CrackerJax
New Member
Laughable....
out.![Blunt Smoke :blsmoke: :blsmoke:](/styles/smilies/piped.gif)
out.
![Blunt Smoke :blsmoke: :blsmoke:](/styles/smilies/piped.gif)
Yeah ... you are ...Laughable....out.![]()
EXACTLY! This is the most important point of this entire fucking thread.the law is clear ... it doesn't matter if the polls indicates the people don't want investigations ... which isn't true by the way ... we don't decide to prosecute crimes base on popularity
Worse than torture are the murders of at least 50 prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo, but again the hard-hearted are unimpressed when those whom they perceive as terrorists receive illegal extrajudicial capital punishment. The case for abusing children, however, is more difficult to support.
Totally agreed, and the bitch should be!this is exactly why Pelosi put impeachment "off the table" ... she herself would/will be implicated ...
It wasn't torture at the time and that is all that matters. But you'd rather sacrifice national security for political ranting.... well done. You're both proud citizens.
The Torture Myth
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21
Just for a moment, let's pretend that there is no moral, legal or constitutional problem with torture. Let's also imagine a clear-cut case: a terrorist who knows where bombs are about to explode in Iraq. To stop him, it seems that a wide range of Americans would be prepared to endorse "cruel and unusual" methods. In advance of confirmation hearings for Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales last week, the Wall Street Journal argued that such scenarios must be debated, since "what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians." Alan Dershowitz, the liberal legal scholar, has argued in the past that interrogators in such a case should get a "torture warrant" from a judge. Both of these arguments rest on an assumption: that torture -- defined as physical pressure during interrogation -- can be used to extract useful information.
But does torture work? The question has been asked many times since Sept. 11, 2001. I'm repeating it, however, because the Gonzales hearings inspired more articles about our lax methods ("Too Nice for Our Own Good" was one headline), because similar comments may follow this week's trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I've heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians "really know how to get these things done." I've heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I've heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway. "Liberals," argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, "have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective." But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.
Bill Perry, a member Of Veterans Against Torture, listens to the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales on Jan. 6. (Evan Vucci -- AP)
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.
An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.
Given the overwhelmingly negative evidence, the really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe that it works. At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.
Perhaps it's reassuring to tell ourselves tales about the new forms of "toughness" we need, or to talk about the special rules we will create to defeat this special enemy. Unfortunately, that toughness is self-deceptive and self-destructive. Ultimately it will be self-defeating as well.
it's unconstitutional. therefore.. should not be done.oh please if waterboarding got info about a posible terrorist attack and saved even one life then stick a hose up a terrorist ass until water comes out thier ears, think about this if somebody kidnapped your child and the only way to find out where your child is being held was to waterboard an obvious suspect would you do it? your damn right i would.
it's unconstitutional. therefore.. should not be done.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
VIII Amendment
![]()
you're correct on that my friend. i'll be watching/listening carefully... that's for sure.TOUCHE my friend however this wouldnt be the first or more pressing matter of constitutional violation by the government and with good old obama it wont be the last and wow on another note "excessive fines imposed" I paid over 600.00 in fines for my misdemeanor marijuana posesion in south dakota
^Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
well, we obviously ignore them too... considering.. we "torture". ohhh.. and the little thing called the iraq war . why do we break the rules ... then expect every other countries to follow themGreat, let's all listen to the UN resolutions while the rest of the world ignores them....![]()
I don't know what the hell "pol's" are but the law says it's illegal ... because these "pol's" disregarded the law doesn't make it legal ... nuff said ...How can it be illegal if all of the pol's had a chance (who had security clearance) to oversee it?
If she was in on the torture and broke the law ... hell yeah ... I want and any other descent human being would what to see her and the rest of the war criminals brought before a court of law ... only the bushwhacked minded thinks it's ok to commit war crimes with impunity ...Do you really think Nancy Pelosi should be tried in court?
Yeah ... holding war criminals accountable and ending war crimes ... there's no "perceived gain" doing that ...I still think regardless of the legality issue, that you'd rather drag the US through the mud for some "perceived" gain (there isn't one), than actually keep us all safe from harm.
I think you have your principles mixed up with your priorities.
and here again folks ...another person that fell for the false flag "they're going to get us so we have to get them" bull shit ... and waterboarding hasn't saved any lives ... it has only helped to degrade the US ... you trust and believe the same people that have been caught in many, many lies ... what's up with that?oh please if waterboarding got info about a posible terrorist attack and saved even one life then stick a hose up a terrorist ass until water comes out thier ears,
So you created this bullshit scenario to justify war crimes? ... anybody tried to kidnap your kid that were terriorist? ...any one try to kidnap a kid of someone you know that was a terriorist? ... So come off the "special conditions" bullshit ... torture is a war crime ...lay off the propaganda ... it's rotting your brain ... nuff said ...think about this if somebody kidnapped your child and the only way to find out where your child is being held was to waterboard an obvious suspect would you do it? your damn right i would.
i'm supporting grow rebel on this one. fuck torture. it doesn't work anyway.
Oh yeah ... you slammed cjass good ...^
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
International Convention Torture signed by Ronald Reagan and ratified by the Senate, thus part of the supreme Law of the land...that makes torture unconstitutional
Checkmate bitches![]()