drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 When did anyone rule waterboarding was ILLEGAL? Are you not reading the thread? In 1947 when we sent the Japanese to prison for 15 years for waterboarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Are you not reading the thread? In 1947 when we sent the Japanese to prison for 15 years for waterboarding. And that's the crux of this matter. The United States of America deemed waterboarding "torture" ... until WE decided to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 It's not unheard of for soldiers (particularly those at high risk of capture and interrogation) to be trained to understand and resist interrogation. Ironically, that letter weakens the Bush administration's policy: if waterboarding is part of the training to resist torture, then it must be a form of torture, QED. I'm glad someone else spotted that irony as well. On another note, I have my suspicions the letter is bogus but need to further investigate to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I'm not able to opine on others, but my simplistic approach to war says that if we are forced to operate on the "other guys" battlefield, we had better be ready to adopt/adapt to the enemies tactics. Interrogation, enhanced interrogation, torture...what do these words mean to our enemies (given that we don't even know what they mean to us)? Where does one draw the line between the preceeding three concepts? Shouldn't we have efficient and effective tactics in our arsenal when confronting the enemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 I'm not able to opine on others, but my simplistic approach to war says that if we are forced to operate on the "other guys" battlefield, we had better be ready to adopt/adapt to the enemies tactics. Interrogation, enhanced interrogation, torture...what do these words mean to our enemies (given that we don't even know what they mean to us)? Where does one draw the line between the preceeding three concepts? Shouldn't we have efficient and effective tactics in our arsenal when confronting the enemy? Sure............and then when we figure it out, tell the enemy/world what it is. Seems to be working so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Sure............and then when we figure it out, tell the enemy/world what it is. Seems to be working so far. Shep Smith said it very well... we don't get to torture. This is America, and we do not torture. We've signed treaties on it, prosecuted others for doing it. We are above torture, and can not do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 Shep Smith said it very well... we don't get to torture. This is America, and we do not torture. We've signed treaties on it, prosecuted others for doing it. We are above torture, and can not do it. ...your posts are torturing me. Please stop, Oh please stop, stop, stop Oh please!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 ...your posts are torturing me. Please stop, Oh please stop, stop, stop Oh please!! The truth hurts, don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And that's the crux of this matter. The United States of America deemed waterboarding "torture" ... until WE decided to do it. Anyone want to explain the difference betwen domestic and international law to blzrul and conner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Anyone want to explain the difference betwen domestic and international law to blzrul and conner? Cuz Japan and Iraq are not international? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Anyone want to explain the difference betwen domestic and international law to blzrul and conner? I think it was best explained by Duey Oxburger. "See, we're in Italy. The guy on the top bunk has gotta make the guy on bottom's bunk. He's gotta make his bunk all the time. See, it's in the regulations. See, if we were in Germany I would have to make yours, but we're in Italy and you gotta make mine. It's regulations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 The truth hurts, don't it? Yes it does. I'd rather be water boarded than read anymore of your inane posts. Uncle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Cuz Japan and Iraq are not international? You are an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Anyone want to explain the difference betwen domestic and international law to blzrul and conner? Anyone want to explain enemy combatants vs. no status combatants according to the geneva convention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Anyone want to explain enemy combatants vs. no status combatants according to the geneva convention? Just so we're on the same page.. what status were the prisoners at Guantanamo? What status do you think KSM was under? Prisoner of war, non-combatant? (I could not find the answer.. I think he's enemy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Just so we're on the same page.. what status were the prisoners at Guantanamo? What status do you think KSM was under? Prisoner of war, non-combatant? (I could not find the answer.. I think he's enemy) Nope. No status because he is a enemy agent from a country other than where he was captured. technically a spy. the only thing you and I agree on is that he should never have gone to gitmo and bush was being nice. he should have been given a field trial, tortured for information after being found guilty and executed as such. That is what the manual says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I think it was best explained by Duey Oxburger. "See, we're in Italy. The guy on the top bunk has gotta make the guy on bottom's bunk. He's gotta make his bunk all the time. See, it's in the regulations. See, if we were in Germany I would have to make yours, but we're in Italy and you gotta make mine. It's regulations." "Well sir, we were going to this bingo parlor at the YMCA, well one thing led to another, and the instructions got all fouled up..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Nope. No status because he is a enemy agent from a country other than where he was captured. technically a spy. the only thing you and I agree on is that he should never have gone to gitmo and bush was being nice. he should have been given a field trial, tortured for information after being found guilty and executed as such. That is what the manual says. What manual? Link? Anyways... boy would Bush argue with whoever tortured him if he knew about it. "This government does not torture". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Just so we're on the same page.. what status were the prisoners at Guantanamo? What status do you think KSM was under? Prisoner of war, non-combatant? (I could not find the answer.. I think he's enemy) Legally, he's of indeterminate status, pending a military hearing to determine what his status might be. That's according to domestic law and the Geneva Convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nixon Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Legally, he's of indeterminate status, pending a military hearing to determine what his status might be. That's according to domestic law and the Geneva Convention. Have you heard about Brady Quinn being traded to Buffalo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts