• 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

Torture is a crime. If you already knew a person had committed it--i.e. was a "torturer"--what need would there be to prosecute him? No one has shown probable cause to believe that even one American ever engaged in torture. Dianne Feinstein's voluminous collection of fish wrap proves not one damn thing, except that she and people like her place their personal interests above their country's.

The sad fact is that far too much space is now being taken up in this once-great country by millions of half-educated people who resent it and are glad to carry water for its jihadist enemies. They serve as a fifth column for the likes of the vermin who just murdered a dozen innocent people in Paris and then shouted "Allahu akbar!" in the streets. Here's hoping the French authorities catch those bastards, force them to give up any confederates using whatever means necessary, and then try them for murder. Too bad they don't still have the guillotine.
Were these people tortured after being found guilty by courts or before?

For someone who says once great nation how could you advocate for limiting the rights of everybody. How could you justify torture for information before people were found guilty?
 
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.

Sure why right, right after the other nations of the UN the have committed torture and crimes against humanity allow those people to be prosecuted.
 
Were these people tortured after being found guilty by courts or before?

I don't accept that the U.S. ever tortured anyone as a matter of policy. If there is good reason to believe any individual violated any U.S. laws regarding torture by acting without authority, then let the relevant federal authorities charge that person with a crime.

For someone who says once great nation how could you advocate for limiting the rights of everybody.

As a lawyer, I know very well that the Constitution is the highest law in this country, and I have the greatest respect for it. I have never called for limiting the constitutional rights of anyone.

How could you justify torture for information before people were found guilty

As I said, I don't accept that the U.S. ever tortured anyone as a matter of policy. Torture is a crime under section 2340 of the U.S. Code and other federal laws, and I do not justify crimes.

Who was this who supposedly had a right to a trial but was denied that right? Aliens captured abroad and designated by the President as unlawful enemy combatants have no right to a trial in a U.S. court. Any trial they got would be before a military commission, in which there is no jury. But last I heard, none of them--even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the murders of almost 3,000 people on 9/11--had been tried. This should have happened a decade ago, and those convicted of war crimes imprisoned or quickly executed. Meanwhile, the U.S. is detaining them as long as hostilities continue, as it has the right to do under the laws of war.

These terrorists are outside the law--they are not entitled to any the protections the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war provide lawful, uniformed combatants who are taken prisoners of war. Even so, the U.S. graciously chose to extend them the same rights P.O.W.'s enjoy as to food, shelter, Red Cross inspections, medical care, etc.

You might to read Ex Parte Quirin, a 1942 Supreme Court decision dealing with six Nazi saboteurs who were landed here by U-boat but soon captured. It is still good law, and it goes into these subjects at length. For example, it contains a detailed discussion of the difference between lawful combatants--i.e. ordinary uniformed soldiers--and unlawful combatants like spies and saboteurs--and Islamist terrorists.

It might interest some people here to know just how lenient the U.S. has been with these bastards, compared to other times. One of the six Nazi saboteurs captured, Herbert Haupt, was an American citizen. Since he was charged by the federal government with capital crimes, surely he had the Fifth Amendment right you and I have to be indicted by a grand jury, right? And as a citizen, surely he had the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, right?

No to both. Once an American citizen sides with the enemy and commits war crimes against this country, said the Court, his citizenship will not help him. The six, despite the efforts of some of the best criminal defense lawyers in the U.S., were convicted of a number of war crimes by a military commission and sentenced to death. The Court only got the case by agreeing--against President Roosevelt's wishes--to hear the appeal of the men's habeas petition, which a lower federal court had denied. But it denied it too.

Only about two months after the six had landed here by U-boat, they reached the end of the line. Imagine things getting done so fast! In a building in New York City one summer day, one by one, on the hour, the six were executed in the electric chair, which had been brought there for that purpose. And U.S. citizen Haupt, without ever having seen the inside of a regular U.S. court, or having had a jury trial, went to his death just like the others. A couple members of his family in Florida who had briefly fed and sheltered him were convicted of treason and sent to prison for a long stretch.

It was not all that many years ago that most Americans had the courage of their convictions and were willing to act firmly and decisively against this country's enemies, instead of wringing their hands, gazing at their navels, and holding out the crying towel for them.
 
Last edited:
I don't accept that the U.S. ever tortured anyone as a matter of policy. If there is good reason to believe any individual violated any U.S. laws regarding torture by acting without authority, then let the relevant federal authorities charge that person with a crime.



As a lawyer, I know very well that the Constitution is the highest law in this country, and I have the greatest respect for it. I have never called for limiting the constitutional rights of anyone.



As I said, I don't accept that the U.S. ever tortured anyone as a matter of policy. Torture is a crime under section 2340 of the U.S. Code and other federal laws, and I do not justify crimes.

Who was this who supposedly had a right to a trial but was denied that right? Aliens captured abroad and designated by the President as unlawful enemy combatants have no right to a trial in a U.S. court. They have a right to trial by a military commission, in which there is no jury, but last I heard none of them had been tried. The U.S. is detaining them as long as hostilities continue, as it has the right to do.

These people are not even entitled to the protections the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war provide lawful, uniformed combatants who are taken prisoners of war. Even so, the U.S. chose to extend these war criminals the same rights P.O.W.'s enjoy as to food, shelter, Red Cross inspections, medical care, etc.

You might to read Ex Parte Quirin, a 1942 Supreme Court decision dealing with six Nazi saboteurs who were landed here by U-boat but soon captured. It is still good law, and it goes into these subjects at length. For example, it contains a detailed discussion of the difference between lawful combatants--i.e. ordinary uniformed soldiers--and unlawful combatants like spies and saboteurs--and Islamist terrorists.

It might interest someone here to know just how lenient the U.S. has been with these bastards, compared to other times. One of the six Nazi saboteurs captured, Herbert Haupt, was an American citizen. Since he was charged by the federal government with capital crimes, surely he had the Fifth Amendment right you and I have to be indicted by a grand jury, right? And as a citizen, surely he had the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, right?

No to both. Once an American citizen sides with the enemy and commits war crimes against this country, said the Court, his citizenship does not help him. The six, despite the help of some of the best criminal defense lawyers in the U.S., were convicted of a number of war crimes by a military commission and sentenced to death. The Court only got the case by agreeing--against President Roosevelt's wishes--to hear the appeal of the men's habeas petition, which a lower federal court had denied. It denied it, too.

Only about two months after the six had landed here by U-boat, they reached the end of the line. In a building in New York City one summer day, one by one, on the hour, the six were executed in the electric chair, which had been brought there for that purpose. And U.S. citizen Haupt, without ever having seen the inside of a regular U.S. court, or having had a jury trial, went to his death just the same. And a couple family members in Florida who had briefly fed and sheltered him were charged with treason, convicted, and sent to prison for a long stretch.

It was not all that many years ago that most Americans had the courage of their convictions and were willing to act firmly and decisively against this country's enemies, instead of wringing their hands gazing at their navels, and holding out the crying towel for them.

You're long vvery interesting story doesn't apply to my comments. These criminals were tortured before going to court.

I'm suggesting that people are tortured for information without being granted any due process to suggest they even have any relative knowledge to give the cia. I understand keeping people as pows but we are taking people and bringing them to different Locations and torturing them without any reasonable process or oversight into whether or not they have any reasonable knowledge.

We as a nation hold the ideas of central government being restricted with it's powers as Much as possible and allocate for individual Freedom as Much as possible. These radical jihadists, no matter how vile they are, are awarded our rights.

You're story of the u boat is different then going to Germany finding Nazis bringing them back here and torturing them for years. The boat was off our coast.

If this "information gathering system" is really used to gain information it would not take 8 years to find Osama bin Laden. It's a psychological implementation by American intelligence and military for reasons of installing fear into radical Islam, or I should say people that don't agree with our oil policy in Saudi Arabia
 
I guess if they bled the prisoners that's cool too, because that was a common 18th century medical practice too..,.
:doh

Your comment is as irrelevant as it is invalid, and just shows your position is nothing but an emotional one.





Do you think if you break a leg in prison then the prison guards hold you down and amputate you, would that be torture or a standard medical procedure
:doh
Irrelevant childlike emotive argument noted again.
 
:doh

Your comment is as irrelevant as it is invalid, and just shows your position is nothing but an emotional one.





:doh
Irrelevant childlike emotive argument noted again.
Is this seriously how you debate?
 
Is this seriously how you debate?
The problem here is all yours.

You made false claims, haven't been able to focus and then make irrelevant arguments.

Example: Your previous post of an irrelevant absurdity that has nothing to do with what occurred. :doh
Yep, the problem here is all yours.
 
The problem here is all yours.

You made false claims, haven't been able to focus and then make irrelevant arguments.

Example: Your previous post of an irrelevant absurdity that has nothing to do with what occurred. :doh
Yep, the problem here is all yours.
I think you'd be a prefect expert for Fox news or CNN considering your debate tactics is to say anYthing that you can't explain as irrelevant
 
I think you'd be a prefect expert for Fox news or CNN considering your debate tactics is to say anYthing that you can't explain as irrelevant

There you go speaking absurd nonsense again.

You should really learn to focus on the topic, not on the other person or other such irrelevancies.
 
Last edited:
There you go speaking absurd nonsense again.

You should really learn to focus on the topic and not on the other person and other such irrelevancies.
If you think it's irrelevant that's your problem
 
:laughat:
If you think it's irrelevant that's your problem
Knowing that your absurd irrelevancies are irrelevant, is not a problem for me. D'oh!
But it obviously is for you. iLOL :lamo
 
:laughat:
Knowing that your absurd irrelevancies are irrelevant, is not a problem for me. D'oh!
But it obviously is for you. iLOL :lamo
The fact that you find it funny is your problem

Again showing your child like mind
 
The fact that you find it funny is your problem

Again showing your child like mind
:lamo Figures.
Another irrelevant childlike emotive failure to address the topic.

Again. Not a problem for me. But it is obviously one for you.

So do you have anything relevant to say in regards to the topic? Or are we done here?
 
Last edited:
:doh

Your comment is as irrelevant as it is invalid, and just shows your position is nothing but an emotional one.





:doh
Irrelevant childlike emotive argument noted again.

I see we have entered deep into troll territory here.
 
I see we have entered deep into troll territory here.
Let me guess his response

"Doh doh Emotional argument noted if you have a Problem with how I debate that's your problem not mine doh doh doh"
 
:lamo Figures.
Another irrelevant childlike emotive failure to address the topic.

Again. Not a problem for me. But it is obviously one for you.

So do you have anything relevant to say in regards to the topic? Or are we done here?

You give a bad name to ex-convicts. I have 2 friends in that category, and they are much more respectful and mature than you come across here.
 
You give a bad name to ex-convicts. I have 2 friends in that category, and they are much more respectful and mature than you come across here.
"Doh doh doh if you have respectful ex convicts friends that's your problem not mine doh doh doh"

Do you think bubba was selling his ass around the yard for a soup? "Doh doh if you can't afford to give bubba a soup to rectally feed me that's your problem not mine"
 
I believe the majority of the citizens in the U.S. have a message for Zeid Raad al-Hussein. "Kiss our Grits". What a pathetic hypocritical display of lack of impartiality. They themselves can not even begin to reach the level of self righteous morality they cherry pick to impose upon a certain few. For these people by their very policies have become enablers of the spread of this Islamofacist terrorist activity. They turn a blind eye to the leaders who allow it to fester within their borders and not holding them accountable for their hideous human rights violations. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) while under the guise of humanitarian aid have been caught on different occasions as being enablers. primarily staffed by people sympathetic to the terrorist groups who have allowed UN facilities/vehicles to be used by terrorists and look the other way while these animals murder many. Peacekeepers my ass.
 
:lamo Figures.
Another irrelevant childlike emotive failure to address the topic.

Again. Not a problem for me. But it is obviously one for you.


So do you have anything relevant to say in regards to the topic? Or are we done here?
You give a bad name to ex-convicts. I have 2 friends in that category, and they are much more respectful and mature than you come across here.
There you go displaying your inability to focus on the topic, showing all that you have no valid argument.
 
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.

Fan-f@ckingtastic!!!

Round up the traitorous assholes and throw them in Gitmo.

I realize nothing will probably come from this...but I support it 100% and if the U.N. need a bounty hunter to find these losers...if they pay my expenses, I will do it for otherwise nothing.
 
if the U.N. need a bounty hunter to find these losers...if they pay my expenses, I will do it for otherwise nothing.

The UN does not determine what is and isn't torture.

Maybe you missed this part of the report.
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.

So if you decide to carry through with doing this for nothing you will likely find yourself in violation of the law, no matter where you carry it out.
 
There you go displaying your inability to focus on the topic, showing all that you have no valid argument.

I couldn't help myself--I began feeling bad for all the ex-convicts out there who are actually nice people. I guess the prison experience effects each individual a little bit differently. My condolences.
 
I couldn't help myself--I began feeling bad for all the ex-convicts out there who are actually nice people. I guess the prison experience effects each individual a little bit differently. My condolences.
There you go again displaying your inability to live in reality and focus on the topic, showing all that you have no valid argument in reference to the topic or of me.
 
There you go again displaying your inability to live in reality and focus on the topic, showing all that you have no valid argument in reference to the topic or of me.

In your defense of torture Excon, I would say it is YOU who lives in an unreal and immoral 'reality', not I.

Dick Cheney Fan Club members don't do much for me. :roll:
 
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.

Ah yes, the UN, the most powerful entity in the world.

Lol jk.
 
Back
Top Bottom