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.
You can doubt all you want that the people lost on 9/11 would object to our government torturing international prisoners.
I might add, the reason for the rule of law and the principle of collective retribution is that the state can prosecut wrongs in a cold and unbiased manner. I would think that many of the survioring family of 9/11 victims, just like the surviving family members of any horrendous crime if left to their own devices would employ methods of retribution that we as a society, while sympathic, would find abhorent. That is why the state is entrusted with seeking justice.
I cited the actual source, the document itself. Which is obviously more than you are capable. You have to scrap and scrounge to find extremely dubious links that fit your agenda. Why don't you cite the Huffington Post and Salon next, since you clearly think that kind of trash is credible?
I cited the actual source, the document itself. Which is obviously more than you are capable. You have to scrap and scrounge to find extremely dubious links that fit your agenda. Why don't you cite the Huffington Post and Salon next, since you clearly think that kind of trash is credible?
Wow. You obviously did not even open up my links.
You did not cite the actual document yourself. You cited an outdated webpage that has no association with the UN, whatsoever. You simply did a google search and picked the first link, which happened to be outdated.
Show me where you cited the actual document, updated through 1994.
I might add, the reason for the rule of law and the principle of collective retribution is that the state can prosecut wrongs in a cold and unbiased manner. I would think that many of the survioring family of 9/11 victims, just like the surviving family members of any horrendous crime if left to their own devices would employ methods of retribution that we as a society, while sympathic, would find abhorent. That is why the state is entrusted with seeking justice.
Good point. If someone kidnapped my child no doubt about it if I caught someone who I felf had info I would pull out all the stops and do what ever my frantic mind dreamed up. Here in is the hypocrcy of any who say they wouldn't torture terrorists. They would if the target was their family.
I myself have said I don't agree with torture. I am not lieing because I don't. I also accept that if I were the potential victim I would do anything to prevent it. I am honest.
Remember the question during the debates? If we a knew that a nuke was somewhere in the country and we captured someone who had information would you approve torture to extract information? Most lied and said no. Bill Clinton himself said that he would.( This from an interview) 1 of the few times that he was honest.
A nuke? Potentially millions of lives at risk? I would hope that our government would do what ever it took to prevent such a disaster.
The argument we all know that the Bush Admin makes is they question is waterboarding torture. Most of us when we think of torture we think of thinks that damage or mutilate the subject. For example a full body massage from Janet Reno. LOL J/k
We signed it. It restricted OUR actions. Does our word mean anything?
Not in this case, because the document was symbolic. We would not have signed it if it was going to rob us of the ability to protect our nation. The wording of that document was so vague that it was laughable.
My source is from the document itself. Your sources are Amnesty International, the ACLU, and Wikipedia. Why didn't you cite the Cartoon Network, they have even more credibility than your sources?
Your sources is NOT from the document itself.
But here is a link to the United Nations, a press release, that clearly lists the United States as one of the countries who has RATIFIED the UN CAT.
I cited the actual source, the document itself. Which is obviously more than you are capable. You have to scrap and scrounge to find extremely dubious links that fit your agenda. Why don't you cite the Huffington Post and Salon next, since you clearly think that kind of trash is credible?
You did NOT cite the document itself.
Go to the United Nations website to get the document.
You did not cite the actual document yourself. You cited an outdated webpage that has no association with the UN, whatsoever. You simply did a google search and picked the first link, which happened to be outdated.
Show me where you cited the actual document, updated through 1994.
You apparently didn't bother to read the source I cited. It states quite clearly that it was last updated January 25, 1997. Three years AFTER your lie about ratification.
Not in this case, because the document was symbolic. We would not have signed it if it was going to rob us of the ability to protect our nation. The wording of that document was so vague that it was laughable.
We signed it in 1988. We ratified it in 1994. We weren't engaging in symbolism. We were obligating ourselves, and we took our time in going about it. Try again.
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.
