• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

I don't think that 13 years later they're still "players."

I admit that we're in a very tough situation as far as getting rid of them, but I don't think that justifies torture.
Who says it does? But consider that enemies, or their supporters don't get to define the parameters just because they feel guilty for winning.
 
Yeah, you can get that from such who are ashamed of those of us who shed blood for this country. I got plenty of it back during NAM. Back then I didn't say anything when they popped off. Now it is very a different story. Always ends the same way to.....they don't like it. ;)

Do you think any of the hard core left will answer that question? As they seem to have trouble doing so.....and not just here either.
No they won't. Largely because it would show that deep down they support it as well, they just can't admit it because of how that would make them look.
 
All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

It's not clear, however, how human rights officials think these prosecutions will take place, since the Justice Department has declined to prosecute and the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said it's "crystal clear" under international law that the United States, which ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, now has an obligation to ensure accountability.

"In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture ? recognized as a serious international crime ? they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency," he said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hopes the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques at secret overseas facilities is the "start of a process" toward prosecutions, because the "prohibition against torture is absolute," Ban's spokesman said.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said the report released Tuesday shows "there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration, which allowed (it) to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law."

He said international law prohibits granting immunity to public officials who allow the use of torture, and this applies not just to the actual perpetrators but also to those who plan and authorize torture.

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture - ABC News

The only CIA agent who has been jailed to date for anything to do with torture is John Kiriakou, for whistleblowing on the CIA torture program.

The release of the report was a shameful betrayal of American interests.
 
Well, no. I do not want to come anywhere close to equaling or exceeding the savagery of al Qaeda and ISIS. I do not want to overrun their camps and decapitate their children and rape their women. But I am not above pouring water up their nose and make THEM believe we might be ending their life. In other words, I have no problem making these monsters cry.

I'd agree. There are some things that are completely off the table, the decapitating of their children and the raping their women being among them.

I also have no objection to effective enhanced interrogation methods that have been validated to produce valuable intel, so much so that when completed the interrogatee is little more than a shriveled up shell of their former selves, perhaps even safe to return to their homes after that with the risk of recidivism.
 
For those advocating arrest for politicians and CIA agents involved, lets make sure we set the example and show how serious we are. Start petitions immediately demanding Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, and many others that were briefed on this from the get go be arrested and tried and punished. Show how much this matters to you.

Fluffy bunnies....
 
The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. So your argument is that waterboarding is either not cruel or not unusual. Or, that the 8th Amendment does not need to be followed.

The measuring stick for what is cruel and unusual under the 8th Amendment has always been tied to the level of the crime. Execution was ruled as cruel and unusual for cases of rape, but not for cases of murder, for example. Types of execution such as t drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment were also ruled cruel and unusual for going beyond the basic purpose of execution.

Under those guidelines, pouring water up the nose of a man who sawed another man's head off for being an American Jew does not meet the level of cruel and unusual punishment.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. So your argument is that waterboarding is either not cruel or not unusual. Or, that the 8th Amendment does not need to be followed.



Holder didn't find that it was......how come? What happened and his inquiry talked to and interviewed witnesses. Plus his dept didn't just talk to the CIA Chiefs.


Couldn't even bring charges. Do you think that says something?
 
That wasn't the question.....they were. Also I doubt they are or have been experiencing any enhanced techniques for years now. Yes they are locked up and they are alive because of it. There are many places they cannot go as they will be killed on sight. Some even with their own Countries.

Again, it goes back to my argument. Anything else after that is a mute point.

I'm sure many of them have continued to endure tortures in the years since. By now they've probably admitted that they are responsible for killing JFK and for slavery.

If they were sent back to their countries and shot on sight there, that doesn't sound like our problem.
 
The administration should completely ignore the report, the next Congress should do whatever it can to discredit it, and we should move forward and allow it to fade into obscurity over the coming years. This is not the time to address the issue.
 
Holder didn't find that it was......how come? What happened and his inquiry talked to and interviewed witnesses. Plus his dept didn't just talk to the CIA Chiefs.


Couldn't even bring charges. Do you think that says something?

Why do I care what Holder thinks and since when do you believe him?
 
I'd agree. There are some things that are completely off the table, the decapitating of their children and the raping their women being among them.

I also have no objection to effective enhanced interrogation methods that have been validated to produce valuable intel, so much so that when completed the interrogatee is little more than a shriveled up shell of their former selves, perhaps even safe to return to their homes after that with the risk of recidivism.

Yeah, the left is decidedly illogical on the the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation and torture. On the one hand they will rightly defend the clearly coerced anti-American screeds that ISIS decapitation victims are forced to say before they are brutally murdered because, you know, they were under duress and all... yet entertain for a moment that duress can coerce a statement of fact from a Islamic radical prisoner and they are quick to try and disprove it.

And before people rush in to try and make the above statement into an admission that the US is no better than al Qaeda I would like to offer the inconvenient truth that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was not decapitated. Small difference, I know...
 
The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. So your argument is that waterboarding is either not cruel or not unusual. Or, that the 8th Amendment does not need to be followed.

Or, as has been mentioned before in this thread (or maybe the other one dealing more specifically with the report), that waterboarding for interrogation is not "punishment".

-AJF
 
When the UN stops promoting human rights abusers to lead its condemnation bodies then they may have a shred of credibility.

Exactly.

The UN is full of dictators who abuse and fleece their own citizens, then are trying to take the high road on this is nothing more than laughable.
Nothing but grandstanding, because if they were sincere they would kick us out of the UN.
 
I'm sorry you can't. American judges sentenced Japanese soldiers to death and long prison sentences for waterboarding American soldiers.
Pretty sure that "waterboarding" was among other more heinous acts but why split hairs, right?
 
No they won't. Largely because it would show that deep down they support it as well, they just can't admit it because of how that would make them look.



Oh that's Right.....one has to be all PC fashionable when standing next to a terrorist, huh?

Just how is one suppose to look when compared to a terrorist.

I heard the AQ spokesperson in Yemen sounded off yesterday about this. They didn't like hearing how their fighters were given enemas. He says we have to be afraid.....very afraid.
 
The administration should completely ignore the report, the next Congress should do whatever it can to discredit it, and we should move forward and allow it to fade into obscurity over the coming years. This is not the time to address the issue.

They will ignore it. Which is probably best.

Currently taking bets on "ignoring it" being played politically by Republicans in '16.
 
I'd agree. There are some things that are completely off the table, the decapitating of their children and the raping their women being among them.

I also have no objection to effective enhanced interrogation methods that have been validated to produce valuable intel, so much so that when completed the interrogatee is little more than a shriveled up shell of their former selves, perhaps even safe to return to their homes after that with the risk of recidivism.

Glad we could clarify that. When you made the blanket statement that we needed to exceed the enemy's capabilities it sounded like you were advocating actually sinking to their level.
 
Why do I care what Holder thinks and since when do you believe him?

The point is, if the Justice Dept couldn't come up with anything. Feinstein and her people aren't nearly as competent as the Justice Dept is. So how can any accept their one sided report?
 
The point is, if the Justice Dept couldn't come up with anything. Feinstein and her people aren't nearly as competent as the Justice Dept is. So how can any accept their one sided report?

Holder not going for prosecutions is probably a political thing. There's no way he could do it without his buddies getting caught up in the net too.
 
I'm sure many of them have continued to endure tortures in the years since. By now they've probably admitted that they are responsible for killing JFK and for slavery.

If they were sent back to their countries and shot on sight there, that doesn't sound like our problem.


Why would they be tortured after 5 years and being out of the game? No one has time to waste when dealing with any terrorists. None of our people are going to waste their time when they have to deal with others who are coming in. So that's a reach to think anything else has been happening to them unless it is by some guards doing whatever on their own. Which wouldn't have anything to do with the CIA.
 
I'd agree. There are some things that are completely off the table, the decapitating of their children and the raping their women being among them.

I also have no objection to effective enhanced interrogation methods that have been validated to produce valuable intel, so much so that when completed the interrogatee is little more than a shriveled up shell of their former selves, perhaps even safe to return to their homes after that with the risk of recidivism.

But what if you NEEDED to decapitate the kid or rape the wife to get valuable information on a ticking bomb in an NFL stadium?
 
Holder not going for prosecutions is probably a political thing. There's no way he could do it without his buddies getting caught up in the net too.


Yeah and Feinstein's Report was used politically and for that purpose only. Yet like I stated her report shouldn't be even be considered. Here is what Susan Collins has to say bout it, and she was one of the 3 Repubs that wanted to go thru this.


Sen. Collins' Views on Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogation Program


"In addition to the partisan nature of the staff investigation, the report has significant intrinsic limitations because it did not involve direct interviews of CIA officials, contract personnel, or other Executive branch personnel. John Rizzo, one of the chief architects of the program, has stated publicly that he would have been happy to be interviewed, and he said a number of his colleagues would have as well. The absence of interviews significantly eroded the bipartisan cooperation that existed when the SSCI Review began and calls into question some of the report's analysis.

"The lack of interviews violated the Committee's bipartisan Terms of Reference that were approved by an overwhelming 14-1 vote in March 2009. The Terms of Reference describe the purpose, scope, and methodology of the Review, and they include the following statement: "The Committee will use the tools of oversight necessary to complete a thorough review including, but not limited to, document reviews and requests, interviews, testimony at closed and open hearings, as appropriate, and preparation of findings and recommendations." Yet, there were no interviews, no hearings, and no recommendations. By comparison, the SASC's 2008 Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody included 70 interviews, written responses from more than 200 individuals in response to written questions, two hearings, and at least two subpoenas. "Documents never tell the full story and lack context. As the former Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate's chief investigative committee for ten years, I found that interviews were always key sources of information for every investigation our Homeland Security Committee conducted. In the 2012 HSGAC investigation into the attacks in Benghazi, for example, we discovered one of our most alarming findings in a discussion with the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, General Carter Ham. We learned that he was unaware of the presence of CIA officers in Benghazi, despite the fact that his Command had responsibility to prepare for the evacuation of U.S. government personnel.

"The bipartisan Terms of Reference also called for the production of policy recommendations, but not one is included in the Review's Findings & Conclusions or its Executive Summary. Ironically, it was the CIA, rather than the Committee, that first developed recommendations to address the mismanagement, misconduct, and flawed performance that characterized too much of the CIA's Detention & Interrogation program. I have identified several recommendations that should be implemented as soon as possible.

Susan M. Collins (via noodls) / Sen. Collins' Views on Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogation Program
 
Oh that's Right.....one has to be all PC fashionable when standing next to a terrorist, huh?

Just how is one suppose to look when compared to a terrorist.

I heard the AQ spokesperson in Yemen sounded off yesterday about this. They didn't like hearing how their fighters were given enemas. He says we have to be afraid.....very afraid.
Well, I think they would call them "freedom fighters" that is until it's their own loved ones beheaded.
 
Glad we could clarify that. When you made the blanket statement that we needed to exceed the enemy's capabilities it sounded like you were advocating actually sinking to their level.

True, and I'm really not advocating sinking to their level, but I'm not above 'getting hands dirty', a little bit, anyway, to make sure that we have the intel we need to succeed in this conflict, which is the entire point anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom