• 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!

General Rick Sanchez Calls for War Crimes Truth Commission

So you're now saying we did commit war crimes?

According to international law "we" did not. Some members of the armed forces did. This does not make the whole country liable.
 
According to international law "we" did not. Some members of the armed forces did. This does not make the whole country liable.

Accusations such as this is exactly why we need a truth crimes Commission as the General is suggesting here.
 
Accusations such as this is exactly why we need a truth crimes Commission as the General is suggesting here.

I think it is a waist of time and money, but I would have no problem with it in the long run.
 
If this were the case. Why are we still sending people to other country's to be tortured? Why did President Obama leave that intact?

"the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard..."Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice." - John V. Santore: What is Obama's Rendition Policy?
One problem with equating Obama's rendition policy with torture. You forgot this part...
Regarding rendition specifically, that same executive order contains the following provisions:

Sec. 5. Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies.

(a) Establishment of Special Interagency Task Force. There shall be established a Special Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies (Special Task Force) to review interrogation and transfer policies...
...(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control.
President Obama is NOT sending people off to other countries to be tortured. In fact he is taking steps to ensure that doesn't happen.
And let us not forget Obama's numerous torture loopholes:

"“America does not torture,” Barack Obama recently proclaimed. George Bush said the same thing, and was proven to be lying. An analysis of President Obama’s executive order on torture “may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue.” Although the order seems to cover the closing of CIA torture centers, it does not mention torture centers that might be run by other federal agencies or corporate outfits like Blackwater. And, while imposing safeguards on prisoners taken in “armed conflict,” the order pointedly leaves out prisoners seized in “counterrorism operations.” Obama should close these huge loopholes, or “explain why he won’t.” - Obama's Numerous Torture Loopholes | Black Agenda Report
You're assuming that these loopholes are intentional and that they will lead to the torture of individuals. I found this quite interesting...
“Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict,
They are speculating that the "armed conflict" part of the statement means "only those taken in an armed conflict." The citation of adhering to the requirement in the other instruments, which are not solely limited to persons detained in an armed conflict, has obviously set an overarching commitment to not torture. Their entire argument rests on just that point...individuals detained in an armed conflict. I simply think it was not worded quite as clearly as it should have been. When I read it I look at that passage as meaning to include those articles, not at all limiting the order to pertain only to the armed conflict clause.
 
According to international law "we" did not. Some members of the armed forces did. This does not make the whole country liable.

If the execution of any policy of the Bush administration resulted in a "war crime" then yes we did.
 
If the execution of any policy of the Bush administration resulted in a "war crime" then yes we did.

Then we agree that no "war crime" was committed under the accords by order of the Bush administration.
 
Then we agree that no "war crime" was committed under the accords by order of the Bush administration.

I don't know that yet, and neither does anyone else on this forum. None of know everything that went down in Iraq. We know about what we read on the internet, see on T.V., read in the paper, and hear on the radio. That's it.

We all thought Saddam had WMD's too. Because that's what we were told.

Hopefully there will be a commission to clear this up. I don't trust Fox and MSNBC. If General Sanchez says we need one, then he either knows it will end the debate and clear us or it will end the debate and indict us. I'm okay either way.
 
One problem with equating Obama's rendition policy with torture. You forgot this part...

President Obama is NOT sending people off to other countries to be tortured. In fact he is taking steps to ensure that doesn't happen.

"We can draw solace from the seemingly unambitious principals outlined by the administration regarding torture, but the situation must be continually monitored. The Bush administration, lest we forget, also publicly rejected torture throughout Bush's presidency. I would like to know more about the "limited circumstances" Malinowski refers to under which rendition is permissible. But even if such exceptional circumstances exist, they must not be allowed to become the rule. Similarly, the inclusion of the phrase "short-term, transitory basis" must not be allowed to expand into a broad loophole justifying permanent detentions.

But as he has already stated as did this argument detainment can be "indefinite." Which is worse?

I started a whole thread about it and no one seemed to care about that.

You're assuming that these loopholes are intentional and that they will lead to the torture of individuals. I found this quite interesting...

The government often leaves loopholes in things with a reason.

Now that he obviously knows they are present, why have they yet to be closed?

They are speculating that the "armed conflict" part of the statement means "only those taken in an armed conflict." The citation of adhering to the requirement in the other instruments, which are not solely limited to persons detained in an armed conflict, has obviously set an overarching commitment to not torture. Their entire argument rests on just that point...individuals detained in an armed conflict. I simply think it was not worded quite as clearly as it should have been. When I read it I look at that passage as meaning to include those articles, not at all limiting the order to pertain only to the armed conflict clause.

With all the lawyers etc involved, I have a sneaky suspicion they said exactly what they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that yet, and neither does anyone else on this forum. None of know everything that went down in Iraq. We know about what we read on the internet, see on T.V., read in the paper, and hear on the radio. That's it.

I am only going by the accords themselves and what has been released to the public. So I will say so far, nothing has come to light to change my opinion. But nothing is written in stone.

We all thought Saddam had WMD's too. Because that's what we were told.

Hopefully there will be a commission to clear this up. I don't trust Fox and MSNBC. If General Sanchez says we need one, then he either knows it will end the debate and clear us or it will end the debate and indict us. I'm okay either way.

I still think it would be a waist of time and money. In the end I would be OK with it either way.
 
Back
Top Bottom