bush's new book getting him into trouble (admitting to waterboarding)

[CMike]

I have problems with classified information being leaked. But what does one do, Intense, when the government is lying to you (Pentagon Papers) or the President is lying to you (Mark Felt then tattles on Nixon) or our government is lying to you again (wikileaks).

None of that, however, excuses torture. I am very troubled the CIA torturers and those who authorized that as well as the shipping of prisoners to countries to be tortured are never going to be tried and humiliated in front of the entire world. Whatever our "guys" were doing, it was not associated with what is considered the best of being American.

Allowing thousands of Americans to be murdered because liberals don't want 3 arch terrorists to get wet should be criminal.

 

[martybegan]

Marty believes that rightous condemnation of his justification of criminal stance is ad hom and somehow excuses him? No, jihadists do not lose the protections of the law of war at all, marty, when they break them. That is not the law, although you can post the evidence if you think you have it. Jihadists, and you if you do it, are taken by the laws of war, treated accordingly by the laws of war, tried by the laws of war, and, if guilty, executed by the laws of war.

Thank heavens for the UCMJ that would condemn and prosecute and punish you if you did such things to those taken prisoner.

yes, Jihaddists lose the protections of laws of ware because they refuse to follow them. It is a decsion made by thier organization from the top down to the bottom.

When a nation decides to elist in Geneva they are basically putting themsleves at a disadvantage. The balance comes from both sides following the rules, thus creating equal disadvantges with the benefit of thier captured soliders and civilan populations being treated as properly as possible.

So now remove one side from following the rules. Now only the side following the rules maintains the disadvantage, and more than likey recieves none of the benefits from the other side. At that point it makes no sense for the following side to continue to give the opponents fighters protection under the statues, as they were the ones who deicided to not follow the rules.

 

[martybegan]

Your point is if the bad guys do it, we get to do it. Your thinking is that of a stooge.

No, it has nothing to do with if the bad guys do it, we get to do it. I has to do if the bad guys break the general laws of welfare and warfare then they loose the protections given by treaties covering those conditions. Its not tit for tat. Once they loose those protections any rights given are at our sufference only.

No... a civilized society affords even the most heinous criminal basic human rights

The fact we dont summarily shoot them does show we grant them basic human rights. The fact that in order to use coercive interrogation a decison has to be made at the highest levels shows we care about human rights. Giving them anything more than that makes us suckers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, I prefer decisions to be made with no justification what-so-ever.

Or

Justifications to be made by those who really have no fucking clue what happened.

Describing yourself, Samson?

Sorry, we're still not taking any long, warm showers together, Jakey

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have problems with classified information being leaked. But what does one do, Intense, when the government is lying to you (Pentagon Papers) or the President is lying to you (Mark Felt then tattles on Nixon) or our government is lying to you again (wikileaks).

None of that, however, excuses torture. I am very troubled the CIA torturers and those who authorized that as well as the shipping of prisoners to countries to be tortured are never going to be tried and humiliated in front of the entire world. Whatever our "guys" were doing, it was not associated with what is considered the best of being American.

Allowing thousands of Americans to be murdered because liberals don't want 3 arch terrorists to get wet should be criminal.

No proof of that exists of those saved except for disinformation propaganda, so you full of it. No proof that WMDs existed when we invaded Iraq except for disinformation propaganda, so you are full of it. You probably are a patriot, but you are a misguided one, in my simple opinion.

 

[CMike]

I gave the proof an Obama declassified DOJ document.

 

[Mad Scientist]

amnesty international filed today:
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission
Republican congressman: I have ‘no hesitation whatsoever’ in probing Bush for torture:
Republican congressman: I have ‘no hesitation whatsoever’ in probing Bush for torture | Raw Story
Not that a former president will ever be dealt real justice, but making sure his legacy of torture and hatred of the constitution stays alive is the least we can do

I'm sure indictments are forthcoming.

Just to recap:

Bush beat Gore in 2000.

Bush beat John Kerry in 2004

Bush is more popular than Obama.

Suck it!

 

[daveman]

No proof of that exists of those saved except for disinformation propaganda, so you full of it. No proof that WMDs existed when we invaded Iraq except for disinformation propaganda, so you are full of it. You probably are a patriot, but you are a misguided one, in my simple opinion.

I think you're a patriot, Jake.

Just not sure which country you're patriotic about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

amnesty international filed today:
US must begin criminal investigation of torture following Bush admission
Republican congressman: I have ‘no hesitation whatsoever’ in probing Bush for torture:
Republican congressman: I have ‘no hesitation whatsoever’ in probing Bush for torture | Raw Story
Not that a former president will ever be dealt real justice, but making sure his legacy of torture and hatred of the constitution stays alive is the least we can do

I'm sure indictments are forthcoming.

Just to recap:

Bush beat Gore in 2000.

Bush beat John Kerry in 2004

Bush is more popular than Obama.

Suck it!

Invalid syllogism.

 

[CMike]

better?

 

[Intense]

I have problems with classified information being leaked. But what does one do, Intense, when the government is lying to you (Pentagon Papers) or the President is lying to you (Mark Felt then tattles on Nixon) or our government is lying to you again (wikileaks).

None of that, however, excuses torture. I am very troubled the CIA torturers and those who authorized that as well as the shipping of prisoners to countries to be tortured are never going to be tried and humiliated in front of the entire world. Whatever our "guys" were doing, it was not associated with what is considered the best of being American.

I do have a problem with Classified Material leaking. That is a National Security matter.

In relation to Government Accountability, Transparency, and Rule of Law, Are you starting to miss the concept of Enumerated Powers yet?????

What is Torture? The definition has been expanded to include absurd notions.

 

[Sallow]

I have problems with classified information being leaked. But what does one do, Intense, when the government is lying to you (Pentagon Papers) or the President is lying to you (Mark Felt then tattles on Nixon) or our government is lying to you again (wikileaks).

None of that, however, excuses torture. I am very troubled the CIA torturers and those who authorized that as well as the shipping of prisoners to countries to be tortured are never going to be tried and humiliated in front of the entire world. Whatever our "guys" were doing, it was not associated with what is considered the best of being American.

I do have a problem with Classified Material leaking. That is a National Security matter.

In relation to Government Accountability, Transparency, and Rule of Law, Are you starting to miss the concept of Enumerated Powers yet?????

What is Torture? The definition has been expanded to include absurd notions.

While I think Wikileaks was grossly irresponsible, and put informants, troops and agents in the field at risk, the "Classified powers" of government are overly broad.

And our definition of torture should include..torture. Both mental and physical. Sleep deprivation can lead to death..and sensory deprivation can lead to insanity.

 

[rightwinger]

No, it has nothing to do with if the bad guys do it, we get to do it. I has to do if the bad guys break the general laws of welfare and warfare then they loose the protections given by treaties covering those conditions. Its not tit for tat. Once they loose those protections any rights given are at our sufference only.

No... a civilized society affords even the most heinous criminal basic human rights

The fact we dont summarily shoot them does show we grant them basic human rights. The fact that in order to use coercive interrogation a decison has to be made at the highest levels shows we care about human rights. Giving them anything more than that makes us suckers.

You set a very low standard for human rights..anything above summarily shooting is acceptable.

My standard is quite simple......Would we like our captured soldiers treated this way?

 

[daveman]

No... a civilized society affords even the most heinous criminal basic human rights

The fact we dont summarily shoot them does show we grant them basic human rights. The fact that in order to use coercive interrogation a decison has to be made at the highest levels shows we care about human rights. Giving them anything more than that makes us suckers.

You set a very low standard for human rights..anything above summarily shooting is acceptable.

My standard is quite simple......Would we like our captured soldiers treated this way?

Our soldiers are legal combatants. Terrorists are not.

 

[Sallow]

The fact we dont summarily shoot them does show we grant them basic human rights. The fact that in order to use coercive interrogation a decison has to be made at the highest levels shows we care about human rights. Giving them anything more than that makes us suckers.

You set a very low standard for human rights..anything above summarily shooting is acceptable.

My standard is quite simple......Would we like our captured soldiers treated this way?

Our soldiers are legal combatants. Terrorists are not.

Aside from the fact that many of these "Terrorists" were swept up from their homes, and in many cases, wrongly, in the middle of the night based on information gleened from informants...there have been many legal combatants that were tortured as well. Some to death..

Abed Hamed Mowhoush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

The fact we dont summarily shoot them does show we grant them basic human rights. The fact that in order to use coercive interrogation a decison has to be made at the highest levels shows we care about human rights. Giving them anything more than that makes us suckers.

You set a very low standard for human rights..anything above summarily shooting is acceptable.

My standard is quite simple......Would we like our captured soldiers treated this way?

Our soldiers are legal combatants. Terrorists are not.

Legal status does not matter. It pertains to where we set the bar on humane treatment. If we set the bar as low as you suggest, then we should openly accept that is how we expect our soldiers to be treated when they are captured

 

[Samson]

You set a very low standard for human rights..anything above summarily shooting is acceptable.

My standard is quite simple......Would we like our captured soldiers treated this way?

Our soldiers are legal combatants. Terrorists are not.

Legal status does not matter. It pertains to where we set the bar on humane treatment. If we set the bar as low as you suggest, then we should openly accept that is how we expect our soldiers to be treated when they are captured

Why should we "openly accept" anything?

 

[rightwinger]

Our soldiers are legal combatants. Terrorists are not.

Legal status does not matter. It pertains to where we set the bar on humane treatment. If we set the bar as low as you suggest, then we should openly accept that is how we expect our soldiers to be treated when they are captured

Why should we "openly accept" anything?

There is a "Golden Rule" of treatment of captives...

"Treat enemy captives as you would expect your captives to be treated"

If the US openly engages in waterboarding, sleep depravation, hypothermia, stress positions and whateer else the Bush Justice Department said we could inflict....we have no moral right to complain when these practices are used on our soldiers

 

[Samson]

Legal status does not matter. It pertains to where we set the bar on humane treatment. If we set the bar as low as you suggest, then we should openly accept that is how we expect our soldiers to be treated when they are captured

Why should we "openly accept" anything?

There is a "Golden Rule" of treatment of captives...

"Treat enemy captives as you would expect your captives to be treated"

If the US openly engages in waterboarding, sleep depravation, hypothermia, stress positions and whateer else the Bush Justice Department said we could inflict....we have no moral right to complain when these practices are used on our soldiers

Are we complaining about these issues?

I thought we may be complaining about American prisoners being hung:

William Richard "Rich" Higgins (January 15, 1945 – July 6, 1990) was a United States Marine Corps colonel who was captured in 1988 while serving on a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. He was held hostage, tortured[1] and eventually murdered by his captors.

 

[rightwinger]

Why should we "openly accept" anything?

There is a "Golden Rule" of treatment of captives...

"Treat enemy captives as you would expect your captives to be treated"

If the US openly engages in waterboarding, sleep depravation, hypothermia, stress positions and whateer else the Bush Justice Department said we could inflict....we have no moral right to complain when these practices are used on our soldiers

Are we complaining about these issues?

I thought we may be complaining about American prisoners being hung:

William Richard "Rich" Higgins (January 15, 1945 – July 6, 1990) was a United States Marine Corps colonel who was captured in 1988 while serving on a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. He was held hostage, tortured[1] and eventually murdered by his captors.

I'm not sure of your point here..

1. Is it that the US torturing prisoners would prevent this from happening?
2. Is it that we should allow terrorists to set the standard for humane treatment of prisoners? The "They do it, so we should get to do it too" argument