• 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 think that's the point.

Believe them if you like, i won't not after Iraq and those Weapons of mas destruction that were about to be used against the United States.

They lied then, why would they tell the truth now?

If in reference to the WMDs in Iraq, they didn't lie then. The remnants of those chemical WMDs were in fact found after they were moved.

If in reference to WMDs being used against whom? Used against the continental US? Or used against US forces in theater? Or used against allies in the theater?
Which is it that you are saying was said, and who said it and when? Sounds like you have something very specific in mind.
 
You're right, "we" didn't, that was done by the US government.



*** Drones and Obama's Tuesday Kill List :*** Information Clearing House: ICH



Well you buy the propaganda anyway. The fact is drones murder people, men, women, children.



Yeah they went after a few scapegoats and made sure those who authorized these atrocities were left unscathed.



I can tell morality is not one of your assets.



It's never dead to those of us who have certain standards of morality, especially when no one is prosecuted for these crimes against humanity. But I see where you're coming from.



Exactly.

1. The US government did not massacre hundreds of thousands of people.
2. Lol. Click the link everyone.
3. I adore our military use of drones. If the best you have is "you bought the propaganda" I'm comfortable. =)
4. There isn't evidence, unlike with our actual interrogation program, that there was much higher level authorization at all which is what made the case particularly egregious as an act of gross negligence on the part of commanders.
5. Clearly! =D
6. You prove my point. Aside from activists it was only important to a small minority.
 
If in reference to the WMDs in Iraq, they didn't lie then. The remnants of those chemical WMDs were in fact found after they were moved.

If in reference to WMDs being used against whom? Used against the continental US? Or used against US forces in theater? Or used against allies in the theater?
Which is it that you are saying was said, and who said it and when? Sounds like you have something very specific in mind.

So now you're saying there WERE weapons found and the invasion was completely justified.

Sorry, that is beyond believable. The point is there were no active weapons, EVERY word uttered by Colin Powell was wrong.
 
They should be prosecuted. We go around the world championing human rights, then we torture people when we want to, it makes no sense. Eventually the US has to be held accountable for its actions.
 
3. I adore our military use of drones. If the best you have is "you bought the propaganda" I'm comfortable. =)

Really? You adore killing dozens of civilians (including children) for every drone strike target?

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

Some 24 men specifically targeted in Pakistan resulted in the death of 874 people. All were reported in the press as “killed” on multiple occasions, meaning that numerous strikes were aimed at each of them. The vast majority of those strikes were unsuccessful. An estimated 142 children were killed in the course of pursuing those 24 men, only six of whom died in the course of drone strikes that killed their intended targets.
 
Really? You adore killing dozens of civilians (including children) for every drone strike target?

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

Never, luckily those aren't the true figures. Reprieve is just an anti-death penalty human rights group that tried its hand at drone and intelligence reporting. They did a bad job.

In depth studies, monitoring of local Pakistani media, and close reports of every strikes have yielded more accurate numbers used by most think tanks and intelligence organizations. The Long War Journal is among the most respected of them all when it comes to this.

Drone Wars Pakistan: Analysis | The International Security Program
The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan
 
So now you're saying there WERE weapons found and the invasion was completely justified.
I still hear this stated as fact.
Interestingly, the Bush administration never bothered to promulgate this lie.

Sorry, that is beyond believable. The point is there were no active weapons, EVERY word uttered by Colin Powell was wrong.
Powell read from the script he was given.
Being a good soldier, he followed orders.
To his great discredit.
 
So now you're saying there WERE weapons found and the invasion was completely justified.

Sorry, that is beyond believable. The point is there were no active weapons, EVERY word uttered by Colin Powell was wrong.

I never said anything about being completely justified or not.

The fact remains that the occupation forces did find remnants of WMD weapons caches, after they had been moved, so the WMD weapons were there at one time, and may very well have been there when that position was being presented. After Saddam's' 'hide the weenie' game with Blix and the UN, who knows where they ended up. I'm kinda guessing Syria, as that's when next chem weapons were used in the theater, but that's just a guess.

And no, Colin Powell was not incorrect in EVERY word he uttered. EVERY word is quite a large body of work, and it'd be statistically impossible for him to have been wrong on every last one. Let's start this way: Which point or points do you believe the Colin Powell was wrong on?
 
Funny how the we treat the UN- we used a UN resolution as a pretext to invade Iraq and now that they are criticizing us we demand its dismantlement.
And? If they were not there we would not have. So what?
We would have went forward on the violations of his surrender agreement.
So again, so what?
I get your point, but it is pretty much irrelevant, as irrelevant as the UN has become.
 
Of course there should be prosecutions for this. The US constitution prohibits torture. Government officials who authorized it and carried it out should pay for their crime. And it's a war crime. If there are not punishments for breaking the law, why bother having it?

Does the US constitution apply to illegal combatants?
 
I never said anything about being completely justified or not.

The fact remains that the occupation forces did find remnants of WMD weapons caches, after they had been moved, so the WMD weapons were there at one time, and may very well have been there when that position was being presented. After Saddam's' 'hide the weenie' game with Blix and the UN, who knows where they ended up. I'm kinda guessing Syria, as that's when next chem weapons were used in the theater, but that's just a guess.

And no, Colin Powell was not incorrect in EVERY word he uttered. EVERY word is quite a large body of work, and it'd be statistically impossible for him to have been wrong on every last one. Let's start this way: Which point or points do you believe the Colin Powell was wrong on?

So ****ing what?

Of the so called "facts" Colin Powell presented to the UN countering Blix's position which were correct?

Were active WMD's found in those locations? Or any?

Finding evidence that WMD's once existed is not finding WMD's. The whole ****ing invasion was as much a sham as Obamacare
 
So ****ing what?

Of the so called "facts" Colin Powell presented to the UN countering Blix's position which were correct?

Were active WMD's found in those locations? Or any?

Finding evidence that WMD's once existed is not finding WMD's. The whole ****ing invasion was as much a sham as Obamacare

I'll agree that ObamaCare wa / is a sham. However:
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
. . .
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
. . .
But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.

That same month, then “chemical weapons specialists” were apprehended in Balad. These “foreigners” were there specifically “to support the chemical weapons operations.” The following month, an intelligence report refers to a “chemical weapons expert” that “provided assistance with the gas weapons.” What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq - With Surprising Results | WIRED

You can dismiss it as non-existent, or you can dismiss it as inconsequential, or you can admit that there were WMDs in Iraq and they were moved. Since it's from Wikileaks and that's from actual internal military war report materials, the same information the generals are making decision with, I'd have to assume that it's more accurate than fabricated.
 
There is only one necessary response to the UN on this, and all it takes is one finger.
 
So ****ing what?

Of the so called "facts" Colin Powell presented to the UN countering Blix's position which were correct?

Were active WMD's found in those locations? Or any?

Finding evidence that WMD's once existed is not finding WMD's. The whole ****ing invasion was as much a sham as Obamacare

Sure the weapons were no longer functional and Powell was lousy diplomat. But Saddam was not willing to comply with the Security Council resolution. The inspectors could not inspect. It was really very simple. The invasion was totally legitimate.
 
There is only one necessary response to the UN on this, and all it takes is one finger.

I think we should be more polite and explain why we do things and put it to the UN that we no longer will take responsibility for general security without general participation of the UN and its members.
 
Sure the weapons were no longer functional and Powell was lousy diplomat. But Saddam was not willing to comply with the Security Council resolution. The inspectors could not inspect. It was really very simple. The invasion was totally legitimate.
Correct!
Not complying with the terms of a surrender is well accepted justification for war.
 
Does the US constitution apply to illegal combatants?

The 8th amendment simply restricts what our government will do. It doesn't say anything about who we do what to, just that we don't do certain things.
 
The 8th amendment simply restricts what our government will do. It doesn't say anything about who we do what to, just that we don't do certain things.

The 8th Amendment doesn't apply here.
 
There is only one necessary response to the UN on this, and all it takes is one finger.

That one finger can easily be countered with some body bags.
 
Of course there should be prosecutions for this. The US constitution prohibits torture. Government officials who authorized it and carried it out should pay for their crime. And it's a war crime. If there are not punishments for breaking the law, why bother having it?

Then why has Obama not instructed his shock collar, Eric Holder to indict?
 
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.

So are they planning to send arresting officers over here to arrest everyone in the CIA or is Obama supposed to round everyone up and ship them somewhere for trial?
 
The 8th amendment simply restricts what our government will do. It doesn't say anything about who we do what to, just that we don't do certain things.

Why do you think the shameful democrats have chosen to "try" this case in the press, rather than instructing the openly corrupt DOJ to start rounding up people and indicting them?

Could it be that the 8th is irrelevant to an unlawful combatant who has the status of a spy and can be legally shot under the Geneva convention? Could it be that the democrats don't have any legal basis and thus have again retreated demagoguery?
 
Back
Top Bottom