- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I'm not sure we know why any of them were taken, let alone all of them. There was that cab driver who we killed in Afghanistan. He was fighting. He was driving a cab. A bad guy, the actual enemy, told us he was bad. We tortured him and he died. Not sure what category we put him under, but he wasn't a solider firing weapons at us. He was a cab driver.
Of which we are not engaged. We are at war with no country. True, we invaded countries, countries that did not attack us or declare war on us, but we are not fighting countries. The point I make is that we have signed and agree to human rights across the board, always, regardless. We did sign and agree to thiese things, so there is no out of thin air.
Well, while I think I do understand the law, and what we've agree to, the point you respond to is about our risk. Our enemy has no chance of beating us, period. So, as we don't face that extreme threat, there is no rational reason to argue that we forsake all our core values.
What's winning? The country was defeated fairly quickly. Occupation is harder. But, define winning.
No one said a thing about coddling. That's merely hyperbolic nonsense when you don't want to address rule of law. Let me ask you, if we behave like our enemy, are we any different?
This is just going around in a circle. All of this is answered in my posts above, even multiple times.
You're attempting to apply the wrong "law." You're using "torture" in a hyperbolic way, which is ironic when you call my measured and accurate responses "hyperbolic." And you still seem to think it's all a "law enforcement" operation.