meh

Think of it as punishment and you need not be outraged by this sort of thing.

gimmedaloot: meh

Yeah...the leader of our nation - our face to the world - loves to torture people...no big deal...

Remember kids, it's only a war crime when the Japanese and Nazi's do it.

If we torture, wiretap, hire mercenaries, and kill civilians it's because we love freedom.

And if you don't support torture, you don't support the troops.

And you hate America.

Traitor.

George Bush wasn't flying the planes, Saddam Hussein was, DUUUUUH.

Bush and his henchmen have three problems:

Nuremberg has established that there doesn't even need to be an explicit law in place making an act illegal to declare it a war crime after the fact

Nuremberg has eliminated the "acting on orders" defense

The next election might bring a government in place that could dump the whole mess on The Hague instead of dealing with it in US courts

But I'm sure they're sleeping soundly knowing the did it to defend democracy and our way of life

Meh, non-story. Criminalization of war crimes.

Afternoon_Delight: It established that a vengeful conquering army could retroactively declare anything a war crime and hang you for it.

Ladies and gentlemen; the Adolf Eichmann defense!

On top of a very long list of sad things about the way A_D apparently 'thinks' is that tolerating the Administrations torture of anybody only make that person's compatriots hate us even more. A_D's logic is that you're not truly an American unless you're making foreigners hate America more.

Oh, well; just another worthless stupid traitor to true American ideals that needs to go on the old Ignore list.

For the love of God, go back to posting your unintentionally funny cartoons. Your recent attempt to pass yourself off as an intellectual is about as convincing as Paris Hilton putting on nerd glasses.

Afternoon_Delight: [So he] has to stand in the cold or be kept awake - even *gasp* be subjected to water going up his nose. Maybe a dog barked at him too or he got slapped in the face.

Methinks A_D is volunteering to undergo these "interrogation techniques" at the next Fark party. Y'know, to prove how mild they are...

/It can't be a threat if he doesn't view it as a threat...

Mu2: Nuremberg has eliminated the "acting on orders" defense

My commander said for me to "THIS" this.

Which reminds me, everybody who voted for Bush, please don't vote in the next election. You've proven to the world quite obviously that you don't really get this democracy thing yet, so just stay at the kids' table and talk about which candidate you'd like to have a beer with. Better yet, worry about the next reality show. That's about your speed of thinking.

live coverage of the conception would have been more interesting than the pregnancy thing

Afternoon_Delight:

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all the rest have never been to Geneva.

No, but the United States has.
We signed a legal document saying we would behave in a certain manner.
It became the law of the land and this administration knowingly broke that law.
There was a time when conservatives believed in law and order. What happened to you party?

Unfortunately the people responsible for making sure Bush follows the law is the Justice Department which is basically Bush's lap dog.

I said this before in a torture thread (still blows my mind that we actually debate the merits of torture):

We're supposed to be the good guys, not the "not as bad" guys.

There was a time when conservatives believed in law and order.

You mean the TV show, right?

Move along...nothing to see here...
It's just the Bush administration breaking the law again and then lying about it!

Random Reality Check: Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and all the rest have never been to Geneva.

No, but the United States has.
We signed a legal document saying we would behave in a certain manner.
It became the law of the land and this administration knowingly broke that law.


Exactly.

Furthermore, even if you want to argue that the Geneva Conventions don't apply because AQ is no an army/signatory/etc, the UN Convention Against Torture most certainly applies (since there is nothing in that convention even hinting that it is limited to relations between signatory nations), and, leaving aside these treaties, US law specifically prohibits torture, and defines it in such a way that waterboarding, as a mock execution, fits pretty easily within the definition.

So this means the Congress will be impeaching Bush, Cheney, et al, and turning the leading neocons over to the International Criminal Court or a special war crimes tribunal for their proven crimes against humanity? Right?

right?

It's not farking about being "better". You can be better and still not be good enough.

Mechagimpy: I said this before in a torture thread (still blows my mind that we actually debate the merits of torture):

We're supposed to be the good guys, not the "not as bad" guys.

The same people that support this type of crap are the same ones that haven't figured out that the best president they can compare Bush to, is our previous rapist-in-chief, Bill Clinton.

They are so gullible, they could be led to sand when Bush is promising them water.

flaEsq: Think of it as punishment and you need not be outraged by this sort of thing.

My constitution, let me show you it.

Afternoon_Delight: Legal document? A contract between who and who?

The United States signed an agreement which this nation does an outstanding job of honoring, dispite the fact that our enemies laugh at it.

The UN Convention Against Torture was signed by 152 nations, including the U.S., and applies to the actions of those countries, regardless of who is being tortured.

18 U.S.C. 2340, which defines torture to include actions which cause an imminent fear of death, was passed by the United States Congress, and signed by the President. Or don't you respect US law anymore?

FTA:

Any reasonable person examining all the evidence we have - without any bias - would conclude that the overwhelming likelihood is that the president of the United States authorised illegal torture of a prisoner and that the evidence of the crime was subsequently illegally destroyed.

Congresswoman Jane Harman, the respected top Democrat on the House intelligence committee in 2003-06, put it as simply as she could: "I am worried. It smells like the cover-up of the cover-up."

It's a potential Watergate. But this time the crime is not a two-bit domestic burglary. It's a war crime that reaches into the very heart of the Oval Office.

Mu2: But I'm sure they're sleeping soundly knowing the did it to defend democracy and our way of life

How do you say 'sleeping soundly' in Paraguayan?

Afternoon_Delight: We ARE better then them. Would you rather be taken prisoner by US armed forces or the Taliban, hmmm?

Umm... am I a 'suspected terrorist' or a Caucasian US citizen?

Afternoon_Delight:
It sucks to get busted when you're a terrorist. Cry me a river...

The difference between me and you, is you beleive that people detained are actually terrorists. Bush has been 100% wrong about every single facet of his GWOT, has been caught in multiple flat-out lies, and for the good of our country, at war with the CIA.

Countless detainees have been released when it was found out that they were turned in by people wanting the bounty money.

I served 4 years in the USMC, cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan, and voted for Dubya his first term. But I have the critical thinking skills you obviously lack to determine that Bush and his supporters put party over principle. You - as an example - continue to show your lack of principle by suspending logic to protect your point of view.

Afternoon_Delight: As for the US, a lot of what goes on in the average county jail could be defined as 'torture', not to mention army/marine corp basic training.

Don't worry, though. I'm sure the jihadis deeply appreciate your sympathy..

You know, there are some times when your trolling is just silly.

But when you are defending torture, it makes you contemptible.

I will leave off the expletives I wish to use here.

Skleenar: Afternoon_Delight: We ARE better then them. Would you rather be taken prisoner by US armed forces or the Taliban, hmmm?

Umm... am I a 'suspected terrorist' or a Caucasian US citizen?

Don't sell yourself short. You can be both.

Afternoon_Delight

It established that a vengeful conquering army could retroactively declare anything a war crime and hang you for it.

*slaps Afternoon_Delight round the head*

Aarontology: Don't sell yourself short. You can be both.

Not only that, I'm also a tremendous slouch.

/actually, that is a good point.

Afternoon_Delight: Legal document? A contract between who and who?

Look you fu*ktard...

The Geneva Conventions (specifically the third convention which governs the treatment of POWs) was ratified by the Senate of the United States of America. Which means, if you would stop wiping your ass with the constitution for a minute and actually read the fu*king document, that the treaty is U.S. law.

So, asshole, torture is illegal: according to our constitution and according to the treaty we signed which -- once passed by 2/3 of the Senate WHICH IT WAS -- is US Law.

I seriously don't understand how someone like you looks himself in the mirror.

flaEsq: Think of it as punishment and you need not be outraged by this sort of thing.

Courts decide punishment. That's what they're there for.

What?!? Bush lied, or misrepresented the facts? No way. I am shocked. I did not know Bush would ever, ever, do that. I am now sad.

And, whats this all about jamie lynn spears pregnancy?

Afternoon_Delight: The UN? That's funny. Let them enforce their decrees, then. (laughing)

It's a treaty, dumbass. Or should we not be honoring our treaty committments? Art. VI of the Consitution ("...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land") would suggest that we should honor our treaies.

Glad to see you hate America, though.

As for the US, a lot of what goes on in the average county jail could be defined as 'torture', not to mention army/marine corp basic training.

Of course, there are a lot of problems in prisons - doesn't mean we should be torturing though.

And, basic training is voluntary - soldiers and marines know what they're getting into, and they can quit if they think it's torturous.

Don't worry, though. I'm sure the jihadis deeply appreciate your sympathy...

I have no sympathy for the jihadis. I merely have disgust for those who think so little of this country to think we cannot win a war without resorting to torture.

Skleenar: Afternoon_Delight: As for the US, a lot of what goes on in the average county jail could be defined as 'torture', not to mention army/marine corp basic training.

Don't worry, though. I'm sure the jihadis deeply appreciate your sympathy..

You know, there are some times when your trolling is just silly.

But when you are defending torture, it makes you contemptible.

I will leave off the expletives I wish to use here.

I just can't grasp his logic. I mean, even in terms of trolling I can't grasp this logic.

Our enemies are inhuman and brutal. Therefore we should be inhuman and brutal, because we're better than them. We know they'll do the same to us, so we should make a policy of doing it in the first place.

Meanwhile, and this is the part that really confuses the hell out of me, the very people who rally against this brutality and demand moral and ethical policy that is not set in reaction to our enemies, are called "cowards."

I was never waterboarded in basic training.

and if I had been, I would have reported it. and the drill instructor would be in jail.

timmy_the_tooth: The Geneva Conventions (specifically the third convention which governs the treatment of POWs) was ratified by the Senate of the United States of America. Which means, if you would stop wiping your ass with the constitution for a minute and actually read the fu*king document, that the treaty is U.S. law.

So, asshole, torture is illegal: according to our constitution and according to the treaty we signed which -- once passed by 2/3 of the Senate WHICH IT WAS -- is US Law.

I seriously don't understand how someone like you looks himself in the mirror.

That question is better asked to Bush and his minions. They are ones who torture in the name of "war on terror". Seriously, how is this any different then the barbarians who kidnap and maim soldiers and journalists? We condemn them and call them sadistic, yet it's a-ok for the USA to torture -- as long as it's in the name of our god, and not theirs. You know since Bush claims God told him to attack Iraq and cause a quagmire in Iraq. cause you know, God talks to leaders of a nation and that leader does what God says to him is different then these terrorists who kill in the name of god.

Bloody William: I just can't grasp his logic.

I think I see where you are going wrong.

Pssst. By the way, this whole admission of guilt goes to show that this ain't the reason they erased the tapes. It's what's Zubaydah was saying, not what was happening to him that they didn't want you to know.

Afternoon_Delight: It sucks to get busted when you're a terrorist. Cry me a river...

It sucks more to get "busted" when you are not a terrorist.

Link (new window)

I'm sure you will have some bullshait response about collateral damage or some other nonsense. This is YOUR America, not mine. I am fighting like hell to get MY America back.

The First: That question is better asked to Bush and his minions

their answer?

SUPPORT THE TROOPS

I believe the Supreme court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2004) that the American government is bound by the Geneva Conventions. It's the law.

Gonzales tried to wiggle out of it, but was basically laughed out of office, by Republicans as well as Democrats BTW.

Of course there are plenty of people in fark that want the rule of law established by the American Constitution. They think Bush is above the law and that the military can do what it wants.

I think it's from watching teevee. I was in a hotel recently and I caught an episode of a teevee show called "Stargate". I didn't get the plot but I was struck by the fact that the Air Force was wandering around in the streets of America detaining people without formal charges. They were the good guys.

Whatsleft: Pssst. By the way, this whole admission of guilt goes to show that this ain't the reason they erased the tapes. It's what's Zubaydah was saying, not what was happening to him that they didn't want you to know.

they didn't want the intelligence committee to hear stuff they already know he said?

THANK GOD YOU CLEARED THAT UP!

From the Preamble of the Bill of Rights

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the rights of American citizens, but a statement of limitations of the government's actions. It does not say that "American citizens' rights are protected in these ways," but that "The United States government will not infringe upon these rights, period."

And no, we're not at war. War has not been declared in accordance with the Constitution, nor can we legitimately consider our current national situation to be "public danger."

Another interesting aspect of the situation: Bush was clearly lying when he said "We do not torture."

Afternoon_Delight: Being a jihadi is voluntary too.

So it's OK to torture them? Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you hate US law? Why do you hate America?

Afternoon_Delight: Bloody William: And no, we're not at war. War has not been declared in accordance with the Constitution, nor can we legitimately consider our current national situation to be "public danger."


Simply amazing.

If you want to live in fear, go right ahead. We've never been well-liked. Feel free to let your entire life revolve around the possibility of being hurt in an attack. I have better shiat to do than worry about that.

Of course, I'm not so foolish as to ignore the possibility of such things, either. That's a false dichotomy I know you're already reaching for. Reasonable security measures can be kept while adhering to the Constitution. If you don't think we can get through a day of uncertainty without throwing away the very principles that made this country great, then you should consider the words of Patrick Henry.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Cute the "Yawn," couple it with another prefab Photoshop job or Cox and Forkum cartoon, and... scene.

I honestly do hope that these torture tapes being erased goes all the way. I mean, I honestly do want to see Bush, Cheney and his minions get what they deserve. They knowingly started this mess all in the name of oil and power (and greed). There is nothing about this Iraq mess that signifies as a safer M.E. or a safer America. In fact, this will undoubtedly lead to more turmoil and hatred to the West as time goes by.

Bush leave office in Jan of 2009, after that America citizens will be left to pay off the massive war debt, and other issues that Bush left behind. This man is worthless piece of crap and they deserve to be accused as a war criminal. There is no difference between Bush/Cheney and Sadaam/Osama. None. Their all terrorists and they all "claim to fight in the name of God"

For the record, I could care less for Zubaydah. Zubaydah is a bad person, and he should be locked up or sentenced to death by the UN council as a war criminal. The problem I do have is that Zubaydah is just one story. There are many others where the CIA mistakenly and tortured an innocent man -- what happens to that? Once this barbaric interrogation has started, and shown that an innocent man was caught in the middle how do you rectify it? How do you claim your more advanced, educated and civilized then the other part when you perform the same barbaric acts?