RE: Waterboarding Pride

RE: Waterboarding Pride (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyAngelika -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:26:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg It comes from your being so upset at something that happened 8 years ago, yet are silent about the children killed along with thier "alleged" al queda Father who was killed with no trial, this week..... How on earth do you know I'm silent about this? Have you moved in next door to me? I didn't mention in this post as I like to stay on topic. The topic is George W. Bush admits to waterboarding without remorse. quote: You probably didn't hear about it. Stop making assumptions. It makes you look a little dumb and irrational. quote: IF you considered it, you would call Obama a war criminal also. Which we all know isn't going to happen. If he commits war crimes, he will deserve the title as well. So far, I have not heard of reports of him committing war crimes nor has he openly admitted it. - LA

luckydawg -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:29:42 PM)
You made that clear lady a. You have no problem with Obama killing suspects (along with thier children) with no trials.

Owner59 -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:32:42 PM)
In the real war on terror,some innocent people are going to get killed.Most people accept this as an unfortunate consequence. What normal folks don`t accept is turning our great nation into a torture regime.See tag line. And bush`s apologists don`t understand how dangerous this precedence is.Or care.They only seem to want their torture fun,damm who or what it might harm. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/06/george_w_bush_p/ George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting. Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years. "As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life." Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush seems not to understand how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country. [...]

LadyAngelika -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg You made that clear lady a. You have no problem with Obama killing suspects (along with thier children) with no trials. Please, do show me where I made this clear. I'd really like to see this. - LA

cloudboy -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:45:42 PM)
George Bush is a kind of sociopath, showing no remorse for any decision he made while in office. He and Karl Rove won the political battles when they had too, and that's all that really seemed to matter to them.

cloudboy -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:47:23 PM)
quote: So essentially, an ex-US President just openly admitted to a war crime and shows absolutely no remorse, which of course is the sign of a true monster. He should be prosecuted for war crimes, no? - LA No, the US Justice Department vetted their actions as "not torture."

LadyAngelika -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 1:53:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: So essentially, an ex-US President just openly admitted to a war crime and shows absolutely no remorse, which of course is the sign of a true monster. He should be prosecuted for war crimes, no? - LA No, the US Justice Department vetted their actions as "not torture." Honestly, I don't care what the US Justice Department thinks. They aren't the image of competency. And they can be bought by Bush & co I'm sure. I wonder if the ICC will pronounce itself on this issue. - LA

Aneirin -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 4:26:14 PM)
So the wanker Bush admits to the torturing of captives, am I right in understanding the US is against torture, yet your own ex president not only admits it, but seems proud of it's use. That all goes to show what you believe your country is against and what happens is an entirely different thing, which I believe goes for our country too. Can anyone see, the minnions are fed with bullshit ideals whilst the select few do what they wish.. Gtmo, captivivity without trial is a stain on the ideals of the freeworld, the more this goes on, the more laughable are the ideals of the free world. It shows it does not work, despite all the rhetoric and for what is happening to untried individuals, it gathers problems against you. Whatever is going on regards the legal status of the captives, perhaps it is seen the lack of action says only one thing, though you would like to legislate and defend the rights of the untried, you are unwilling because you believe your military intelligence to be right in its actions. Gtmo especially is a thorn in the side of what the US is believed by many to be.

Owner59 -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 5:00:38 PM)
At our country`s founding,Washington forbade the use of torture even if it might have save American lives.He said he didn`t want to stoop the level of the British,who did torture prisoners. "Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775 "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands" Lincoln could have tortured "to save lives" maybe,but he didn`t,saying: “Military necessity does not admit of cruelty . . . nor of torture to extort confessions .” He`s rolling over in his grave after seeing what neo-cons did to his party and to America.

cloudboy -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 7:42:24 PM)
Its just an example of the BUSH team always getting the answers that it wanted. Some in the US wanted those lawyers disbarred.

Lucienne -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika So essentially, an ex-US President just openly admitted to a war crime and shows absolutely no remorse, which of course is the sign of a true monster. He should be prosecuted for war crimes, no? - LA Yes. He really should. There is, of course, no reason to believe this will happen. But it should. As for the ICC, I'm far from an expert on international law, but it's my understanding that the ICC is an attempt to codify and gain consent from nations to the concept of universal jurisdiction - the idea that certain crimes are bad enough that jurisdiction to punish them is extended to all lawful jurisdictions, not just the physical location(s) of the crime. And one of the tests for invoking universal jurisdiction is the likelihood that the alleged criminal will face prosecution in the jurisdiction(s) where the crime occurred. In that sense, the fact that the US wouldn't sign onto the ICC and the fact that everyone knows there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Bush or any of the others will be charged in US courts means there is a stronger argument justifying some other country or body assuming jurisdiction over prosecutions. Sadly, I think the only punishment these individuals will ever face is restrictions on their travel schedule as some European countries have been known to get cheeky with the subpoenas. I'm trying to remember, I think we had to sneak Donald Rumsfeld out of France or Germany in the middle of the night to avoid answering questions about Abu Ghraib.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:17:40 PM)
I'm aware of the ICC's lack of jurisdiction in condemning an American citizen as I mentioned earlier. I am however wondering if they will issue a public statement on the matter for the record. I would carry some weight. - LA

Lucienne -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I'm aware of the ICC's lack of jurisdiction in condemning an American citizen as I mentioned earlier. I am however wondering if they will issue a public statement on the matter for the record. I would carry some weight. - LA I haven't made myself clear. I was responding to several of your posts, but only quoted one. My point is that just because the US didn't consent to ICC jurisdiction doesn't mean that the ICC or some other court can't exercise universal jurisdiction over the subject matter of Bush's alleged war crimes. However unlikely, it is not impossible, under existing international law, for some court outside of the US to entertain war crimes charges against Bush. I don't know if the ICC is in the business of issuing that sort of public statement. I'd be kind of surprised if someone there didn't have a rough draft of charges on their computer on the outside chance they ever had a chance to use it. I'm not sure what weight a condemnation would carry. I mean, the US itself has prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. A former US president just admitted to (proudly) authorizing waterboarding. This doesn't exactly need legal expert opinion to be sorted out. And I'm not sure why people would trust the ICC's word more than their own two eyes. This is 2 + 2=4 simple. And, yeah... it is frustrating that people aren't more outraged.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy What is our current policy? Well considering that the US is not a member of the the International Criminal Court, it has no jurisdiction over US citizens. Of course, we can guess Bush didn't move forward and ratify the Rome Statute in order to behave the way they did. Of course, the UN Security Council can get involved if the US does nothing. So, the next logical question is why hasn't Obama moved forward to get the jurisdiction of the ICC adopted by the US? All those "neo-cons" in Congress preventing it, I guess? Or just maybe, it wasn't a conspiracy to allow the "bushies" to "behave the way they did"? Inquiring minds want to know. [8D] Firm

LadyAngelika -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I'm aware of the ICC's lack of jurisdiction in condemning an American citizen as I mentioned earlier. I am however wondering if they will issue a public statement on the matter for the record. I would carry some weight. - LA I haven't made myself clear. I was responding to several of your posts, but only quoted one. My point is that just because the US didn't consent to ICC jurisdiction doesn't mean that the ICC or some other court can't exercise universal jurisdiction over the subject matter of Bush's alleged war crimes. However unlikely, it is not impossible, under existing international law, for some court outside of the US to entertain war crimes charges against Bush. I don't know if the ICC is in the business of issuing that sort of public statement. I'd be kind of surprised if someone there didn't have a rough draft of charges on their computer on the outside chance they ever had a chance to use it. I'm not sure what weight a condemnation would carry. I mean, the US itself has prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. A former US president just admitted to (proudly) authorizing waterboarding. This doesn't exactly need legal expert opinion to be sorted out. And I'm not sure why people would trust the ICC's word more than their own two eyes. This is 2 + 2=4 simple. And, yeah... it is frustrating that people aren't more outraged. No, you made yourself clear. I was agreeing with you that they would probably not act. I will add that he unfortunately would have had to have been ridiculously more sociopathic and have done a lot more damage before they got involved. I was just wondering if they would issue a statement. - LA

Lucienne -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:39:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy What is our current policy? Well considering that the US is not a member of the the International Criminal Court, it has no jurisdiction over US citizens. Of course, we can guess Bush didn't move forward and ratify the Rome Statute in order to behave the way they did. Of course, the UN Security Council can get involved if the US does nothing. So, the next logical question is why hasn't Obama moved forward to get the jurisdiction of the ICC adopted by the US? All those "neo-cons" in Congress preventing it, I guess? Or just maybe, it wasn't a conspiracy to allow the "bushies" to "behave the way they did"? Inquiring minds want to know. [8D] Firm Because Obama has no interest in holding the Bush admin accountable for their actions, would prefer to pretend that none of that stuff happened, but now that you mention it - this unchecked authority thing is kind of cool so he'll just preserve that.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Because Obama has no interest in holding the Bush admin accountable for their actions, would prefer to pretend that none of that stuff happened, but now that you mention it - this unchecked authority thing is kind of cool so he'll just preserve that. Great response, Lucienne! [:D] Firm

LadyAngelika -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Because Obama has no interest in holding the Bush admin accountable for their actions, would prefer to pretend that none of that stuff happened, but now that you mention it - this unchecked authority thing is kind of cool so he'll just preserve that. Great response, Lucienne! [:D] Firm Actually, under the Obama administration, there is openness to drop hostility towards the ICC. They attended a meeting last November and are looking at it closely and see if they can reconsider it. Perhaps this event might prompt things. Who knows. - LA

Lucienne -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika I will add that he unfortunately would have had to have been ridiculously more sociopathic and have done a lot more damage before they got involved. - LA You think so? His administration pretty much went beyond my imagination of what could reasonably be expected in terms of demonstrating sociopathy and damaging innocents. In a lot of ways, the US is just like an abusive spouse and the major partners just like the abused - hunkering down and waiting for the storm to pass. And occasionally one of the kids will step in and say "you're being an ass" and the US will either ignore them or smash their fucking mouths in for their trouble.

Lucienne -> RE: Waterboarding Pride (6/5/2010 8:56:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lucienne Because Obama has no interest in holding the Bush admin accountable for their actions, would prefer to pretend that none of that stuff happened, but now that you mention it - this unchecked authority thing is kind of cool so he'll just preserve that. Great response, Lucienne! [:D] Firm Actually, under the Obama administration, there is openness to drop hostility towards the ICC. They attended a meeting last November and are looking at it closely and see if they can reconsider it. Perhaps this event might prompt things. Who knows. - LA That would be very encouraging. But I'm not getting my hopes up. This is the guy who let the Dawn Johnsen nomination die a quiet death. If he's not willing to use a recess appointment for a post that is actually quite significant even though the average US citizen would give two shits about it, it seems recklessly optimistic to me to think he'll do something like subject US soldiers to ICC jurisdiction. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but really... our government is full of assholes and we, the people, have shamefully little control over it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875