US Senate Votes To Ban Torture

[Claudette]

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none?

Because that is what separates us from the enemy, retard.

You morons seem to believe that torture is the only way to get information. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

Bullshit. As Marty says, that moral high ground looks good as long as your alive to see the view.

You morons seem to think water boarding is torture. I don't. Hell we've water boarded our own troops. Doubt they considered it torture and as for you not thinking they got info. Your wrong. Dead wrong and I'm sure LA would agree.

CIA Waterboarding Produced Intel That Stopped Attack on Los Angeles by Terence Jeffrey on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

Oh mayby they would spill their cuts for cookies and a glass of milk. Moron.

 

[Claudette]

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none?

Because that is what separates us from the enemy, retard.

You morons seem to believe that torture is the only way to get information. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

No retard its what gives them the edge when dealing with us. They know we are to soft to do anything that some other country might disapprove of. We have a country full of bleeding hearts who think these shitbags have rights.

Since I don't consider waterboarding torture I beg to differ. Hell. We water boarded our own troops and I doubt they thought it was torture.

As for it not producing results?? I think LA would beg to differ. Moron.

troophttp://www.creators.com/conservative/terence-jeffrey/cia-waterboarding-produced-intel-that-stopped-attack-on-los-angeles.htmls.

Who knows what else they may have learned that we will never hear about??

 

[g5000]

Since I don't consider waterboarding torture I beg to differ.

That's because you are a nazi. We prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime after World War II. It was official US policy that waterboarding is torture until you generation of nazis came along.

As for it not producing results?? I think LA would beg to differ. Moron.

troophttp://www.creators.com/conservative/terence-jeffrey/cia-waterboarding-produced-intel-that-stopped-attack-on-los-angeles.htmls.

First, that bullshit has been thoroughly debunked: Why al-Qaida s plot to bomb L.A. s Library Tower didn t warrant torture.


Second, what I said was you retards think torture is the ONLY way to get such information. Wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Nice guys always finish last especially fighting a war with an enemy that plays by NO rules.

Soooooo..... playing with torture in direct violation of GPW 17 and our own established policies .... amounts to playing by what rules exactly?

Wacknut.

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none? That's just plain stupid. You fight fire with fire.

I doubt any of our troops will be beheading anyone and putting it on Al Jazira for the Muslim worlds viewing pleasure. Too bad. They might actually decide we aren't soft Americans.

Wackanut you certainly are as well as an asshole. LOL

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

 

[rightwinger]

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none?

Because that is what separates us from the enemy, retard.

You morons seem to believe that torture is the only way to get information. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

The moral high ground only has a good view if you are still alive to look down from it.

The problem is you idiots define any form of coercion as "torture"

We leave our people left with nothing except the soft pillow, and the comfy chair.

The boundaries of torture have been long establihed by civilized societies

We have been crossing those boundaries

 

[martybegan]

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none?

Because that is what separates us from the enemy, retard.

You morons seem to believe that torture is the only way to get information. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

The moral high ground only has a good view if you are still alive to look down from it.

The problem is you idiots define any form of coercion as "torture"

We leave our people left with nothing except the soft pillow, and the comfy chair.

The boundaries of torture have been long establihed by civilized societies

We have been crossing those boundaries

is drugging the daylights out of them until they don't know down from up torture? Some people would day yes. Is sleep deprivation, stimuli isolation, or survival rationing torture? Some people would say yes.

 

[martybegan]

Nice guys always finish last especially fighting a war with an enemy that plays by NO rules.

Soooooo..... playing with torture in direct violation of GPW 17 and our own established policies .... amounts to playing by what rules exactly?

Wacknut.

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none? That's just plain stupid. You fight fire with fire.

I doubt any of our troops will be beheading anyone and putting it on Al Jazira for the Muslim worlds viewing pleasure. Too bad. They might actually decide we aren't soft Americans.

Wackanut you certainly are as well as an asshole. LOL

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

 

[Pogo]

>> In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

... On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. << -- Waterboarding: A Tortured History
​

 

[Pogo]

Moral high ground my ass. That gets soldiers killed.

-- Link?

That ridiculous moral high ground doesn't do you one bit of good when your fighting an enemy that plays by no ones rules.

As for Gitmo. Its the best place for those shitbags. Hell. They should execute all of em not release em to go back to whatever shithole they crawled out of to kill more of our soldiers.

Idiots like you make me sick. You think more of your "moral high ground" than you do about our soldiers.

Hope your ass never lands in the Middle east. We'd just how long that moral high ground you tout would last.

Links and there are more than these two.

.US Troops Fed Up With Insane Rules of Engagement - Victoria Jackson

Rules of engagement bind U.S. troops actions in Afghanistan - Washington Times

You actually answered that with ........ Victoria Jackson???

​

Lemme get this straight.... we've got the Army Field Manual, Interrogation specialists in Iraq and Afghanistan, CIA experts, the Geneva Convention, centuries of experience worldwide that knows it doesn't work, and now an overwhelming bipartisan Congressional vote....

And you've got ... Victoria Jackson.

That should tell you something.

 

[rightwinger]

Nice guys always finish last especially fighting a war with an enemy that plays by NO rules.

Soooooo..... playing with torture in direct violation of GPW 17 and our own established policies .... amounts to playing by what rules exactly?

Wacknut.

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none? That's just plain stupid. You fight fire with fire.

I doubt any of our troops will be beheading anyone and putting it on Al Jazira for the Muslim worlds viewing pleasure. Too bad. They might actually decide we aren't soft Americans.

Wackanut you certainly are as well as an asshole. LOL

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

 

[martybegan]

>> In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

... On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. << -- Waterboarding: A Tortured History
​

it would be all well and good if the recent cases involved soldiers, which they do not. One of the downsides of being an unlawful combatant is you don't get the protections given to soldiers under the rules of war.

and the last one was done by law enforcement on civilian prisoners, again, not the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

Nice guys always finish last especially fighting a war with an enemy that plays by NO rules.

Soooooo..... playing with torture in direct violation of GPW 17 and our own established policies .... amounts to playing by what rules exactly?

Wacknut.

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none? That's just plain stupid. You fight fire with fire.

I doubt any of our troops will be beheading anyone and putting it on Al Jazira for the Muslim worlds viewing pleasure. Too bad. They might actually decide we aren't soft Americans.

Wackanut you certainly are as well as an asshole. LOL

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

 

[rightwinger]

Soooooo..... playing with torture in direct violation of GPW 17 and our own established policies .... amounts to playing by what rules exactly?

Wacknut.

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none? That's just plain stupid. You fight fire with fire.

I doubt any of our troops will be beheading anyone and putting it on Al Jazira for the Muslim worlds viewing pleasure. Too bad. They might actually decide we aren't soft Americans.

Wackanut you certainly are as well as an asshole. LOL

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

 

[martybegan]

My question is why should we play by the rules when the enemy has none? That's just plain stupid. You fight fire with fire.

I doubt any of our troops will be beheading anyone and putting it on Al Jazira for the Muslim worlds viewing pleasure. Too bad. They might actually decide we aren't soft Americans.

Wackanut you certainly are as well as an asshole. LOL

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

 

[deltex1]

Does it have any affect on rdean or luddly threads? I consider those torture.

Add rightwanger to that.

 

[Claudette]

Since I don't consider waterboarding torture I beg to differ.

That's because you are a nazi. We prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime after World War II. It was official US policy that waterboarding is torture until you generation of nazis came along.

As for it not producing results?? I think LA would beg to differ. Moron.

troophttp://www.creators.com/conservative/terence-jeffrey/cia-waterboarding-produced-intel-that-stopped-attack-on-los-angeles.htmls.

First, that bullshit has been thoroughly debunked: Why al-Qaida s plot to bomb L.A. s Library Tower didn t warrant torture.


Second, what I said was you retards think torture is the ONLY way to get such information. Wrong. Dead wrong.

Natzi?? No I'm a realist who sees what we need to do and your a bleeding heart idiot who thinks shitbag murderes deserve to be treated like POW's with all the rules that apply.

Since I don't see water boarding as torture just another way to gather intel, then the point is really moot.

Hell we've water boarded our own troops. I know a guy who was water boarded. I asked him what he thought. He told me is scared the shit outta him but that's all it did. No harm whatsoever was done to him or those with him who were water boarded.

Your a bleeding heart idiot who's more concerned with appearances. What others will think and not what we should be doing.

Apparently you think its we who need to play by the rules while the other side has no rules.

You seem to think that makes us the good guys traveling that moral high road instead of the idiots we are for doing so. That somehow that makes us better than those we fight. It just makes us weaker.

Water boarding isn't the only way to get info but its one of the ways. Before you know it all ways will be considered torture then we can simply ask them to spill their guts. I'm sure they will. Aren't you??

 

[rightwinger]

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?

 

[g5000]

Because we are a civilized society and they are not

Giving up our moral values because of the actions of some criminals does not absolve us. We do not allow criminals to set the moral bar for us

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

He crossed the border with guns. So yeah. That's what we would call him were the situation reversed. Sean Hannity would be screaming for "the invader" to be tortured.

 

[martybegan]

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?

Actually how you conduct yourself matters a great deal when it comes to the rules of war, and how you are treated. Again, all of this is based on reciprocity, and if the other side doesn't want to play along, they do not deserve the protections the rules allow.

and no, US citizens shouldn't be subjected to that unless they decide to become unlawful combatants, then remove their citizenship and fuck them.

 

[deltex1]

If not playing by the rules has no downside, why play by the rules. The concept behind things like the Geneva convention is reciprocity, i.e. we follow the rules and you follow the rules. If there is no downside or punishment for not following the rules, for example when we hold ourselves to them and the other side does not, what's the point?

Exactly

Criminals will not play by the rules. But when the US engages in torture, we are openly allowing OUR soldiers to receive the same treatment from any enemy

We can no longer complain if our soldiers are waterboarded, frozen nearly to death, deprived of sleep for days, put into stress positions until they scream

That is the standard we have set

first of all the other side would do it anyway, because they already have shown they have no regard for the laws of war. Our soldiers are uniformed lawful combatants, if the other side wants the protections we have, they have to do the same thing. But they won't, because that's not what they are.

Remember that Marine who was held by Mexico for so long?

What if Mexico had waterboarded him, froze him, denied him sleep and placed him in stress positions till he confessed to crimes?

What right would the US have to complain about his treatment?
After all, we claim that treatment is acceptable for prisoners

Was he an unlawful combatant?

Human rights are still human rights whether you wear a uniform or not

Would you support a US citizen whether in uniform or not, being subjected to waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep denial or stress positions to obtain a confession?

Not to obtain a confession...but yes to obtain information about his cohorts who are also planning evil deeds.