- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
and an end
:lol: What's the matter? damage your cred to have points of agreement with a conservative? How sad.
and an end
:lol: What's the matter? damage your cred to have points of agreement with a conservative? How sad.
Then she and her husband should be the ones convicted for outing her...After all the moment she gave the interview with the magazine she was out....But like I said this isn't about her....And using her is only deflection from the thread.
Torture is immoral, unreliable and illegal, and revealing it to the public through the press is the right thing to do. Much of the false information that was used to justify the attack and occupation of Iraq came from tortured prisoners. Assuming that all of his actions were genuinely done to reveal the use of torture, then he deserved whistleblower protection and should be considered a hero. The judges opinion on whether it was whistleblowing or not is not authoritative for me. None of the news stories I read indicated that the government showed that he took action for personal gain or to benefit outside interests.
Au contraire. It is an exact duplication of the incident, separated by time and politics. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent exposed by the White House, not by herself until after it was public knowledge and it was entirely political. Pots and kettles calling owls green?
No, not at all. I just wanted to be clear concerning the extent of our agreement.
I did not intend it to be provocative or offensive
While it would be justifiable to leak information about torture as a whistleblower, leaking the names of undercover agents was not justified under the circumstances. John Kiriakou broke the law and his 30 month sentence is reasonable.
My problem with the whole situation is that people who committed acts of torture aren't even being charged. Justice is clearly not the motivation here, as even heinous crimes are tolerated provided they are met with political sanction. Turning a blind eye to a major evil while trumpeting the punishment of a minor one is little more than hypocrisy and corruption.
Who do you see as being responsible for "committed acts of torture"?
In order of responsibility: people who ordered acts of torture, people who personally committed acts of torture and the people who aided and abetted them. Although obviously politically impossible, it would be legally and ethically justifiable to include both the former and sitting president of the united states. Realistically, I would like there to be an investigation and a few lower level scapegoats thrown in prison and a few high level guys fired. I'm not holding my breath for anything to happen though.
So, you don't accept Judges verdicts as valid, if YOU don't agree with them?
I didn't get the appointment, which is why all I can do is contribute to organizations that support the constitution and oppose torture, write letters to elected officials and post my opinions on internet forums. Did you get the appointment?Who appointed you supreme overseer of justice in this country?
And what other than possibly make you feel better about the system, would that accomplish? And what do you believe in the big picture it would do?
And what other than possibly make you feel better about the system, would that accomplish? And what do you believe in the big picture it would do?
I am a NIMBY when it comes to torture. Just as long as it happens offshore, whatever.
Torture is OK as long as you don't have to hear the screams?
As long as it is not within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
As long as it is not within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
So I suppose Auschwitz wasn't a problem because it wasn't within the jurisdiction of Germany? That's not an acceptable legal or ethical argument.
Basic human rights should be respected everywhere. The international treaties regarding prisoners of war, prohibiting torture and respecting human rights that the USA ratified have the force of law and should apply everywhere. Shipping legal USA residents to outside the USA to circumvent constitional protections should be ruled illegal. All prisoners should be categorized as either POWs or criminals and treated within the established legal constraints for the category. I don't accept the argument that the treatment of certain people should be outside of these two categories and exempt from established legal protections.
Comparing water boarding with gas chambers is a bit of a stretch.
I don't know what basic human rights are. I do know what jurisdiction is and I reject International Law since I don't get a vote in it.
Its an extremely accurate comparison. We put people on trial for waterboarding after WW2 right alongside those who had operated gas chambers. Torture was not considered acceptable even during the most destructive war this world had ever seen. It was seen as unconscionable by the same people who had justified firebombing Dreseden and dropping two nuclear weapons on Japan.
International law has nothing to do with it. Torture is violation of U.S. law and the jurisdiction issue is made up nonsense.
To you it is an accurate comparison, to me it is "made up nonsense".
Clearly you are right about the latter being illegal since the WH authorized a lot of this stuff and reauthorized it with the new President :roll:
The WH authorizing something does not make it legal, just ask Richard Nixon.