|
Shock jock who supported torture changed by being waterboarded... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| yukii |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I understand the frustration. Your point is well taken. |
+1 same here.
edit: chyeah!!1 :p i've been searching for that gif for eons.
i've been wanting to make it my sig but ill just save it safely in my photobucket for opportune moments like these. :toocool: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I'm not going to get into a full blown torture debate with you going all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. Let's stick to waterboarding, which is what this topic is about. |
You'r already in a full blown torture debate. Waterboarding is torture and has been viewed as such by an overwhelming number of legal decisions, both international and domestic. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| Kevin, you didn't answer my question. You say that waterboarding isn't torture, from a legal standpoint. What about the Geneva Convention? Doesn't that specifically forbid this kind of 'advanced coercion'? |
|
|
| idoru |
Before I go to bed, I'll just point out that Krypton is a prime example of what I was talking about.
Good night, friends. Stu, I love you and want you inside me.  |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
Before I go to bed, I'll just point out that Krypton is a prime example of what I was talking about.
Good night, friends. Stu, I love you and want you inside me. |
You want me to compromise on torture? Not gonna happen. Also, I never referred to any specific political ideology or party, conservatives or liberals...never mentioned any of those labels. I'd find a better example than me m8... |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I have no idea what the Pierre precedent is. But I have something better.
We prosecuted this guy for water torture...
http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/asano_case.pdf
Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel, on February 14, 2008 testified:
There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law...http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/papercha...rized-under.php |
I know it's not authorized now. I didn't mean to imply that I was still arguing it's "legal" now, which I think I started to sound like... but it doesn't matter anyway since Obama ended its use. What I'm saying is that when it was used on those 3 guys it was legal, and it is impossible for the AG to say otherwise even now, that what they did was outside the bounds of the law (esp. when he was questioned about the Pierre precident and given the specific intent vs. general intent legal definitions).
| quote: | | The law in and of itself was ILLEGAL. That's why it is no longer used. The Bybee (torture) memos are defunct. Obama has already said many interrogators will not be prosecuted, and I generally agree with such a decision. But those at the top who authorized the moral degradation of America should face the hand of justice, have their law licenses stripped, and prosecuted for war crimes. |
Well, that may be the case... but I think the more dangerous precident being set is that of a new administration trying to prosecute policy decisions that they disagree with from the previous administrtion, which were legally made at the time. Stripping them of law licenses and things of that nature... that will only contribute to current attorneys being hesitant or scared to be involved in the legal practice of shaping policy for whoever the current administration is. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Kevin, you didn't answer my question. You say that waterboarding isn't torture, from a legal standpoint. What about the Geneva Convention? Doesn't that specifically forbid this kind of 'advanced coercion'? |
I'm not well versed enough with the G.C. to answer that. All I know is that the G.C. applies to actual soldiers wearing uniforms representative of their country's military.... and these barbarians who hide and dwell among civilians don't fit that match. I think someone else pointed out to me in the PDD something about how that's been overruled lately, but I haven't read both sides of that debate so I can't really say. Sorry dude! |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
Stu, I love you and want you inside me. |
There's no place I'd rather be :gsmile: |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
There's no place I'd rather be :gsmile: |
:wtf: |
|
|
| yukii |
i feel left out :(
ffft. fffffft. ffft. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I'm not well versed enough with the G.C. to answer that. All I know is that the G.C. applies to actual soldiers wearing uniforms representative of their country's military.... and these barbarians who hide and dwell among civilians don't fit that match. I think someone else pointed out to me in the PDD something about how that's been overruled lately, but I haven't read both sides of that debate so I can't really say. Sorry dude! |
From my understanding it applies to prisoners of war, you're right. It expressly forbids the use of torture or 'advanced coercion techniques' on POWs. |
|
|
| yukii |
nathan you shouldn't have put this thread in the cor :mad: it belongs in the political/debate :disbelief
edit: *ahem* its 12:23  |
|
|
|
|
