• 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

:doh
Yes your claim was desperate, silly, sad and pathetic. There was no Constitutional violation.

What your friend may or may not think is irrelevant.
What you think of what your friend supposedly indicated is also irrelevant.
Neither are relevant to this discussion.

And you thinking that Webster disagrees with me is also irrelevant.
Punishment (in general) is something given for a perceived wrong.
Interrogation is not punishment. Period.

Secondly, this is a legal argument and not an in-general Websters definition argument.
You were wrong for asserting such a flawed argument to begin with. And despite being told this is not a Constitutional argument and informed as to what would be an appropriate argument to make. (One of Law or Treaty.) you continued on insisting otherwise. Which was really quite silly.



So now lets get on with the facts

I didn't suggest anything. I clearly stated what it was.

But since you obviously don't know and want to continue arguing this silliness ...

INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT
430 U.S. 651

(1977)
1. [...]


[...]

(a) The history of the Eighth Amendment and the decisions of this Court make it clear that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect those convicted of crime. Pp. 664-668.

[...]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And if you do not understand what the U.S. stands for in the above site reference. It is a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

So stop this misunderstanding you have in regards to the Eighth Amendment. It's intent is as punishment for crimes committed. Period.
And if your friend is real, inform him of this so he also wont be wrong in the future.


As for being on thin ice?
The ones decrying these actions as torture are the ones on thin ice.
As already shown, the Justice department already looked into the "interrogation methods" and found nothing to pursue.


Please--you are on desperately thin ice. There are already so many torture apologists on it that they're sure to break through. You are trying to debate a poster who has a friend who considers himself "Mr. Constitution." And before you come back with some snappy comment about the fact Mr. Constitution admittedly didn't know what the Eighth Amendment said, let me point out that only the poster and a select few other savants have that recondite knowledge. Contrary to what some might think, you can't just read the text of the Eighth Amendment anywhere.

Just because John Yoo teaches constitutional law at UC Berkeley and spent countless hours meticulously researching every aspect of the law on torture when he was with the Office of Legal Counsel (what do they know, anyway?) doesn't mean he isn't a dumb torture apologist. I'll bet Mr. Constitution or anyone picked at random from the crowd at the local bong shop or "Hands up, don't shoot!" rally knows more about the Constitution than a chump like Yoo. His real job at OLC was just to lick the boots of Shrub and Darth Cheney. What you obviously don't get is that if you want to be in with the in crowd, you need to show some really bitter resentment toward the U.S. You know, just like all those hip people did in the Sixties. The idea is to run this country down, while you take up space here and hold out the crying towel for the jihadists who are howling for American blood.

Also, I wish you would stop confusing the attempts to spread anti-American propaganda with facts and reasoning, as you did by referring to Ingraham or any other Supreme Court decision. How is a self-styled liberal supposed to get anywhere if people insist on citing facts to counter slanders against America? Just because some justices claimed they knew the purpose of the Eighth Amendment doesn't make it so. Their words are nothing but socio-linguistic constructs designed to reify semiotic manifestations of the heuristic zeitgeist, and the medium is the massage. Or whatever it was that Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas and all those other really cool intellectuals said. I'm sure the poster's friend Mr. Constitution would agree.
 
And clearly sir, what you think is irrelevant too.

A person attempting to rationalize the "goodness" or "necessity" of torture can be described as "irrelevant". Humans must fool themselves before they can attempt to fool others. :peace
See, this is your problem to deal with. Your absurd Constitutional claim was disproved.
That was the only dispute. But now, instead of admitting you were wrong, you want to ignore your being incorrect and take this into other realms. Some which are personal in nature.

Which just shows everybody that you truly have no valid argument, never did and can't accept being wrong.
Only your claims were irrelevant.
:lamo
 
See, this is your problem to deal with. Your absurd Constitutional claim was disproved.
That was the only dispute. But now, instead of admitting you were wrong, you want to ignore your being incorrect and take this into other realms. Some which are personal in nature.

Which just shows everybody that you truly have no valid argument, never did and can't accept being wrong.
Only your claims were irrelevant.
:lamo

Only by your specious statement, only in your mind sir, has the Eighth Amendment's guarantee been disproved. You have rationalized in your mind that the words don't mean what they say. That is a personal problem sir. :roll:
 
Only by your specious statement, only in your mind sir, has the Eighth Amendment's guarantee been disproved. You have rationalized in your mind that the words don't mean what they say. That is a personal problem sir.
Said the one who can not read the Amendment correctly. :doh
It only applies to punishment for a crime.
Which has already been proved.

So why don't you follow the advice you were given and frame an argument around passed legislation or Treaty?


Bottom line.
The Justice Dept has already reviewed the interrogation methods and no violations of law were found to press charges.
And that should be the end of the story.
Yet with those folks who do not live in reality, it wont be, because they can not accept the truth.
 
Said the one who can not read the Amendment correctly. :doh
It only applies to punishment for a crime.
Which has already been proved.

So why don't you follow the advice you were given and frame an argument around passed legislation or Treaty?


Bottom line.
The Justice Dept has already reviewed the interrogation methods and no violations of law were found to press charges.
And that should be the end of the story.
Yet with those folks who do not live in reality, it wont be, because they can not accept the truth.

Or you, a man who will not honor a dictionary...

No honor at all on display.
 
Or you, a man who will not honor a dictionary...
Honor a dictionary?
The dictionary is irrelevant to the clear intent of the Amendment.
It is meant as punishment for crime, which was further held by the Supreme Court.

So again. Why don't you follow the advice you were given and frame an argument around passed legislation or Treaty?


No honor at all on display.
I agree. You have displayed none.
 
I'll say this. The Democrats have thrown this Hail Mary down the field, but they better be careful. I'm sure the Obama administration has torture on it's hands as well.
 
I'll say this. The Democrats have thrown this Hail Mary down the field, but they better be careful. I'm sure the Obama administration has torture on it's hands as well.
The Justice Department already investigated the interrogation methods and decided there was nothing to prosecute and no one from the Bush admin can be prosecuted even if new evidence was found because of the 5 year statute of limitations.
So it is nothing more than political grandstanding.
 
The Justice Department already investigated the interrogation methods and decided there was nothing to prosecute and no one from the Bush admin can be prosecuted even if new evidence was found because of the 5 year statute of limitations.
So it is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Well it's definitely political grandstanding. However there is no statute of limitations on torture under certain circumstances. Of course Cheney would be prosecuted IF it came to that. Even McCain tacitly admitted Cheney tortured. But my point is that I really don't think that is something that is confined to the Bush administration, and the Democrats better be careful because that could backfire.
 
Well it's definitely political grandstanding. However there is no statute of limitations on torture under certain circumstances. Of course Cheney would be prosecuted IF it came to that. Even McCain tacitly admitted Cheney tortured. But my point is that I really don't think that is something that is confined to the Bush administration, and the Democrats better be careful because that could backfire.
Matters not what McCain thinks, especially as he is wrong.
The State department investigated the interrogation methods and did not find any thing to charge. Which would be because the methods were designed not to run afoul of the law.

So under such premiss, to me, that really makes your point about the Dems being careful irrelevant, as no one will be charged.
The only thing both parties have to worry about is just more grandstanding of a political nature, which is going to happen regardless.

To your confined remark.
And honestly here, even though the political populace of either side may want to see such charges and convictions against the opposite party, I doubt that in reality the Party leadership wants to ever see such a trial happen to a President because of the precedent that it will set.
So that kind of agrees with your remark. :shrug:
 
Matters not what McCain thinks, especially as he is wrong.
The State department investigated the interrogation methods and did not find any thing to charge. Which would be because the methods were designed not to run afoul of the law.

So under such premiss, to me, that really makes your point about the Dems being careful irrelevant, as no one will be charged.
The only thing both parties have to worry about is just more grandstanding of a political nature, which is going to happen regardless.

To your confined remark.
And honestly here, even though the political populace of either side may want to see such charges and convictions against the opposite party, I doubt that in reality the Party leadership wants to ever see such a trial happen to a President because of the precedent that it will set.
So that kind of agrees with your remark. :shrug:

Although I agree with you that no one will be charged, McCain is not wrong. But regardless, there will be no charges because if they did indeed start that, Democrats, Obama included would not be immune. For that reason, there will be no charges, and like you say, this is, for the most part political grandstanding.
 
McCain is not wrong.
Unfortunately he is, as the methods were designed not to run afoul of the law and the fact that no charges were brought after the investigation.

So yeah, he is wrong as wrong can be.
 
Unfortunately he is, as the methods were designed not to run afoul of the law and the fact that no charges were brought after the investigation.

So yeah, he is wrong as wrong can be.

Look Excon, I'm not going to get into a legal pissing contest over this. I will say this, that if we view torture as the act of deliberately inflicting physical and/or psychological injury upon someone that is under one's control, then it is clear that the Bush administration tortured people. But, that is not something that is peculiar to the Bush administration, and again, is something that I don't think Republicans or Democrats really want to seriously start to investigate because that would cause all types of problems for themselves and the US government as well.
 
Look Excon, I'm not going to get into a legal pissing contest over this.
Good. Because you can't.
The justice department investigated the methods. They did not call it torture and no charges were brought.

So look MildSteel, never said you did, and never said you wanted to. But that is the part I care about, not the rest of this nonsense of which my position has already been stated to you.
Legally it was not torture, and as such, McCain was wrong.
If you do not want to get into a debate, just don't reply. It is that simple.
But continue to say false things and I will oppose them. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Good. Because you can't.
The justice department investigated the methods. They did not call it torture and no charges were brought.

So look MildSteel, never said you did, and never said you wanted to. But that is the part I care about, not the rest of this nonsense of which my position has already been stated to you.
Legally it was not torture, and as such, McCain was wrong.
If you do not want to get into a debate, just don't reply. It is that simple.
But continue to say false things and I will oppose them. :shrug:

lmao

Ok slick. I'll leave it at that!!!!
 
Well it's definitely political grandstanding. However there is no statute of limitations on torture under certain circumstances. Of course Cheney would be prosecuted IF it came to that. Even McCain tacitly admitted Cheney tortured. But my point is that I really don't think that is something that is confined to the Bush administration, and the Democrats better be careful because that could backfire.

I wonder what actions you would authorize if it was one of your loved ones who could lose their life at the hands of a terrorist? Are you that cold hearted and liberal that the human life of your loved one isn't worth the effort to get the information to save them? I would do whatever it takes to save one of my family members including waterboarding which hurt no one.
 
The Justice Department already investigated the interrogation methods and decided there was nothing to prosecute and no one from the Bush admin can be prosecuted even if new evidence was found because of the 5 year statute of limitations.
So it is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Yes, under Holder, the DOJ is actually the Department Of Integrity. From that Agency, only truth and justice emanate. :lol:
 
I wonder what actions you would authorize if it was one of your loved ones who could lose their life at the hands of a terrorist? Are you that cold hearted and liberal that the human life of your loved one isn't worth the effort to get the information to save them? I would do whatever it takes to save one of my family members including waterboarding which hurt no one.
Many of those who are against torture are also pro-abortion, so there may be some conflict going on in their rationalizations.
 
Yes, under Holder, the DOJ is actually the Department Of Integrity. From that Agency, only truth and justice emanate. :lol:

You again are speaking nonsense.
 
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.



I'd like to see those who oversaw and participated in those crimes put on trial.

My guess is that many Christmases will go by before that happens. :roll:
 
I'd like to see those who oversaw and participated in those crimes put on trial.
What crimes?
The Justice department already investigated the interrogation methods. No charges followed. So what crimes?
 
Good. Because you can't.
The justice department investigated the methods. They did not call it torture and no charges were brought.

So look MildSteel, never said you did, and never said you wanted to. But that is the part I care about, not the rest of this nonsense of which my position has already been stated to you.
Legally it was not torture, and as such, McCain was wrong.
If you do not want to get into a debate, just don't reply. It is that simple.
But continue to say false things and I will oppose them. :shrug:

If, what was allowed, was torture, the word does not mean much. But there were some things done that went beyond the allowed. Those should be prosecuted.
 
Back
Top Bottom