Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Well...if our "soliders" were planning to target and murder thousands of civilians from another country, and they had the information to stop these attacks, then I would expect that if they were captured that the enemy could use waterboarding to get information to stop these attacks.
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?
Well...if our "soliders" were planning to target and murder thousands of civilians from another country, and they had the information to stop these attacks, then I would expect that if they were captured that the enemy could use waterboarding to get information to stop these attacks.
Exactly..
Our soldiers have precisely that information. Our pilots have information on potential targets, tactics, vulnerabilities that would prevent the deaths of both military and civilians.
In fact, In Viet Nam they were considered to be war criminals by the VietNamese because of napalm attacks agains civilians.
By your reasoning, they were correct in torturing our pilots
The law is based on opinions.You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not trump federal law or the UCMJ.
Hello??? We are discussing opinions.
Hello, opinions mean nothing if the law contravenes your wrong opinions.
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
You said, "we have no moral right to complain when these practices are used on our soldiers."
I was just wondering when we had complained about "waterboarding, sleep depravation, hypothermia, stress positions and whateer" being used on US POWS?
In the case of Col. Higgins, for example;His official status with the United States government was "hostage", not prisoner of war. As such, the government did not insist on treatment consistent with international law
After WWII, we prosecuted both Germans and Japanese soldiers for participating in just these practices.
Now, if we were to attempt to prosecute other nations soldiers for engaging in these practices all they have to do is point to the Bush Justice Department memo saying this is acceptable treatment.
By saying these practices are acceptable, we have approved them to be used against our soldiers
Well...if our "soliders" were planning to target and murder thousands of civilians from another country, and they had the information to stop these attacks, then I would expect that if they were captured that the enemy could use waterboarding to get information to stop these attacks.
Exactly..
Our soldiers have precisely that information. Our pilots have information on potential targets, tactics, vulnerabilities that would prevent the deaths of both military and civilians.
In fact, In Viet Nam they were considered to be war criminals by the VietNamese because of napalm attacks agains civilians.
By your reasoning, they were correct in torturing our pilots
Okay kindly try to focus.
Our soldiers did not target thousands of civilians to be murdered.
The 3 arch terrorists did target thousands of american civilians for murder.
See the difference?
You said, "we have no moral right to complain when these practices are used on our soldiers."
I was just wondering when we had complained about "waterboarding, sleep depravation, hypothermia, stress positions and whateer" being used on US POWS?
In the case of Col. Higgins, for example;
After WWII, we prosecuted both Germans and Japanese soldiers for participating in just these practices.
Now, if we were to attempt to prosecute other nations soldiers for engaging in these practices all they have to do is point to the Bush Justice Department memo saying this is acceptable treatment.
By saying these practices are acceptable, we have approved them to be used against our soldiers
Well, I don't believe we have "approved them."
But I'll not argue semantics: Do you have any example of our adversaries in Iraq or Afganistan waterboarding, or otherwise torturing, US military personnel, and then the US government challenging the "legality" of such action?
In fact the government has a constitutional obligation to extract that information from the terrorists. "To Promote the General Welfare".
Getting information stop terrorists attacks is "general welfare".
Also the obligation to the government from the First Amendment
"Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic"
In other words there is a constitution obligation for the CIA to get the information to stop terrorist attacks, there is no constitutional right for illegal foreign combatants to not be waterboarded.
After WWII, we prosecuted both Germans and Japanese soldiers for participating in just these practices.
Now, if we were to attempt to prosecute other nations soldiers for engaging in these practices all they have to do is point to the Bush Justice Department memo saying this is acceptable treatment.
By saying these practices are acceptable, we have approved them to be used against our soldiers
Well, I don't believe we have "approved them."
But I'll not argue semantics: Do you have any example of our adversaries in Iraq or Afganistan waterboarding, or otherwise torturing, US military personnel, and then the US government challenging the "legality" of such action?
Come on Samson, you are usually better than this. As you well know there were not may US Soldiers captured by Iraq or Taliban forces.
So lets look at how th US reacted when we actually had people to prosecute for torture.
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In fact the government has a constitutional obligation to extract that information from the terrorists. "To Promote the General Welfare".
Getting information stop terrorists attacks is "general welfare".
Also the obligation to the government from the First Amendment
"Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic"
In other words there is a constitution obligation for the CIA to get the information to stop terrorist attacks, there is no constitutional right for illegal foreign combatants to not be waterboarded.
That my friend is a first..
Torturing is now considered an acceptable practice under "General Welfare"
However, assisting American citizens is not
Well, I don't believe we have "approved them."
But I'll not argue semantics: Do you have any example of our adversaries in Iraq or Afganistan waterboarding, or otherwise torturing, US military personnel, and then the US government challenging the "legality" of such action?
Come on Samson, you are usually better than this. As you well know there were not may US Soldiers captured by Iraq or Taliban forces.
So lets look at how th US reacted when we actually had people to prosecute for torture.
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
As usual you missed a part.
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
104] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[105][106][107]
Exactly..
Our soldiers have precisely that information. Our pilots have information on potential targets, tactics, vulnerabilities that would prevent the deaths of both military and civilians.
In fact, In Viet Nam they were considered to be war criminals by the VietNamese because of napalm attacks agains civilians.
By your reasoning, they were correct in torturing our pilots
Okay kindly try to focus.
Our soldiers did not target thousands of civilians to be murdered.
The 3 arch terrorists did target thousands of american civilians for murder.
See the difference?
Those conducting torture always hae a rationale as to why the victim deserves it and why the information they seek will save lives. The VietNamese believed the pilots were targeting civilians and were thus war criminals
That is why you have to have international standards of how prisoners should be humanely treated. Just because YOU think you will save lives by torturing someone does not make it just
Well...if our "soliders" were planning to target and murder thousands of civilians from another country, and they had the information to stop these attacks, then I would expect that if they were captured that the enemy could use waterboarding to get information to stop these attacks.
Exactly..
Our soldiers have precisely that information. Our pilots have information on potential targets, tactics, vulnerabilities that would prevent the deaths of both military and civilians.
In fact, In Viet Nam they were considered to be war criminals by the VietNamese because of napalm attacks agains civilians.
By your reasoning, they were correct in torturing our pilots
Okay kindly try to focus.
Our soldiers did not target thousands of civilians to be murdered.
The 3 arch terrorists did target thousands of american civilians for murder.
See the difference?
The law is based on opinions.
Hello??? We are discussing opinions.
Hello, opinions mean nothing if the law contravenes your wrong opinions.
Courts often make incorrect rulings. It's based on their opinions. Their opinions are not always the right ones.
Waterboarding is NOT torture. <snip: not relevant>.
Okay kindly try to focus.
Our soldiers did not target thousands of civilians to be murdered.
The 3 arch terrorists did target thousands of american civilians for murder.
See the difference?
Those conducting torture always hae a rationale as to why the victim deserves it and why the information they seek will save lives. The VietNamese believed the pilots were targeting civilians and were thus war criminals
That is why you have to have international standards of how prisoners should be humanely treated. Just because YOU think you will save lives by torturing someone does not make it just
The pilots were in uniform and represented this country which is considerably different than the inferior species that flew the planes into the towers.
There is a code of war and the US Constitution neither of which applies to these prisoners that you feel was so brutally tortured.
Come on Samson, you are usually better than this. As you well know there were not may US Soldiers captured by Iraq or Taliban forces.
So lets look at how th US reacted when we actually had people to prosecute for torture.
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com
The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
As usual you missed a part.
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
104] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[105][106][107]
Oh, I didn't realise we were fighting the Japanese in Iraq and Afganistan.
Carry on.
Idiots
As usual you missed a part.
Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
104] During the Japanese occupation of Singapore the Double Tenth Incident occurred. This included waterboarding, by the method of binding or holding down the victim on his back, placing a cloth over his mouth and nose, and pouring water onto the cloth. In this version, interrogation continued during the torture, with the interrogators beating the victim if he did not reply and the victim swallowing water if he opened his mouth to answer or breathe. When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach.[105][106][107]
Oh, I didn't realise we were fighting the Japanese in Iraq and Afganistan.
Carry on.
Idiots
The cuckoo sign belongs to your argument, Samson. History clearly illustrates exactly what constitutes torture. The lessons of WWII are instructive. That you want to dismiss them in no way helps your argument.
