrific events these "tortures" may have stopped, but I'm sure they did stop a few.
People in these organizations know that what they do get them criticism and hate like we heap on them now. But honestly they expect it and continue to do what they can to still do this job. So I will never agree with what they do, but I will respect it and it's necessity.
Its a loaded question. You
Its a loaded question. You first need to define torture. As I define it, no one was tortured.
I didn't know that all
I didn't know that all suspects are guilty and or have knowledge of a crime. I guess we should torture everyone, just to see if they know something.
"Give me Dick Cheney, a
"Give me Dick Cheney, a waterboard, and one hour and I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders."
Jesse Ventura
The dictionary doesn't care
The dictionary doesn't care how you define it. There are many forms of torture that require no physical contact, like listening to me.
Alvin, i just gave you a
Alvin, i just gave you a thumbs down in comment #3, then you go and make me laugh pretty hard with your comment in post #5. Thats not fair. I am so conflicted now :)
It doesn't matter what I say,
It doesn't matter what I say, giving me a thumbs down is the safe bet. Just in case I annoy you later.
Considering the fact the U.S.
Considering the fact the U.S. has always been a proponent of the Geneva Convention, as well as a signatory, the CIA was not justified.
We can't preach to other countries about mistreatment of prisoners, or suspects of terrorist activity, if we're violating those individuals' rights under the GC.
I can't believe the amount of
I can't believe the amount of "yes" votes. anyone that voted "yes" should read this. Twice.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/09/john-mccain-stat…
The Geneva Convention was
The Geneva Convention was signed by 196 countries. I don't recall terrorist signing it. They don't deserve any protection as far a I'm concerned. These are people that cut off other peoples heads without thinking twice about it. I think they got off easy compared to what they did and do to others.
........ The torture of
........ The torture of another human being is wrong ........
Mob mentality at its finest.
Mob mentality at its finest. This is why people get stoned to death by "good righteous" communities.
So how many of the 20+ people
So how many of the 20+ people tortured who were ABSOLUTELY INNOCENT OF ANY TERRORIST ACTIVITY deserved to be tortured?
And I don't want to hear any bullcrap about "there were innocent Americans killed" as an excuse to torture other innocents, especially if you've ever made a single mention about "American Exceptionalism".... As great as this country is, there is NOTHING exceptional about torture.
obama using drones to attack
obama using drones to attack targets which are documented to have also killed hundreds of innocents is OK to the left.
Using enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorists not covered by the Geneva Conventions (which the UN agreed with) is not.
I respectfully challenge the no voters to follow the below link and watch it in its entirety - 13 minutes.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3935116934001/cheney-cia-report-a-terrible-p…
Jack, Have you been living
Jack,
Have you been living under a rock the past 13 years?
Many of these terrorists are prisoners of war from Iraq, in which the U.S. was a key player in.
Educate yourself Raymond.
Educate yourself Raymond. What country were these "prisoners" of war from? Not all these people were captured in Iraq. Not all these people had enhanced interigation done to them. Less than 1% of those captured in Iraq went to Gitmo. As far as I'm concerned these scumbags have no rights. Nothing we did to any of them to get info to prevent future attacks was any where near as bad as what they did to others. These people are hell bent on destroying and killing anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. I think we should do whatever it takes to wipe these people off the face of the earth. When they decided to take the path they did as far as I'm concerned they gave up any rights they had. From the poll 77% of the people disagree with you. I think you need to pull your head out of you ass and realize what these people want to do to you . You will be the one complaining we didn't do enough the next time they do something like 9-11.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees
jack, you sound angry and
jack, you sound angry and scared....... those "scumbags"? who are they? anybody your government tells you they are?
I'll stick to "the torture of another human being is wrong"
if some terrorist kills me because the government didn't torture them, so be it, you can only live so long anyways....... stop being afraid and please don't believe everything the government tells you. they do lie and that is a proven fact.
David, I'm far from afraid or
David, I'm far from afraid or scared, nice try putting your spin on it though. I just don't let the Government conspiracy theory consume my life and thoughts as clearly as it does to you on a daily basis. I guess your idea of dealing with ISIS is just walk away from and think it's not a real problem for us?
Jack, First off, it matters
Jack,
First off, it matters not what the country of origin is of any terrorist captured during the Iraq war, in which the U.S fought.
If they were captured during the war, they are POWs under the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. is a signatory of.
Secondly, I did not say ALL were taken prisoner during the Iraq war, but many were.
Finally, I discount anything you want to post from wikipedia.com to support your fears as having any credibility at all.
Wikipedia is an interactive sight in which anyone with any motive whatsoever, can put a bunch of drivel on regardless of whether it's credible, reliable, or just plan who-shot-John.
jack, who are those
jack, who are those "scumbags" ? come on tell us who they are.... what do they look like?..... brief description would really help........ we all need to make sure the scumbags aren't invading Batavia. If I happen to witness any, I will turn the information over to you jack. you and the 77%ers can string them up and skin them alive if it will make you feel safer.
Bob - You are trying to
Bob - You are trying to change left-leaning individuals' opinions with a Foxnews.com link that has Cheney in the URL. I'm not sure if you understand how this works...
Jason, that was hilarious!
Jason, that was hilarious!
I know it's a long shot but I
I know it's a long shot but I am hoping that there might still be 1 or 2 liberals left that will at least listen to opposing views. Call me a dreamer....
". . .there might still be 1
". . .there might still be 1 or 2 liberals left that will at least listen to opposing views."
Guilty.
I read "Conscience of a Conservative" in my youth. I read William F. Buckley regularly. A favorite historian is Niall Ferguson. I won't tell you my voting record, but it might surprise you. I draw the line at Fox News -- too much self-respect to subject myself to that. (I don't think Barry Goldwater would stomach Faux News either. He was an honest man.)
Well in reading definitions
Well in reading definitions of the Geneva Convention on it's website the cleanest definition of the situation regarding all the recent wars is that "Terrorists" aren't legal combatants therefore not covered under the Geneva Convention.
This in no way, mind you defends the morality of our torturing these detainees but as far as Geneva Convention goes this is what was said...
Soon after the end of World War II the Geneva Convention of 1929 was revised and set forth in the Geneva Convention of 1949. It continued the concept expressed earlier that prisoners were to be removed from the combat zone and be humanely treated without loss of citizenship. The convention of 1949 broadened the term prisoner of war to include not only members of the regular armed forces who have fallen into the power of the enemy but also the militia, the volunteers, the irregulars and members of resistance movements if they form a part of the armed forces, and persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members, such as war correspondents, civilian supply contractors, and members of labour service units. The protections given prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions remain with them throughout their captivity and cannot be taken from them by the captor or given up by the prisoners themselves. During the conflict prisoners might be repatriated or delivered to a neutral nation for custody. At the end of hostilities all prisoners are to be released and repatriated without delay, except those held for trial or serving sentences imposed by judicial processes. In some recent combat situations, such as the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks of 2001, fighters captured on the battlefield have been labeled “unlawful combatants” and have not been afforded protections guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions.
So if they aren't part of a country's armed forces they aren't lawful combatants. Al Queda, ISIL and the Taliban aren't armed forces or guerillas that are attached to a country's armed forces. Thats the way I understand the statement above
Bob - the killing of
Bob - the killing of innocents with drones is NOT OK to many on the left. It may be preferable, though, to a full-scale invasion, which is why many tolerate it.
And never, ever ask reasonable people to waste 13 minutes on Fox, unless it is Fox Sports or The Family Guy. ;-)
I love this debate, while we
I love this debate, while we argue about the rights of terrorists, the terrorists are
killing and maming people all over the world in the name of allah.
This is not a debate on "the
This is not a debate on "the rights of terrorists" - it is a debate on whether, as a nation, we condone evil acts done in our name.
Some call them evil, others
Some call them evil, others call them neccesary.
What type of interagation skills would it take to break someone who would strap a bomb to his chest and detonate on a crowded bus or market place?
Sort of reminds me of the situation we found ourselves in when it was decided to use atomic weapons on Japanese cities. I'm quite certain many would call that decision
and the death and destruction that followed as being evil. Others would argue that it
was neccesary.
If this poll is any indication, most agree with neccesary.
Tim....thats what war is
Tim....thats what war is about. EVERY side of every war ever fought committed evil acts. Some more evil than others but the argument about the atomic bomb is very valid. There are lesser evils and we automatically accept them.
When I was in the military I heard many many stories either first hand from the participants or from close friends and family. In war you are asked to do some ugly thing and you can lose sight of your humanity. It's almost a necessity to survive. But you have to live with what you do after.
War in of itself is evil, no matter it's reason. Its what makes everyone respect those that participate and survive. A very good movie that focuses on the nuances of this is "Memorial Day".
Its easy to judge from the outside or after the fact about what should be done or could have been done but the reason we have things like the CIA is to have someone or something capable of making distasteful decisions and doing distasteful tasks so we dont have to. We will never know what horrific events these "tortures" may have stopped, but I'm sure they did stop a few.
People in these organizations know that what they do get them criticism and hate like we heap on them now. But honestly they expect it and continue to do what they can to still do this job. So I will never agree with what they do, but I will respect it and it's necessity.