Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

He should know.......he's paid that price.

   

What part of "terrorists have no due process rights" are you having trouble understanding?

Coalition troops can and should use whatever means necessary to save lives. If that means making a few scumbags uncomfortable, so be it.



That is something for the military to weigh and decide in the field, based on the totality of circumstances.

It is simply not your call.

   

You say terrorists have no right to due process....

Well how do you decide who is a terrorist....?

If someone takes flying lessons, does that mean they are terrorist suspects and can be tortured?

If someone speaks loudly in an arabic language in an airport, does that mean they are terror suspects and can be tortured?

That fact is, it is due process that determines whether the person is a terrorist suspect or not.......

The fact that you think a suspect does not deserve due process means that you think it is ok to torture innocent people......

   

1) The UN has no teeth or backbone.

2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, unless they are moonlighting as soldiers.



You have failed to make a convincing argument. How is that my fault?



Your ridiculous word games and petty rules have no place on the battlefield. Out there, coalition troops and innocent civilians live or die based on split second judgment calls.

They MUST be empowered to make the tough decisions necessary to keep themselves and civilians safe. And if that means some terrorist walks into court with his fingernails ripped out, so be it.

   

Please reference what I said above about word games and petty 'rules'.

You and your ilk would love to tie the coalition troops' hands with burdensome regulations, and then point your finger at them when the mission fails.

Here in civilized western society, we do have due process rights.

Out there on the battlefield, all threats must be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately by coalition troops.

This is the nature of war (and particularly, guerrilla warfare).

   

According to Rumsfield, "enemy combatants" taken in Afganistan are not subject to the geneva conventions, but all prisoners in Iraq are....A fact largely unknown to the soldiers who are now moonlighting as prison guards...

Also, just because Rumsfield says something doesn't make it true. You're right that the U.N. has no teeth.....

Don't be confused here.....You can torture people because you have the biggest gun and can break any law you want with no reprecussions....That doesn't mean it is "legal" or "right".....

The idea that torture is used as an intelligence gathering tool is also largely false....It is done by soldiers as an act of retribution....Having shells fall all around you has some very negative affects on the human psyche....

I don't consider raping a prisoner with a broom to be a proper or professional method of extracting intel......

The FBI, and the Army's "professional" MPs are currently distancing themselves from the factions within the U.S. Forces that do perform torture....Apparently they follow something called the armed forces uniform code of ethics.

   

What do actions taken inside a prison have to do with "out there on the battlefield"?

Under your no rules anarchy system, is it ok to torture someone for speaking loudly in a foreign language? I mean if you saw a guy with brown skin speaking loudly and looking around nervously, he is a terror suspect right?

So it is ok to torture him?

   

You really sound like you have no idea how the military works.....

You should ask a soldier if they think it is acceptable to torture prisoners and see what they have to say....

   

In case you haven't noticed, the coalition is fighting a war right now.



Since neither of us is in Iraq right now, it stands to reason that we don't have all of the facts and are in no position to make that determination.

Certainly, it is well within the US military's discretion to do whatever is necessary to prevent casualties.

   

You insinuate that any given soldier will reject torture as a means of preventing terrorism or casualties.

You state that any given soldier will abide by the letter of the uniform code of ethics.

If this is true, then why do we need all of your ridiculous 'rules' and word games and gotchas? In other words, why micromanage the coalition troops if they are predisposed to do what you want them to do in the first place?

   

Well in Abu Graib, soldiers have tortured prisoners by sodomizing them with broom sticks.....

If a woman terrorist is captured to do you consider it within the discretion of the U.S. Military to rape her to prevent casualties?

   

1) Yup, just ignore signed agreements. Especially when they don't fit your agenda.

2) Identify this picture.



Did you say "Taliban"?

Great! That's the first qualification to be labelled as a 'soldier' under the Geneva conventions - having an identifiable uniform. Although the US never recognized the Taliban as the authority in Afghanistan, for rights for an oil pipeline back in 2001. Some would argue that makes the Taliban the legitimate authority in the country.

That's the second part of the definition of 'soldier' in the Geneva conventions.



http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

So, if they are not soldiers, they are civillians, and still afforded rights under the Geneva conventions. Having Ibrahim finger someone as 'Taliban' just because the US is offering cash rewards, does not give anyone the right to torture that person.



So, what you are saying is the enemy has no rights under the US constitution?

   

to prevent the inhuman barbarism you advocate....
there is NO justification for torture.

   

Sure they do. I see a terrorist, I chamber a round, I sight them, get a comfortable lead if they're moving, adjust for windage and drop, and then *bam!*.

Due process.

There you go.

   

I only last week schooled IceOwl on his quote (see in my tagline).

Wanna play or do you wish to reconsider?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next