Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we're going to hold up international law as a standard, we should reflect upon it's enforcement and power.
Imagine that we live next door to each other and I steal from your house every day when you leave. You catch me on video, turn it over to the police and they drop all charges every single time. Or they tell me I have to give it back but there is no penalty for ignoring the order.
What then?
I'm not holding up international law as the standard. I'm saying that Gina Haspel operated a black ops site in a foreign country in order to torture prisoners. The reason for black ops sites is to avoid violating laws in various countries, however how prisoners get to the black ops sites is likely in violation of US laws, as well as numerous other countries' laws, and the torture that is conducted on them is likely in violation of US laws, as well as the laws of numerous other countries. I'm saying that Ms Haspel's actions have been documented in the Congressional Record. Her actions may have violated international law, and I suspect that there are several countries who would like to prosecute her. However she is protected by the federal government of the United States, and so will likely never have to deal with being prosecuted. That said, the FACT that she engaged in black ops sites, and in torture, speaks to her morals, ethics and character. And that should be salient to the Senate's review of her nomination for CIA director.
Oh my God, now I am not being honest with myself.
Give me a break!
Why do you have to do such an idiotic thing?
If you have made your damned mind about me, then why bother even having ANY type of conversation with me then?
I have an opinion, the American way of waterboarding is not "torture", that is my OPINION. I certainly don't know why you are now saying" I am not being honest with myself." Holy crap
Just because I don't agree with you, that means I am not being honest with myself? Are you for real?
I'm saying that the lengths you are going to defend waterboarding as not torture tells us that you do not approve of torture. And that your parsing of waterboarding (the American way versus the, what?, the terrorist way?) tells us that you do think some waterboarding is torture, just not all waterboarding. Which means you cannot defend other waterboarding techniques except the "American way", and as regards Ms Haspel, how do you know what technique she employed at black ops sites?
I'm saying that the lengths you are going to defend waterboarding as not torture tells us that you do not approve of torture. And that your parsing of waterboarding (the American way versus the, what?, the terrorist way?) tells us that you do think some waterboarding is torture, just not all waterboarding. Which means you cannot defend other waterboarding techniques except the "American way", and as regards Ms Haspel, how do you know what technique she employed at black ops sites?
I have no words for you. Since you said i wasn't being honest with myself, no words need to be exchanged between the two of us.
I certainly haven't personally attacked you.
Like I said personal attack is not counter argument.
No, He and many of us believe that "innocent until proven guilty."
The constitution is specific, "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court." Thus, until a person is found guilt, that person is innocent.
So she is innocent, your personal opinion of her is irrelevant.
President Obama decided not to prosecute anyone who followed orders, or officials who approved the policy. There is a reason for that.
The Congressional Record documents her involvement with torture and black ops sites. Innocent until proven guilty applies to someone who's been arrested. Gina Haspel wasn't arrested because she tortured people at black ops sites, abroad, not in the United States. I believe that there are other countries that would like to try her, but the federal government of the United States is preventing that.
And I would further point out that the people Ms Haspel tortured weren't given the courtesy of a trial. They weren't convicted in a court of law, and sentenced to be tortured. Because no court in the United States would pass such a sentence. We don't torture. Period. That's called a principle. Just because some people wormed their way around it after 9/11 doesn't make torture okay. It's wrong.
I have no words for you. Since you said i wasn't being honest with myself, no words need to be exchanged between the two of us.
I certainly haven't personally attacked you.
Like I said personal attack is not counter argument.
I'm sorry if you feel that I was attacking you. I sincerely didn't intend it to be that way. I actually was crediting you to be a moral person, and was arguing that, in order to take such an immoral position, a moral person would have to be dishonest with themselves.
The Congressional Record documents her involvement with torture and black ops sites. Innocent until proven guilty applies to someone who's been arrested. Gina Haspel wasn't arrested because she tortured people at black ops sites, abroad, not in the United States. I believe that there are other countries that would like to try her, but the federal government of the United States is preventing that.
And I would further point out that the people Ms Haspel tortured weren't given the courtesy of a trial. They weren't convicted in a court of law, and sentenced to be tortured. Because no court in the United States would pass such a law. We don't torture. Period. That's called a principle. Just because some people wormed their way around it after 9/11 doesn't make torture okay. It's wrong.
The pink needs to be changed, I would agree with that.
However, Obama decided not to prosecute anyone who followed orders, or officials who approved the policy. There is a reason for that.
All these being said,
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.
Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power.
The general understanding is that
If combatants violates the rules of war or not wearing proper uniforms or insignia to show the enemy they're legitimate targets while operating behind enemy lines, they don't qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
I've seen my brother's military ID once. On the back of his ID, there is a line says how he should be treated as a pow once captured. I dont remember exactly what it is, I think it is just an indicator that he should be treated as an E5 once captured
But I doubt the terrorists would look at that ID of his and say, "Oh, let's treat this dude like an E5" LOL
The pink needs to be changed, I would agree with that.
However, Obama decided not to prosecute anyone who followed orders, or officials who approved the policy. There is a reason for that.
All these being said,
If there is any doubt as to whether the person benefits from "combatant" status, they must be held as a POW until they have faced a "competent tribunal" (GCIII Art 5) to decide the issue.
Most unprivileged combatants who do not qualify for protection under the Third Geneva Convention do so under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV),[4] which concerns civilians, until they have had a "fair and regular trial". If found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power.
The general understanding is that
If combatants violates the rules of war or not wearing proper uniforms or insignia to show the enemy they're legitimate targets while operating behind enemy lines, they don't qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
I've seen my brother's military ID once. On the back of his ID, there is a line says how he should be treated as a pow once captured. But I doubt the terrorists would look at that ID of his and say, "Oh, let's treat this dude like an E5" LOL
I understand your concern for your brother. I have brothers as well, and can certainly understand your concerns if he were to be captured. That said, the terrorists are bad people, and they do bad things. Terrorism itself is mostly directed at the innocent. But the fact that terrorists torture people does not mean that the people fighting terrorism, the people defending the innocent, the people assuming the higher ground, should commit torture. Not only is it morally wrong, it's also been shown to be non-productive.
I never understood why we don't use truth serum instead. Seems faster and cheaper. Or is truth serum a myth, like gun silencers?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
