EPTFirst hand experience from someone who has experienced waterboarding.
Condoleezza Rice on "torture" / waterboarding. - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Syntax Lost
Finland86 Posts
First hand experience from someone who has experienced waterboarding. | ||
|
NiTenIchiRyu
United Kingdom273 Posts
On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote: Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution. So what you're basically trying to say is that there is no legislation on Human Rights. Furthermore, you do not possess any rights under any constitution other than your own so your argument fails. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
I'm 100% for the death penalty. IF it's 100% sure the person to torture or kill is guilty person. If you are not 100% sure, which you nearly never will be, go fuck yourself and don't even think about doing stuff like this. 9/11 was no attack, you weren't on a war or anything because of it. Because of 9/11 you began 2 wars. One semi justified (Afghanistan - at least the Terrorists really hid there), one not justified (Iraq). If Saddam or the Taliban are assholes does not matter on that Topic. You don't kill Terrorism by torturing people or fighting wars, that’s just not how it works. If simulating drowning is not torture then basically nothing is torture. If retard soldiers do it to yourselves for the kicks or some training than well, go on, by volunteering to the army you already passed the retard test so you might also put bamboo under your finger nails. | ||
|
barth
Ireland1272 Posts
 | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
On May 14 2009 04:21 Jathin wrote: Ah, authorized by the president -- therefore not illegal. It's all so clear now, thanks Condi! Same rationale for the Patriot Act, which was also blatantly unconstitutional. Seeing a pattern here... I really can't understand why conservatives keep trying to defend the Bush administration. They had their chance, they fucked it up and if they broke the law, they must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Torture is illegal by federal law and by the Geneva Convention, which we signed. Trying to say waterboarding isn't torture is possibly the worst argument ever. | ||
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On May 14 2009 23:05 FortuneSyn wrote: Are you all still arguing against this Agraean guy? Seriously, ignore him and just hope he dies in a war. Shut up. I don't agree with him either, but that's one too far. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 22:26 NiTenIchiRyu wrote: So what you're basically trying to say is that there is no legislation on Human Rights. Furthermore, you do not possess any rights under any constitution other than your own so your argument fails. You forfeit your abstract 'human rights', given by whom and what is unknown, when you enter the battlefield through proxies, wearing no uniform, belonging to no national army, militia, or other recognized entity, and start shooting at US Soldiers and civillians. These people deserve no rights. Even the VC at least wore uniforms, had a unified structure and command, and fell under POW status. What about my arguement fails again? They are not US citizens, thus they do not get the rights afforded by the US Constitution. That is pretty simple to grasp. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 23:34 Velr wrote: Why? He enlisted, he practically gave up his free will to be able to die for his country fighting against mukdips if his beloved president says so... Ah yes, disdain for the military who protects you, typical liberal drivel. You can all hold hands and sing kumbayah, and let other people protect your weak asses. You don't give up your free will when you join. I have as much free will as when I entered. Hell, even as a PO3 I am able to influence and direct many resources and I can update, create, change SOP's etc. to become more efficient by going through the chain. We are not mindless drones, in fact, most of us are smarter than the average 'civilian'. In fact, just about everyone I work with is extremely smart, and has at least their bachelors. Liberals love painting the military as 90 IQ idiots, when it's the complete opposite. In my company in boot camp, I wasn't even in the top 8 smartest and I have an IQ of 134 last time I took the proctored MENSA test. We'll see if you say the same thing when 3,000+ swiss just die in a ball of flame one day. I'm sure you'll quickly change your rhetoric. Unlike you, and most Americans, I actually have high regard for my founding fathers, their intentions, and what they stood for. Well, I guess this isn't surprising coming from a swiss person, who's country has no spine, who's been found to willingly hold on to and keep stolen family heirlooms, war trophies, valuables by the Nazi's in WWII. Have you guys ever fought, for anything? Do you guys, believe in anything? | ||
|
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
On May 14 2009 08:53 Archerofaiur wrote: I have an Anti-Polar Bear Rock to sell you. Hahahahaha | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 14 2009 23:40 Aegraen wrote: The idea of universal human rights is frivolous, but I think you're wrong in criticizing their tactics, even if its understandable given the threats they pose to your fellow enlisted men. Honor is a relative thing, and it goes out the door when your side is losing.You forfeit your abstract 'human rights', given by whom and what is unknown, when you enter the battlefield through proxies, wearing no uniform, belonging to no national army, militia, or other recognized entity, and start shooting at US Soldiers and civillians. These people deserve no rights. Even the VC at least wore uniforms, had a unified structure and command, and fell under POW status. What about my arguement fails again? They are not US citizens, thus they do not get the rights afforded by the US Constitution. That is pretty simple to grasp. This really depends on a few things. The Constitution covers people on US soil, so Gitmo detainees who have been extradited from within the US (there's been plenty from around here, Dearborn MI) do have rights. Places like Bagram are strictly filled with captured fighters, but the Supreme Court found habeus corpus does apply to unlawful/enemy combatants at Gitmo (which had its meaning changed under Bush anyways), so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Justice Kennedy is a liberal puss puss? | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 23:41 Jibba wrote: Because in the few posts Agraean has made, he's shown himself to be far more intelligent than you have in your 710, even if I wholly disagree with him. Thank you, we can disagree, and I will even sling out politically charged statements, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence unless it's painfully obvious they have no training, idea, or cognizant ability to grasp the material being discussed. I'm used to it though. These are the same code pink fanatics, collegiate hooligans, ACORN house busting, Union arm wrangling bleeding heart liberals I have to deal with all the time. I've heard every pejorative in the dictionary thrown at me. Doesn't bother me one iota, because I actually believe in the founding ideals of America and that is far more important than having to lambast the hysterical left all the time. (Though it is fun at times making them eat their words) | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 14 2009 23:54 Jibba wrote: The idea of universal human rights is frivolous, but I think you're wrong in criticizing their tactics, even if its understandable given the threats they pose to your fellow enlisted men. Honor is a relative thing, and it goes out the door when your side is losing. This really depends on a few things. The Constitution covers people on US soil, so Gitmo detainees who have been extradited from within the US (there's been plenty from around here, Dearborn MI) do have rights. Places like Bagram are strictly filled with captured fighters, but the Supreme Court found habeus corpus does apply to unlawful/enemy combatants at Gitmo (which had its meaning changed under Bush anyways), so I'm not really sure what you're getting at with this. Justice Kennedy is a liberal puss puss? I agree. They employ unorthodox tactics, but my point was, by doing so, any 'abstract rights' they might have had according to other posters was thrown out the window the second they started to fight that way. Secondly, when we go after them we are portrayed as inhumane because there will always be civilian casualties when they mix within the civilian ranks, wear no uniforms, and use civilians as shields. The media around the world is so disgustingly biased it's a puke fest. (Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks, the safety of myself, my family, and my country is hell of a lot more important than the impressions of my country by other countries) I didn't say the puss puss comment, though I thought it was hilarious and fitting. I think its absurd to expect US soldiers do conduct law enforcement tapings of 'crime scenes' on the battlefield. This is WAR! not the streets of east LA. I hate how the left always see's every conflict as a law enforcement issue. It's absurd, and puts US servicemen in tremendous harm. Let us conduct our operations without your politicized non-sense and preconceived notions. PS: I think the whole SCOTUS is a fucked up institution. Perverted to what its intentions were. For all intents and purposes, the SCOTUS is the Oligarchy ruling the country, at their whim they can change the meaning and interpretation of the US Constitution. I think anyone that cherishes their rights should at least read Men in Black by Mark Levin (Disagree with on politics all you want, but he is a Constitutional scholar and lawyer and actually, you know, practices Originalism). | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Xenixx
United States530 Posts
On May 14 2009 14:01 Jibba wrote: It's funny that you're speaking as if all military personal share a common perception of war and stance on the world. All of the military people (from the Army and Marines) I know are liberals and are very much concerned with ethics and the practice of war. The fact that you're so gung ho about it makes me wonder what you've actually done. Its a mix, the military is very diverse. When you gravitate towards the more specialized military units, airborne, sf, ranger you find 100% of them are gung ho about war. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
there's a lot of fucked up shit going on in this world, and most people will not understand it. i believe in that you have to become a wolf to fight the wolf. the general population are all sheep. as sheep we don't want to see our protectors become wolves because that is a subconscious message that there definitely are wolves out there that want us dead. all we want are sheep that are a little stronger than us, so we can keep one eye shut while one eye is open and go about our daily morally and politically correct lives and act as if our wall is impenetrable, that the silent wars that are going on at this very moment around the globe have nothing to do with us at all; something that will never affect our lives. wrong. i keep getting the feeling that the only way to absolutely pacify the public about things like this is if we armed our soldiers with stun guns and pepper spray. "the enemy? oh they have ak's, rpg's and shit but that's illegal and immoral. does too much damage." | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 15 2009 00:02 Aegraen wrote: It is inhumane, but war itself is inhumane on all sides. Uniforms or not, civilians are going to be killed in it. I generally don't criticize the people on the ground who have to make those decisions because I think most soldiers feel tremendous remorse if they do make a mistake, but military culture in the past has cultivated ruthless killings so it does need attention paid, especially to those at the top who set the culture. From the opposition's perspective, I'm not sure if dropping a package from 10k ft is any less "unorthodox" and dishonorable. I agree. They employ unorthodox tactics, but my point was, by doing so, any 'abstract rights' they might have had according to other posters was thrown out the window the second they started to fight that way. Secondly, when we go after them we are portrayed as inhumane because there will always be civilian casualties when they mix within the civilian ranks, wear no uniforms, and use civilians as shields. The media around the world is so disgustingly biased it's a puke fest. (Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks, the safety of myself, my family, and my country is hell of a lot more important than the impressions of my country by other countries) I didn't say the puss puss comment, though I thought it was hilarious and fitting. I think its absurd to expect US soldiers do conduct law enforcement tapings of 'crime scenes' on the battlefield. This is WAR! not the streets of east LA. I hate how the left always see's every conflict as a law enforcement issue. It's absurd, and puts US servicemen in tremendous harm. Let us conduct our operations without your politicized non-sense and preconceived notions. Don't ROE exist for this reason? From what I understand, soldiers are afforded a large amount of protection under them, which is both good and bad. | ||
| ||
