• 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

The same CIA that missed the fall if the Berlin Wall, 911 etc., was sure there were WMD's in Iraq?

I am surprised you would take their word at face value. Of course they are going to say that, would you expect them to say. "yeah, what we've been doing isn't really effective but it's fun?

The Senate committee was both parties. I heard no dissent in fact both Republicans and Democrats are behind it. Anything that congress can agree on has to have merit.

To me, the CIA does not and never has.

And you believe Feinstein. :lamo
 
The same CIA that missed the fall if the Berlin Wall, 911 etc., was sure there were WMD's in Iraq?

I am surprised you would take their word at face value. Of course they are going to say that, would you expect them to say. "yeah, what we've been doing isn't really effective but it's fun?

The Senate committee was both parties. I heard no dissent in fact both Republicans and Democrats are behind it. Anything that congress can agree on has to have merit.

To me, the CIA does not and never has.

1) the CIA didn't miss the wall coming down. They made the wall come down.

2) 9/11 really didn't fall under CIA's jurisdiction.
 
Only an idiot hack would believe that a report designed to return a singular outcome that heard no witness testimony, that did not interview ANYBODY who was contemporaneously involved, and completely prepared and delivered by a butt hurt Senator who was "spied" on during the mid-terms, AND has been thoroughly denied in almost every single way. The butt hurt senator can't even explain to the American people how they (The CIA) lied, and what was the lie.. To add insult to injury, congress critters that have denied knowing about EIT, namely Pelosi and company, have been shown not just that they were there and asked why we were doing more, but that they were there at least on 20 occasions.

So again, someone want to tell me exactly why in the world of all fantasy land worlds would they even begin to entertain such a report? It might as well have been prepared by media matters. :)


Tim-
 
The constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.

Enhanced interrogation is not done as punishment.
Bush euphemisms and propaganda may satisfy your mind and intellect, but not mine. Torture is torture, no matter what political euphemisms are used.

Are you suggesting that rape is OK as long as it is not done as punishment?

OMG, such simple minds....
That is a pretty absurd reply.
Do we have laws that cover rape? Yep! We sure do.
Hence your reply is absurd.
And if rape was employed as punishment for a crime it would be ruled unconstitutional.


And way to miss the point that EIT are not done as punishment. :doh
If it had been the argument would be solid, but as it wasn't, the argument is as unsound as it is infirm.
And that isn't a euphemism. :doh
 
Last edited:
I agree with everything you said here.

I think Obama will ignore it to the best of his ability. He didn't want it released (neither did Kerry, nor Brennan, and so on). If something bad comes out of it, he wants no part of it. There have been no attacks on this country since 2001. Obama isn't stupid. He doesn't want that to change while he's in the WH. He'll let Feinstein and company take ownership of this.

No successful attacks, but they have tried.
 
That is a pretty absurd reply.
Do we have laws that cover rape? Yep! We sure do.
Hence your reply is absurd.
And if rape was employed as punishment for a crime it would be ruled unconstitutional.


And way to miss the point that EIT are not done as punishment. :doh
If it had been the argument would be solid, but as it wasn't, the argument is as unsound as it is infirm.
And that isn't a euphemism. :doh

News break for you--we also have laws that cover torture.
 
Waterboarding and loud music wasn't considered a torture at the time.

Hogwash.

If it were done to you, you would consider it torture. It IS torture.
 
News break for you--we also have laws that cover torture.
News break for you. Read the thread. The comment was about it being unconstitutional. It isn't. It wasn't done as punishment.

... try to keep up.
Your argument was unsound. The Constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.

What you are looking for is passed legislation which has become Law or in it's stead, a Treaty obligation. Which while authorized by the Constitution, is not itself a Constitutional argument.

You really should have read the thread. D'oh! :doh




Hogwash.

If it were done to you, you would consider it torture. It IS torture.
It wasn't considered torture.
 
Last edited:
News break for you. Read the thread. The comment was about it being unconstitutional. It isn't. It wasn't done as punishment.


You really should have read the thread. D'oh! :doh

It is unconstitutional because if nothing else, it is criminalized by International Law to which we are signatory. That's covered in Article VI of the US Constitution. You should check it out.
 
It is unconstitutional because if nothing else, it is criminalized by International Law to which we are signatory. That's covered in Article VI of the US Constitution. You should check it out.
:doh
I see you are still not paying attention.
It was already repeated for you once, but I will do it again. I will even make it bigger for you so you can't miss it.
... try to keep up.
Your argument was unsound. The Constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.

What you are looking for is passed legislation which has become Law or in it's stead, a Treaty obligation. Which while authorized by the Constitution, is not itself a Constitutional argument.
 
Last edited:
:doh
I see you are stil not pauying attention.
It was already repeated for you once, but I will do it again. I will even make it bigger for you so you can't miss it.


You're not even spelling correctly. And the sophistry you present makes you consistent. :roll:
 
You're not even spelling correctly. And the sophistry you present makes you consistent. :roll:
My spelling is not an issue here. But thanks for pointing it out. The errors been corrected.
And the only sophistry here is yours.
You have no valid argument.
 
Last edited:
Spa treatment?

Do you not know the subject material?
Have you not read the thread?

It was done for purposes of interrogation. Not punishment.
There is no Constitutional argument as it was not done as punishment.
 
Do you not know the subject material?
Have you not read the thread?

It was done for purposes of interrogation. Not punishment.
There is no Constitutional argument as it was not done as punishment.
"...purposes of interrogation" does not equate to "not punishment". It can still be punishment/torture regardless the 'purpose' or what they hoped to gain from it.
 
Hogwash.

If it were done to you, you would consider it torture. It IS torture.

Apparently, you didn't go to the concerts I went to back in the 60's and 70's.:peace
Also, you were speaking of laws and my post was just refuting what you stated, and it WAS true, they weren't considered torture.
 
Last edited:
"...purposes of interrogation" does not equate to "not punishment". It can still be punishment/torture regardless the 'purpose' or what they hoped to gain from it.
Why are you not paying attention?
We are discussing one specific argument made.
The person said it was against the constitution when it isn't.
Either you understand that or you don't.
Focus. It was not done for purpose of punishment, which is what the Constitution does not allow. It was done for purposes of interrogation.

And since you too are not paying attention to what has already been said.
Pay attention.
What you are looking for is passed legislation which has become Law or in it's stead, a Treaty obligation. Which while authorized by the Constitution, is not itself a Constitutional argument.

Do you or do you not understand the above?
Either Law or treaty obligation, but not a Constitutional argument.
 
The rules of military engagement and war aren't governed by our constitution, anyway.
 
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, right after we get done with all UN officials for crimes against humanity for promoting socialism we will get right on it. The only thing I support giving to the UN is a bullet to their empty heads.
 
It is unconstitutional because if nothing else, it is criminalized by International Law to which we are signatory. That's covered in Article VI of the US Constitution. You should check it out.
You are equating the US Constitution to "International Law"? Are the democracies the only members subject to this 'international law'? It seems to be ignored by most members.
 
:doh
I see you are still not paying attention.
It was already repeated for you once, but I will do it again. I will even make it bigger for you so you can't miss it.
That may have to be repeated several times during this thread. This begs the question of why are people guessing at their own Constitution and deciding against their own country?.
 
Back
Top Bottom