22
   

Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:43 am
@Setanta,
Typos during an insult about intelligence are delicious irony.

Mmmmm.... irony.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:51 am
@mysteryman,
Speaking of precedents, we did (US) prosecute others of using water boarding as war crimes, so we should prosecute those who authorized it to be used by our country as war crimes, period.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:53 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

**** you!
Ah, I see you've learned to use spell check. Good on you mate.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:00 am
Quote:
Should we prosecute torture as a war crime?


Yes, we should prosecute Islamic Terrorists that torture their captives.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:01 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

No. Just not in the mood to educate you and the rest of the the unwilling.



Translation: "My capacity to explain even my own positions is severely limited by the jelly-like substance that fills the space of my cranial cavity ordinarily reserved in other hominids for a brain."
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:19 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Some accountability would make me feel better. Or we could just sweep it under rug and wait for the next pro-torture administration to dig up the old memos and use the fact that no-0ne was prosecuted as precedent for their actions.


If thats the precedent you want to use, then that precedent goes back to before WW2.
The US has violated the Geneva Convention and committed war crimes at least as far back as WW2, so if nobody was prosecuted then, why should anyone be prosecuted now?

Uh, so that we can stop committing war crimes? You illustrate my point perfectly.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:20 am
@joefromchicago,


PrezBO is the worlds #1 Hominidae.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 02:48 pm
@FreeDuck,
Then would you be willing to prosecute every surviving member of every cabinet or executive office of every administration, starting with the FDR admin?

After all, is there a statute of limitations on "war crimes"?
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:20 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Then would you be willing to prosecute every surviving member of every cabinet or executive office of every administration, starting with the FDR admin?

After all, is there a statute of limitations on "war crimes"?

Well, I might be willing but I'm not a prosecutor and most of those people are probably dead. Still, the lack of past prosecutions does not prevent present ones. Indeed, it is exactly your argument that makes me advocate for prosecuting these ones. Otherwise, in 8 years when we get these same people back in power, we'll be doing it all over again. After all, they would argue that their crimes are not punishable because they never have been. Are you ok with that? What prevents future administrations from torturing again?

When my kid does something wrong and I punish him, I don't accept the argument that since I didn't punish his sister for every thing she did wrong then I can't punish him. A policeman doesn't have to ticket every speeder on the highway, and isn't prevented from issuing citations just because he didn't issue them yesterday, or the day before.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:46 am
I sure don't want to do abu Gruaib again, where we prosecute a few flunkies who were doing what their leaders wanted them to do. Most of the torture was done by the CIA, so the appropriate way to address this breakdown in law and American values is to deal with the CIA. We should disband the organization, and start a new intelligence organization. The CIA is to broken to fix, time to start over. Such a drastic action will dissuade the next bunch who considers going outside of the constitution.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 May, 2009 08:31 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I sure don't want to do abu Gruaib again, where we prosecute a few flunkies who were doing what their leaders wanted them to do. Most of the torture was done by the CIA, so the appropriate way to address this breakdown in law and American values is to deal with the CIA. We should disband the organization, and start a new intelligence organization. The CIA is to broken to fix, time to start over. Such a drastic action will dissuade the next bunch who considers going outside of the constitution.


I think we need to start by prosecuting the lawyers who justified it and the vice president who advocated for it. The torture was widespread in the military and the CIA, suggesting that leadership of both was involved. Remember the guy who had his legs beaten to a pulp and died in Afghanistan? Jose Padilla (a US citizen, OmSigDavid will be interested to know)? The torture was pervasive and systemic. I think we need to address it at the top.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2009 07:11 pm
@mysteryman,
Really, really lame, MM. You should be ashamed of yourself. [take note of the intonation used on "should"]
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 11:03 am
Does the fact that some of the findings of the 9/11 commission cite intelligence gained by torture, and that Colin Powell's speech to the UN cited evidenced against Iraq garnered by torture change anyone's answer?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 03:42 pm
@FreeDuck,
Didn't the buck stop with Bush?
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 04:58 pm
@dlowan,
The buck did. But the string tied to it was held by Cheney.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2009 07:13 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

The buck did. But the string tied to it was held by Cheney.


nice.

let ol' grampa dick keep going on any show he can and keep talking. at some point, because he's not nearly as smart as he believes he is, he will say that one thing too many.

on tape. in front of millions.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 02:02 pm

Today in the news

Ret. Gen. Antonio Taguba confirms unreleased photos show U.S. personnel engaging in rape and sexual torture in several Iraqi prisons

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLS172193

Seymour Hersh, Right Again
"Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? ... They are in total terror it's going
to come out." " Hersh, July 7, 2004

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2004/7/14/193750/666

see Mike Moore's site: http://www.michaelmoore.com/



One hour ago
Pentagon denies report Iraq prison photos show rape
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN28341544



America - please. Prosecute.



McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 04:01 pm
@Endymion,

Will General Taguba be interviewed on TV?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 02:55 pm
@Endymion,
Quote:
America - please. Prosecute.


I don't think there are enough prosecutors in the whole US of A to handle all the sordid deeds from the long and terrible history of needless oppression.

But hey, ya gotta start somewhere.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 10:55 pm
@FreeDuck,
If a federal prosecutor believes there is a criminal case to be made against George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Tenant, or whomever, then he or she should attempt to obtain the appropriate indictment.

We should have a national debate (with some teeth in it) on this topic and bringing charges against a former president will surely launch such a debate.

You realize, of course, that President Obama has reserved the right to authorize enhanced interrogation techniques (excluding, I believe, waterboarding), and since you apparently believe that torture was practiced in Abu Ghraib, I am assuming that if our current president ever authorizes enhanced interrogation techniques that you believe that he too should be prosecuted for authorizing torture and that you will not waffle because of concern for innocent lives or national security.

I also assume every week that I will win the lottery.

It isn't going to happen though because Barrack Obama is now the President and he realizes that to allow such a prosecution to take place will open the door for him to be prosecuted should he cross a gray line.

Presumably someone (on this thread) has or can offer a "legal" justification for other countries prosecuting an American official for alleged crimes that are neither committed on the soil of that country nor against its citizens, but it is utter nonsense.

I might find the idea a bit more acceptable if I saw these countries who fashion themselves champions of international law attempting to prosecute
Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong Il, Ali Khameni, Basshar Al-Assad, or Robert Mugabe (to name but a few).

Only an muddy headed partisan will think that it is appropriate to allow someone like Baltasar Garzon to prosecute American officials for alleged crimes that did not take place in his country or against his fellow citizens.

If it is really necessary to explain why this is a horrible idea (no matter what your political persuasion may be) then the mud has, apparently, solidified.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:55:55