UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

Sherman123 · Jan 2, 2015

It was all probably torture and it was probably illegal under international law and possibly under US law. What should we do? Charge no one. Bury the issue completely. That it was illegal does not mean it wasn't beneficial, and even if it was not beneficial it is utterly harmful to raise the issue from the dead and shine a bright light on it in the midst of our current struggles. This is a detail that should be seconded to our objectives.

Excon · Jan 2, 2015

Boo Radley said:
Excon said:

Boo Radley said:

No, it's an unwillingness to prosecute.

Click to expand...

That is your claim.
Prove it

Click to expand...

Find any record of anyone even looking at it.

:doh
What a lame reply. And again you have failed to support your argument. Obviously because you can't.
You should really stop making claims you can't back up.

The interrogation methods were deemed legal, which makes them legal.
Those who ordered them and those who carried them out can not be prosecuted.

:laughat:

Boo Radley said:
Because I know a little more about cause and effect. I don't limit my rerading:

Dilawar and Habibullah died, in part, because they were hooded and shackled to the wire mesh ceiling of their holding cells for hours at a time so that the blood flowed to their legs, turning peroneal strikes into death blows. But the illegal practice of overhead shackling was not the work of bad apples. It was routine at Bagram. It was policy.

Killing Wussification - The Atlantic

And if you have been paying attention, after this came to light, they started limiting these stress positions.

You do not limit your rerading, huh? iLOL
What you shouldn't do and have, is limit your understanding of what you read.

You clearly do not know anything more about cause and effect.
And you certainly have just shown you do not know the difference between "quoted" information the source cited from a Death Certificate (which I provided), and a non-quoted, unsupported, non-official, non-medical opinion given by a reporter (that you provided).

Death Certificate trumps unsupported reporters opinion.
The Death Certificate listed the cause(s) and contributing factors of death.
No "stress position" was quoted as being a cause or contributing factor.

Funny that you do not know that. :doh
Funny how you think what a reporter's opinion is relevant at all.
No wonder you just do not understand why you are wrong, you just know so much which isn't true. :doh

Boo Radley said:
Wrong. The fact that there were no charges does matter.

Click to expand...

No, not one bit.

Wrong again, as usual.
It most definitely does matter. Especially as the "why" there were no charges is what we are discussing.

Boo Radley said:
Something isn't only wrong when someone is charged. It's wrong because it is wrong.

:doh
We are talking about legality.
Stop trying to conflate the issue.

Boo Radley said:
No, much wrong happens that reasons other than guilt or innocence leads to charges or no charges. The question has nothing to do with whether charges have or have not been filed.

A bunch of nonsense. Your claim is on you to support, and you have failed repeatedly to do so.
And you can't, simply because what you asserted isn't true.

What you do not seem to understand is the whole premiss under which the CIA was working.
The interrogation methods were authorized as legal, and therefore the actions from ordering, to carrying them out were legal.
Period. That is how it works.

No later body can come and make those actions illegal, because they were legal at the time. Period.
There was no unwillingness as you claim as no laws were broken at the time to prosecute.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that the legal justification was unsound, ill advised or whatever you want. That is nothing more than opinion and will not change the fact that is, and was, the legal position they were operating under.
And that is, and will continue to be how our System operates.

DaveFagan · Jan 2, 2015

Excon said:
:doh
What a lame reply. And again you have failed to support your argument. Obviously because you can't.
You should really stop making claims you can't back up.

The interrogation methods were deemed legal, which makes them legal.
Those who ordered them and those who carried them out can not be prosecuted.

:laughat:You do not limit your rerading, huh? iLOL
What you shouldn't do and have, is limit your understanding of what you read.

You clearly do not know anything more about cause and effect.
And you certainly have just shown you do not know the difference between "quoted" information the source cited from a Death Certificate (which I provided), and a non-quoted, unsupported, non-official, non-medical opinion given by a reporter (that you provided).

Death Certificate trumps unsupported reporters opinion.
The Death Certificate listed the cause(s) and contributing factors of death.
No "stress position" was quoted as being a cause or contributing factor.

Funny that you do not know that. :doh
Funny how you think what a reporter's opinion is relevant at all.
No wonder you just do not understand why you are wrong, you just know so much which isn't true. :doh

Wrong again, as usual.
It most definitely does matter. Especially as the "why" there were no charges is what we are discussing.

:doh
We are talking about legality.
Stop trying to conflate the issue.

A bunch of nonsense. Your claim is on you to support, and you have failed repeatedly to do so.
And you can't, simply because what you asserted isn't true.

What you do not seem to understand is the whole premiss under which the CIA was working.
The interrogation methods were authorized as legal, and therefore the actions from ordering, to carrying them out were legal.
Period. That is how it works.

No later body can come and make those actions illegal, because they were legal at the time. Period.
There was no unwillingness as you claim as no laws were broken at the time to prosecute.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that the legal justification was unsound, ill advised or whatever you want. That is nothing more than opinion and will not change the fact that is, and was, the legal position they were operating under.
And that is, and will continue to be how our System operates.

One shouldn't wiggle and squirm when they've got themselves in a bed of quicksand. It makes them
sink deeper more quickly. If you'll send me your address, I'll send you a long breathing tube, very
long. Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The person who ordered the torture should
be prosecuted and that would be the "self proclaimed" decider, GW Bush(the First Torturor). It is
a simple chain of responsibility, and he should also have to pay reparations to Garner and Englund,
two famous scumbags who were just doing their jobs. The law writing to allegedly make it legal was a
conspiracy by any definition of the word. Seems like a RICO Act violation, don't ya' know?

Thoreau72 · Jan 2, 2015

Fenton said:
Well I agree Holders lacking a moral compass.

But not because he refuses to comply with the demands of a bunch of Bush haters.

The standards of moral decency do not hinge on the obsessions of disgruntled partisan hacks.

Its ironic that those who still repeat the years old false narratives about supposed lies are the ones who claim to hold some moral high ground here.

Well I never suggested the disgruntled partisan hacks scenario you mention, no.

He lacks a moral compass and exhibits malfeasance in office because he is sworn to uphold the law. He is obligated to prosecute those who break the law.

As Taguba and many others have described, and as POTUS has told the country, "we tortured some folks". Even before Obama was elected, anybody paying attention already knew "we were torturing some folks." Not rocket science.

So for those of us who do happen to be guided by a moral compass, what was done by government agents was wrong, and it was illegal.

So in my view, partisan politics has nothing to do with it. Torture is illegal, we did it, we know who did it and who ordered it, and the AG has an obligation to enforce the law. He has refused to, and that is complicity on his part for the torture scheme, AND it is dereliction of duty on his part.

Excon · Jan 2, 2015

DaveFagan said:
One shouldn't wiggle and squirm when they've got themselves in a bed of quicksand.

You are speaking from experience I see.
Since you are, I would suggest you stop getting mired here.

DaveFagan said:
Torture is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

And again.
What the CIA did was designed not to run afoul of the law, and was found legally permissible.
Do you really not understand that?
I care not if you or others do not like that. The interrogation methods, as officially conducted were not torture.

DaveFagan said:
The person who ordered the torture should be prosecuted and that would be the "self proclaimed" decider, GW Bush(the First Torturor).

As the interrogation methods were designed not to run afoul of the law and a memo was issued saying they didn't. He did nothing illegal to be prosecuted for.

DaveFagan said:
The law writing to allegedly make it legal was a conspiracy by any definition of the word. Seems like a RICO Act violation, don't ya' know?

:doh
No it wasn't. It was all legal.

Thoreau72 · Jan 2, 2015

Excon said:
You are speaking from experience I see.
Since you are, I would suggest you stop getting mired here.

And again.
What the CIA did was designed not to run afoul of the law, and was found legally permissible.
Do you really not understand that?
I care not if you or others do not like that. The interrogation methods, as officially conducted were not torture.

As the interrogation methods were designed not to run afoul of the law and a memo was issued saying they didn't. He did nothing illegal to be prosecuted for.

:doh
No it wasn't. It was all legal.

Did you know that it was legal to return escaped slaves back into slavery?

That is, it was ILLEGAL to assist any slave in escaping.

What do you suppose Aristotle would have said about that? Pure reason guided by immorality?

Excon · Jan 2, 2015

Henry David said:
Did you know that it was legal to return escaped slaves back into slavery?

That is, it was ILLEGAL to assist any slave in escaping.

What do you suppose Aristotle would have said about that? Pure reason guided by immorality?

:doh
Irrelevant argument.
Nor can you change what was or wasn't legal legal at that point in time.
Just as you can not change the fact that at the moment in time the interrogation methods were not illegal.

And before you you make the same mistake twice, you might want to check out a person's position on a topic before speaking out. :doh

Aristotle on Slavery

Thoreau72 · Jan 2, 2015

Excon said:
:doh
Irrelevant argument.
Nor can you change what was or wasn't legal legal at that point in time.
Just as you can not change the fact that at the moment in time the interrogation methods were not illegal.

And before you you make the same mistake twice, you might want to check out a person's position on a topic before speaking out. :doh

Aristotle on Slavery

Let's see--in Aristotle's time the earth was seen as the center of the universe wasn't it? Or did he come after they discovered the solar system?

Excon · Jan 2, 2015

Henry David said:
Let's see--in Aristotle's time the earth was seen as the center of the universe wasn't it? Or did he come after they discovered the solar system?

More irrelevancy. Figures.

Thoreau72 · Jan 2, 2015

You're special, Excon.

eace

Excon · Jan 2, 2015

Henry David said:
You're special, Excon. eace

You making a morality argument in a discussion of legality would indicate you are actually speaking of yourself.
Your inability to refrain from posting irrelevancies and focus on me rather than the topic, just confirms you are actually speaking of yourself.

:doh

Thoreau72 · Jan 2, 2015

Excon said:
You making a morality argument in a discussion of legality would indicate that by a fair measure, are far more special than I. Derp!
:doh

Whether feigned or genuine, you do not know the difference between right and wrong.

If you're into the bible, consider Paul's words in Corinthians, the letter of the law brings death, the spirit of the law brings life.

I hope nobody pays you for legal services rendered.

eace

Excon · Jan 2, 2015

Henry David said:
Whether feigned or genuine, you do not know the difference between right and wrong.

And again you are demonstrating for all that you know not of what you speak.

j-mac · Jan 2, 2015

Henry David said:
Let's not derail this thread. You know how to get to CT threads.

You advised me to think more and emote less. I answered that. The rational person must ask "where's Waldo?" I mean where's the damn airplane that is supposed to be there? Is this like The Emperor's New Clothes?

Well, as far as derailing the thread, YOU made the assertion that Cheney was in the VP offices with a joy stick killing Americans, that is out there Henry....But, again you fail to answer the question. If the planes were "drones", what about the people on those flights? Where are they?

j-mac · Jan 2, 2015

Boo Radley said:
Find any record of anyone even looking at it.

Because I know a little more about cause and effect. I don't limit my rerading:

Dilawar and Habibullah died, in part, because they were hooded and shackled to the wire mesh ceiling of their holding cells for hours at a time so that the blood flowed to their legs, turning peroneal strikes into death blows. But the illegal practice of overhead shackling was not the work of bad apples. It was routine at Bagram. It was policy.

Killing Wussification - The Atlantic

And if you have been paying attention, after this came to light, they started limiting these stress positions.

No, not one bit. Something isn't only wrong when someone is charged. It's wrong because it is wrong.

No, much wrong happens that reasons other than guilt or innocence leads to charges or no charges. The question has nothing to do with whether charges have or have not been filed.

The outright dishonesty of your claims here is beyond credulity....In the Dilawar case several people were in fact tried by Military court, and plead guilty of mistreating him....The fact that you want higher people held accountable is up to the Atty. Gen. to do, and Holder took three years and investigated, he said he didn't find enough evidence to go forward, and you turn that into a lack of willingness...That is a straight up lie. Period.

Habibullah is much the same thing. People were indicted, and prosecuted, plus in this case the Capt. in charge was charged with dereliction, and making false statements....The fact that you want to take the MSNBC's darling, Larry Wilkerson's word, and the MSNBC track of hoping out loud for Bush, or Cheney to "be frog marched across the WH lawn in cuffs" will just have to remain an unrealized dream of yours. Too bad for you...BTW...You know that Habibullah was the brother of a Taliban commander right...Not hardly an "Innocent bystander as you claim.

This is why this is a dumb argument to have with people like you Joe...You will never be honest about it, therefore, it is pointless to argue with you about it....

j-mac · Jan 2, 2015

Henry David said:
Whether feigned or genuine, you do not know the difference between right and wrong.

If you're into the bible, consider Paul's words in Corinthians, the letter of the law brings death, the spirit of the law brings life.

I hope nobody pays you for legal services rendered. eace

Didn't you say you were an atheist in the 'satan thread'? I could be wrong.

Boo Radley · Jan 3, 2015

j-mac said:
The outright dishonesty of your claims here is beyond credulity....In the Dilawar case several people were in fact tried by Military court, and plead guilty of mistreating him....The fact that you want higher people held accountable is up to the Atty. Gen. to do, and Holder took three years and investigated, he said he didn't find enough evidence to go forward, and you turn that into a lack of willingness...That is a straight up lie. Period.

Habibullah is much the same thing. People were indicted, and prosecuted, plus in this case the Capt. in charge was charged with dereliction, and making false statements....The fact that you want to take the MSNBC's darling, Larry Wilkerson's word, and the MSNBC track of hoping out loud for Bush, or Cheney to "be frog marched across the WH lawn in cuffs" will just have to remain an unrealized dream of yours. Too bad for you...BTW...You know that Habibullah was the brother of a Taliban commander right...Not hardly an "Innocent bystander as you claim.

This is why this is a dumb argument to have with people like you Joe...You will never be honest about it, therefore, it is pointless to argue with you about it....

J, I didn't say they weren't. Of course they were underlings, with no one higher up taking responsibility. You'll notice though they got little more than a hand slap for it as I recall.

And yes, Holder didn't prosecute. I've stated that before as well. Do you read what I say at all?

So, J I haven't been dishonest at all. I neither quoted MSNBC nor taking any one single person's word. As I stated, I've read nearly everything on this. It's a tired ass tactic to try and by passed an argument by calling people dishonest. Who did ot didn't get prosecuted had nothing to do with the point being made. Let me try again.

1) Dilwar was innocent by every account. Innocent and dead.

2) Stress positions played a role.

Now, I've put other things up to cover other points. So, if you want to be honest, see what each point is and what they all mean together.

Libertie76 · Jan 3, 2015

Henry David said:
Well I never suggested the disgruntled partisan hacks scenario you mention, no.

He lacks a moral compass and exhibits malfeasance in office because he is sworn to uphold the law. He is obligated to prosecute those who break the law.

As Taguba and many others have described, and as POTUS has told the country, "we tortured some folks". Even before Obama was elected, anybody paying attention already knew "we were torturing some folks." Not rocket science.

So for those of us who do happen to be guided by a moral compass, what was done by government agents was wrong, and it was illegal.

So in my view, partisan politics has nothing to do with it. Torture is illegal, we did it, we know who did it and who ordered it, and the AG has an obligation to enforce the law. He has refused to, and that is complicity on his part for the torture scheme, AND it is dereliction of duty on his part.

It makes you think who control the government if agencies are above the law. Cruel and unusual punishment? Before found guilty of a crime? Yet these agencies aren't held reliable...

Libertie76 · Jan 3, 2015

Excon said:
You are speaking from experience I see.
Since you are, I would suggest you stop getting mired here.

And again.
What the CIA did was designed not to run afoul of the law, and was found legally permissible.
Do you really not understand that?
I care not if you or others do not like that. The interrogation methods, as officially conducted were not torture.

As the interrogation methods were designed not to run afoul of the law and a memo was issued saying they didn't. He did nothing illegal to be prosecuted for.

:doh
No it wasn't. It was all legal.

Do you defend the ideas that the United States should be legally allowed to subject people to things like waterboarding and rectal feeding as a means of interrogation?

Our should we as citizens be allowed to have restrictions on the agencies that are capable of this kind of practice.

Thoreau72 · Jan 3, 2015

j-mac said:
Well, as far as derailing the thread, YOU made the assertion that Cheney was in the VP offices with a joy stick killing Americans, that is out there Henry....But, again you fail to answer the question. If the planes were "drones", what about the people on those flights? Where are they?

I have no idea where those people are. There is no proof that any of those passengers actually boarded said flights, and some evidence suggesting, at least at Boston, that nobody boarded those flights.

Whether they boarded or not, I have no idea what happened to them. We can speculate, but that serves no valid purpose in answering your good question.

Thoreau72 · Jan 3, 2015

j-mac said:
Didn't you say you were an atheist in the 'satan thread'? I could be wrong.

You might be mistaken. By some I am described as an atheist, but I consider myself a Deist in the tradition of Jefferson and others.

You were certainly wrong in saying whatever you said about Cheney and some joystick killing americans. Where on earth did you get that?

Thoreau72 · Jan 3, 2015

Libertie76 said:
It makes you think who control the government if agencies are above the law. Cruel and unusual punishment? Before found guilty of a crime? Yet these agencies aren't held reliable...

The individuals within those agencies, including the heads of agencies, are not held responsible. It clearly shows the rule of law in this country is dead in the water. And Holder is just the last in a long line of complicit and criminal Attorneys General. The decay within the federal government smells to high heaven. We are the world's most notorious hypocrite.

Boo Radley · Jan 3, 2015

j-mac said:
Didn't you say you were an atheist in the 'satan thread'? I could be wrong.

One thing is for sure, you can't follow the teachings of Jesus and support torture. I can see the wrist bans now: Who would Jesus torture?

Libertie76 · Jan 3, 2015

Henry David said:
The individuals within those agencies, including the heads of agencies, are not held responsible. It clearly shows the rule of law in this country is dead in the water. And Holder is just the last in a long line of complicit and criminal Attorneys General. The decay within the federal government smells to high heaven. We are the world's most notorious hypocrite.

We're not the hypocrites we're Victims of social control and shady political manipulations we as Americans need to demand the agencies responsible or start impeaching the problem it's the U.S. is too comfortable without really understanding how a shadow government is overthrowing our constitution

apdst · Jan 3, 2015

Libertie76 said:
It makes you think who control the government if agencies are above the law. Cruel and unusual punishment? Before found guilty of a crime? Yet these agencies aren't held reliable...

Like the IRS, huh?

UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for US Torture

Iconoclast