musterion
Well-known member
ISIS wont and dont, that is what makes us better than them.
No, I want to hear the other leftists here say it.
ISIS wont and dont, that is what makes us better than them.
From your link :
Convention I:*This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.
That seems pretty comprehensive, and doesn't just depend on your dismissal of the word torture.
You make the claim you must back it up, where is your proof? A declaration is empty without proof.
I see Resodko posted for you...there was one part you missed in the article though:
"But it seems pretty clear we executed these men for charges that far surpass concerns about waterboarding."
there were far greater atrocities committed against the allied forces by the Japanese than waterboarding, in fact waterboarding is rather benign in comparison.
From your link :
Convention I:*This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.
That seems pretty comprehensive, and doesn't just depend on your dismissal of the word torture.
From your link :
Convention I:*This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel against attack, execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.
That seems pretty comprehensive, and doesn't just depend on your dismissal of the word torture.
I don't believe anyone has dismissed the word torture, what is being argued is whether waterboarding is torture by definition. Most folks, 59% of them say no.
You are the equivalent of an armchair Brit in the 1700s who insists the infantry square is not only militarily but morally superior, even in the face of Colonials going guerrilla. The difference is, they would do it out of a stupidly antiquated sense of honor. You do it because you want U.S. soldiers handicapped against fighters who YOU KNOW have neither rules, morals nor honor.What does this have to do with whether or not they hold themselves, and are held, to a higher standard?
"assaults upon personal dignity" ??? :freak:
my personal dignity would be offended if I was detained, so if i'm captured the bad guys hafta let me go
and my personal dignity would be offended if i didn't get a bag of fritos and a can of pepsi with every meal
Give us an example of how you would go about interrogating a mass murdering terrorist (who is not part of any standing army) without making him feel uncomfortable (which is torture in the minds of liberals).
and my personal dignity would be offended if i didn't get a bag of fritos and a can of pepsi with every meal
The word torture seems to mean different things to different people, but whatever you call it waterboarding is forbidden under American and international law.
Your dignity would certainly be offended if they stuffed your Pepsi and fritos up your backside.
you've been watching gay porn on the interwebs again, haven't you?
Neither of us are interrogation experts, so I can't answer you and you are not fit to judge my answer either.
However, the CIA interrogation experts seemed to have concluded that their methods were more effective than the torturing of prisoners that happened when they were overruled.
Yet one of us is abhorred at the thought of professional interrogators not being nice to mass murdering muzzies and the other one of us knows that they have a very important job to do.
Being that their interrogation techniques have resulted in getting vital information about an international terrorist network and because of that, both of our countries have little to no terrorist attacks, I'm ok with CIA interrogators not being nice to mass murderers.
You have that the wrong way round. It wasn't the professional interrogators that were doing the torture.
You have that the wrong way round. The CIA's experts objected to the waterboarding and other torture being brought in by people with no expertise in interrogation. Their interrogation techniques were only used after the waterboarding was stopped and proper, effective techniques were reinstated.
You seem to like the torture for its own sake, regardless of whether it was effective or not. The CIA experts said 'not'.
What isn't considered torture in the la la land world of liberals?
al-qaeda executions | |