• 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

They did commit a crime. Unwillingness to prosecute is not evidence of a crime not being committed.

Anyone can bring charges but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and I haven't seen any guilt proven or any laws violated. Please cite for me the law that the CIA Violated?
 
Congress didn't seem to have a problem with it but then again I haven't seen the law that prevents enhanced interrogation outside of the United States but I have seen immigration laws that Obama violated.

Who did the torturing? Are you suggesting our laws don't apply to us and how we behave? Think that through again.
 
Anyone can bring charges but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and I haven't seen any guilt proven or any laws violated. Please cite for me the law that the CIA Violated?

I didn't say were prosecuted yet. I'm saying they need to face a court. If I saw you steal, you're steal innocent until proven guilty. But I can still say you stole. Same here. Torture is clearly defined. It is not, factually, debatable. They broke the law.
 
Anyone can bring charges but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and I haven't seen any guilt proven or any laws violated. Please cite for me the law that the CIA Violated?

Why do we care what the UN thinks. Tell them to check the Mideast pigs who burn people alive who are trapped in their homes, and STFU about what we do to people who threaten us.
 
Thing is that there are continua between the soft questioning and skinning alive as well as between the warm prison apartment and the damp, cold oublier high in the dungeon wall. Anyone that says it is a euphemism to establish the exact point on the scale of a given action is dishonest, wants to puff up their their feeling of importance by talking big or just has not given enough serious thought to the matter to understand, what they are talking about. Personally, I think that talking that way is rather disgusting and disqualifies the speaker if not utterly then at least in his thoughts to this theme.

Whatever you need to blow your skirt sir, whatever you need.
 
Who did the torturing? Are you suggesting our laws don't apply to us and how we behave? Think that through again.

Show me the law that the U.S. CIA violated? Shouldn't be too difficult for you to find if there is one although I cannot seem to find it
 
Why do we care what the UN thinks. Tell them to check the Mideast pigs who burn people alive who are trapped in their homes, and STFU about what we do to people who threaten us.

We are on the same page. I am waiting for someone to show me the law that the U.S. CIA violated?
 
I didn't say were prosecuted yet. I'm saying they need to face a court. If I saw you steal, you're steal innocent until proven guilty. But I can still say you stole. Same here. Torture is clearly defined. It is not, factually, debatable. They broke the law.

Ok, as stated, show me the law that the CIA violated? Thanks in advance
 
Anyone can bring charges but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and I haven't seen any guilt proven or any laws violated. Please cite for me the law that the CIA Violated?

You've probably already ignored this, and I do understand: General Antonio Taguba stated publically in 2008 that "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held accountable."

Obama admitted candidly We tortured some folks.

Don't know about you, but I saw Abu Ghraib. I also read Zimbardo's book "The Lucifer Effect".

You Jack Bauer wannabes are so deeply in denial.
 
You've probably already ignored this, and I do understand: General Antonio Taguba stated publically in 2008 that "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held accountable."

Obama admitted candidly We tortured some folks.

Don't know about you, but I saw Abu Ghraib. I also read Zimbardo's book "The Lucifer Effect".

You Jack Bauer wannabes are so deeply in denial.

Yes, I saw Abu Ghraib just like I saw tortured and burned bodies of U.S. personnel on the bridges of Fallujah and the beheaded bodies of Daniel Pearl as well as other Americans and I don't recall those people being prosecuted by the World Court but I have seen Abu Ghraib personnel prosecuted. I don't have a lot of sympathy for your position on this issue and if Bill Clinton can argue the definition of "is" then the definition of "torture" is open to debate as well. Please show me the U.S. Law that defines torture and that the U.S. Military or CIA violated.

I couldn't care less what happens to the animals that actually totally mutilated, burned, and destroyed the bodies of Americans and I am certainly glad people like you aren't in charge of the security of the American people.
 
Yes, I saw Abu Ghraib just like I saw tortured and burned bodies of U.S. personnel on the bridges of Fallujah and the beheaded bodies of Daniel Pearl as well as other Americans and I don't recall those people being prosecuted by the World Court but I have seen Abu Ghraib personnel prosecuted. I don't have a lot of sympathy for your position on this issue and if Bill Clinton can argue the definition of "is" then the definition of "torture" is open to debate as well. Please show me the U.S. Law that defines torture and that the U.S. Military or CIA violated.

I couldn't care less what happens to the animals that actually totally mutilated, burned, and destroyed the bodies of Americans and I am certainly glad people like you aren't in charge of the security of the American people.

Well, I laughed at Bill Clinton's claims and the silly geese that actually dignified his statement by discussing it, and I now laugh at your silly statement that "we don't torture". Actually, I guess that was you and Dubya. :lamo
 
Well, I laughed at Bill Clinton's claims and the silly geese that actually dignified his statement by discussing it, and I now laugh at your silly statement that "we don't torture". Actually, I guess that was you and Dubya. :lamo

Guess it depends on what the word torture means as apparently we put our troops through that same activity that you call torture. I call it doing what is necessary to save lives. Guess the fact that you cannot post the U.S. Law that the CIA violated means there isn't one. I couldn't agree more
 
Guess it depends on what the word torture means as apparently we put our troops through that same activity that you call torture. I call it doing what is necessary to save lives. Guess the fact that you cannot post the U.S. Law that the CIA violated means there isn't one. I couldn't agree more

That I cannot at this instant cite that part of the USC, probably Title 18, that criminalizes torture does not mean it is legal. It just means I'll have to do some research, but I'm hesitant given your obvious frame of mind. Maybe later. Reagan signed it into law, Mr. Conservative, and I'm pretty sure it's the result of our having signed the Convention Against Torture.

Orwell noted that political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder and torture respectable, and that it gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind.

I would like to thank you and yours for having so aptly demonstrated that here. :)
 
That I cannot at this instant cite that part of the USC, probably Title 18, that criminalizes torture does not mean it is legal. It just means I'll have to do some research, but I'm hesitant given your obvious frame of mind. Maybe later. Reagan signed it into law, Mr. Conservative, and I'm pretty sure it's the result of our having signed the Convention Against Torture.

Orwell noted that political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder and torture respectable, and that it gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind.

I would like to thank you and yours for having so aptly demonstrated that here. :)

I guess I just don't get it and never will. What is your outrage over waterboarding terrorists when our troops are waterboarded as part of survival training. The Waterboarding according to John Brennan who I am not a fan of by the way saved lives, American lives. Lives are more important to this country than the animals you seem so concerned about. Suggest you google pictures if you truly want to see torture. Too bad far too many people think with their hearts and not their brain. Being naïve seems to be a trait of liberals.
 
They did commit a crime. Unwillingness to prosecute is not evidence of a crime not being committed.
No, they did not commit a crime. If you have any evidence that they did you should give this information to Holder and the DOJ. Relying on your own feelings rather than the law is not how the system works, nor should it work that way.
 
Ok, as stated, show me the law that the CIA violated? Thanks in advance

The prohibition against torture is firmly embedded in customary international law, international treaties signed by the United States, and in U.S. law. As the U.S. Department of State has noted, the "United States has long been a vigorous supporter of the international fight against torture…Every unit of government at every level within the United States is committed, by law as well as by policy, to the protection of the individual's life, liberty and physical integrity" [U.S. Department of State, "Initial Report of the United States of America to the UN Committee Against Torture." Oct 15, 1999. (15 Nov. 2001)].

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture | Human Rights Watch

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C - TORTURE

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.


18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C - TORTURE | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
No, they did not commit a crime. If you have any evidence that they did you should give this information to Holder and the DOJ. Relying on your own feelings rather than the law is not how the system works, nor should it work that way.

They tortured. What they did is by definition torture. You read that in the links above. It's not feelings. It's measuring actions against codified law.
 
:naughty
No.

(In perfect imitation of the previously used caveman vernacular.)
"There" mistake.
:laughat:
There mistake. An unwillingness to prosecute is not equal to it not being illegal.
Or in alternative reply; Yes, there be your mistake.

Regardless. That is not what they said.
They displayed no unwillingness. :doh

Your fault for not understanding that.

You really should have paid attention to the following post which came prior to yours before making such an absurd reply.

Here is a very thorough, detailed memorandum on this subject prepared for the Attorney General at the time by the Office of Legal Counsel. There are at least 125,000 pages of documents on different aspects of the war on jihadists in the archive this one comes from. Let me know if the link doesn't work.

http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/bitstream/2041/70964/00355_020801_001display.pdf
Follow the link and read it.


They tortured. What they did is by definition torture. You read that in the links above. It's not feelings. It's measuring actions against codified law.
No it isn't. What you seem to have forgotten to provided was the following information.
The devil they say is in the details.


Emphasis mine.
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and​
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

No they did not violate the law.
The above may help you in your understanding of the previously provided memo.


They tortured. What they did is by definition torture. You read that in the links above. It's not feelings. It's measuring actions against codified law.
Wrong.
What they did did not rise to the level of torture.


Meaningless. They did not face a court. This was just someone trying to excuse the law breaking.
No. Your reply is meaningless. They did not have to face a court as nothing was established as being illegal.
 
The prohibition against torture is firmly embedded in customary international law, international treaties signed by the United States, and in U.S. law. As the U.S. Department of State has noted, the "United States has long been a vigorous supporter of the international fight against torture…Every unit of government at every level within the United States is committed, by law as well as by policy, to the protection of the individual's life, liberty and physical integrity" [U.S. Department of State, "Initial Report of the United States of America to the UN Committee Against Torture." Oct 15, 1999. (15 Nov. 2001)].

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture | Human Rights Watch

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C - TORTURE

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.


18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C - TORTURE | LII / Legal Information Institute

My thanks to Excon. My poinr exactly
 
I guess I just don't get it and never will. What is your outrage over waterboarding terrorists when our troops are waterboarded as part of survival training. The Waterboarding according to John Brennan who I am not a fan of by the way saved lives, American lives. Lives are more important to this country than the animals you seem so concerned about. Suggest you google pictures if you truly want to see torture. Too bad far too many people think with their hearts and not their brain. Being naïve seems to be a trait of liberals.

I do appreciate your honest reply, even though we fundamentally disagree.

Funny thing is my conservative friends call me liberal, even as my liberal friends call me conservative. What is a man to do? :lol:

Outrage is not really the correct word. Objection, complaint would be better. As perhaps most of my Christian and Catholic friends defend the torture, disappointment or disgust might be better words to describe the situation. Having served in the US Army, I have a romantic (but obviously unrealistic) view that the country I served was better than the average country. I had imagined that we obeyed laws that we had signed on to, and I had this absurd notion that my country respected human dignity, no matter what the other barbarians in the world might do.

Turns out, we are as barbaric as they, but we are more deluded than they. We teach our kids all those romantic notions of the rights of man and the rule of law, but of course that is just lip service. By our actions we are judged, and by our actions we are every bit the barbarians that others are.

Does that help?

That so many individuals rationalize their support for barbaric actions is simply another part of the human condition. Whether that is funny or pathetic is yet to be determined. :peace
 
:naughty
No.

(In perfect imitation of the previously used caveman vernacular.)
"There" mistake.
:laughat:
Or in alternative reply; Yes, there be your mistake.

Regardless. That is not what they said.
They displayed no unwillingness. :doh

Your fault for not understanding that.

You really should have paid attention to the following post which came prior to yours before making such an absurd reply.
Follow the link and read it.



No it isn't. What you seem to have forgotten to provided was the following information.
The devil they say is in the details.


Emphasis mine.
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and​
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

No they did not violate the law.
The above may help you in your understanding of the previously provided memo.



Wrong.
What they did did not rise to the level of torture.



No. Your reply is meaningless. They did not have to face a court as nothing was established as being illegal.

Waterboarding is not "incidental to lawful sanctions."
 
:naughty
No.

(In perfect imitation of the previously used caveman vernacular.)
"There" mistake.
:laughat:
Or in alternative reply; Yes, there be your mistake.

Regardless. That is not what they said.
They displayed no unwillingness. :doh

Your fault for not understanding that.

You really should have paid attention to the following post which came prior to yours before making such an absurd reply.

Follow the link and read it.



No it isn't. What you seem to have forgotten to provided was the following information.
The devil they say is in the details.


Emphasis mine.
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and​
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

No they did not violate the law.
The above may help you in your understanding of the previously provided memo.



Wrong.
What they did did not rise to the level of torture.



No. Your reply is meaningless. They did not have to face a court as nothing was established as being illegal.

The WH legal consul opinion on the matter is not a rebuttal to what I said. It was a legal opinion given to help the president make a poor decision. It is not a prosecutor's opinion, or a court ruling. So, I repeat, their unwillingness to prosecute isn't evidence he didn't break the law.

And yes they did violate the law. As discussed earlier, waterboarding and stress positions have longer lasting harm than physical abuse. So it meets the very parts you underlined. what was done to these people was worse than beatings. It will be with them longer. And remember, one who died, the innocent taxi driver, died in a stress position, from being in that position.

So again, you fail to rebut what I put forward.

And no, the decision was made not to seek prosecution. No prosecutor made any determination. It was a political decision not to pursue it.
 
The WH legal consul opinion on the matter is not a rebuttal to what I said. It was a legal opinion given to help the president make a poor decision. It is not a prosecutor's opinion, or a court ruling. So, I repeat, their unwillingness to prosecute isn't evidence he didn't break the law.

And yes they did violate the law. As discussed earlier, waterboarding and stress positions have longer lasting harm than physical abuse. So it meets the very parts you underlined. what was done to these people was worse than beatings. It will be with them longer. And remember, one who died, the innocent taxi driver, died in a stress position, from being in that position.

So again, you fail to rebut what I put forward.

And no, the decision was made not to seek prosecution. No prosecutor made any determination. It was a political decision not to pursue it.

Have you ever had to make a decision that required legal advice? Bush got the legal advice and took action. You don't like the action and in this country you are innocent until proven guilty not vice versa. You can indict a ham sandwich or bring any kind of suit you want. The outcome however is what matters and Democrats let the issue slide something you refuse to accept. You can believe what you want until hell freezes over but that is meaningless.
 
Back
Top Bottom