Torture

About That Japanese Officer Convicted After WWII

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm

Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL
So, Asano beat people with clubs and burned them with cigarettes — and I think there's no real debate about whether that consitutes torture. But wait, there's more. Asano practiced a much more severe form of waterboarding, according to the Post:

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
In waterboarding as it is practiced by the U.S., cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject's mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. Asano was pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects which is considerably more harsh and dangerous, in fact, the subjects could have drowned, not simulated and not for seconds at a time.
 
lets give a hand to maineman who would return slaves to their rightful OWNERS

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html
 
Ridiculous, objectivity has no bias. However, announcing that it is "known around the world as" an objective source of news doesn't make it objective, it just makes it something you said.

He posted a link with a story showing that the NPR ombudsman spoke of the bias exhibited by their programming. You restated something you said. Somehow I'm thinking that the left has a distinct disadvantage in this kind of representative "argument".

;)

That being said, there is a reason that the US "doesn't torture". It made people on the "bad guy" side more likely to surrender during war, knowing they would be treated well. That and information gathered from such is suspect at best.

Errrrr Damo....I was being ironic.
 
It's amazing to me... all these pinhead retorts, and not once is it mentioned, alQaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Their "country" and "officials" can't be held to account for violations of a treaty they didn't sign. This means, the World Court can never hear a case for War Crimes against Bin Laden, or any other alQaeda member. The US did sign the GC, and they have upheld the standards of the GC for any enemy who is a signatory. This can't be said for many of our enemies and even some of our allies. People with guns and bombs, who were attempting to kill and maim US soldiers, were captured on the battlefield. Since they were not wearing a uniform, a prerequisite for GC POW protocols, they were deemed "enemy combatants" and detained. Mostly at Gitmo.

Liberals have bestowed GC protections upon these members of alQaeda, just as they have bestowed Constitutional rights, they deserve neither. We are not bound or obligated to give Constitutional rights to enemies of this country, and we are not bound to uphold the standards of the GC for non-signatories of the GC, who are not following GC protocol, and are not accountable to any other governing authority.

It's kind of like, if I bought a lottery ticket, then lost the lottery, and some other schmuck won the jackpot, but then, I come along and insist that since I purchased a ticket, I am entitled to a share of the jackpot. It's just completely devoid of common sense. alQaeda is not a nation, doesn't have a flag, doesn't have a president or government, doesn't have an embassy or capitol, and has contradicted the spirit of the Geneva Convention in about every way possible, but pinheads still believe they deserve to be treated as if they signed the GC and we're obligated to uphold it. Amazing!

And here we have a well-made point about how our techniques, while uncomfortable and unpleasant, are a far cry from the atrocities of the past from our enemies, and pinheads falling all over themselves to post "we don't torture people!" It's like there is a mental disconnect, they just don't seem to understand the distinction which makes something "torture" and why our techniques simply don't meet that criteria.

Then, there is this kind of stupid thinking...


The basic logic behind the pinhead notion that we shouldn't use harsh interrogation tactics, is that it will somehow protect Americans captured by our enemies. As if Abdul Mohamed is going to be the least bit concerned with this, as he sharpens his knife in preparation to behead a westerner. Yes, I am sure Zarqawi only took Nick Berg's head off, because we put panties on a Muslim's head....that makes sense! //sarcasm

Here is what is happening... We are using coercive interrogation techniques, none of which result in death or grave risk to life, in an attempt to extract intelligence information regarding terrorism, which specifically targets the US and our allies. We have only used this on a handful of the highest level alQaeda captives, and we have gained information which has indeed prevented terrorist attacks in the US and abroad.

This is what is happening with liberals, they have interchanged the word "terrorist" with "minority group" and gone into full radical '60s mode. To them, members of alQaeda are like members of the Black Panthers, and liberals can sympathize with their struggle and plight. Each time they see a person from the right, talk about "terrorist" they immediately come to the defense, because these "terrorists" are representative of all the oppressed minorities the left has always supported.

What is ironic, is these very people they are defending, are far more extreme 'right-wing-religious' than they have ever encountered. Imagine Pat Robertson with an AK-47! These cats are about 10x worse than that. These poor little Gitmo detainees you are fighting for, to give Constitutional rights to? They would saw the head off every homosexual in America, if they had the chance. You liberal, free-sex, free-love, fetus aborting, pro-choice, females out there... they would have your ass in a full length black hooded smock, and you would be walking two steps behind any male. THAT IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE! THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FIGHTING A JIHAD AGAINST US!

What is even MORE interesting, is watching the Obama administration grapple with the reality of the situation, after all the campaign rhetoric. Turns out, that "failed Bush policy" seemed to not be such a bad idea after all, to the Obama Justice Department. Many of those same "failed Bush policies" are now part of Obama Policy, and in some cases, enhanced and stepped up! It seems once Obama was briefed on what we were actually doing, and what was actually working, and how we were keeping America safe, he realized he couldn't change that. So now, we have his administration, doing a little tap dance for their loony left fringe base, who remain curiously silent about it here.

All this verbage and none of it is relevent. This is a moral question. Wrong is wrong and those who advocate torture, for any reason, are wrong. That plain, that simple. There is no justification for torturing anyone at anytime unless you are a sadist and that's how you get your jollies.

Personally, it stinks of just plain chicken shit cowardice to me.
 
All this verbage and none of it is relevent. This is a moral question. Wrong is wrong and those who advocate torture, for any reason, are wrong. That plain, that simple. There is no justification for torturing anyone at anytime unless you are a sadist and that's how you get your jollies.

Personally, it stinks of just plain chicken shit cowardice to me.

so you would not torture, not even a little, someone if they had information that could save your family or your life and the only way to get that info was to torture them, even just a little
 
lets give a hand to maineman who would return slaves to their rightful OWNERS

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html

thank you maineman for being such an outstanding citizen and returning slaves to their rightful owner
 
That cold consequentialist amoral logic really distrubs me Tabasco. However, it can't be demonstrated, so it's a moot point.

What are your thoughts on abortion?

No need to answer. As I suspected, you are a hypocrite.

Just to clarify, I don't particularly "care" about anyone except myself and those who are within my sphere of association. I don't like abortion (for example) and I wish it didn't occur, but at the end of the day, it's no skin off my knees. Same goes for torture and the death penalty and war. I wish they weren't necessary, but we live in a violent world. Accept reality for what it is, not what you want it to be.

In your world, even partial-birth abortion is A-OK but the death penalty is evidently the most heinous atrocity known to man. That's the world you've created for yourself. It's not reality.
 
What are your thoughts on abortion?

No need to answer. As I suspected, you are a hypocrite.

Just to clarify, I don't particularly "care" about anyone except myself and those who are within my sphere of association. I don't like abortion (for example) and I wish it didn't occur, but at the end of the day, it's no skin off my knees. Same goes for torture and the death penalty and war. I wish they weren't necessary, but we live in a violent world. Accept reality for what it is, not what you want it to be.

In your world, even partial-birth abortion is A-OK but the death penalty is evidently the most heinous atrocity known to man. That's the world you've created for yourself. It's not reality.

Tab, please kill yourself, and take your dumb retarded "sphere of association" with you too.

1238797945821.jpg
 
Tab, please kill yourself, and take your dumb retarded "sphere of association" with you too.

What makes you think you can coerce people into doing your bidding? With exception to self-defense, coercion never solves anything Watermark. We are individuals who are free to choose our own path. If you don't like the path I choose to follow, don't follow it yourself. That's what freedom is all about.

I don't understand why liberals (and many conservatives) are so obsessed with controlling people.
 
What makes you think you can coerce people into doing your bidding? With exception to self-defense, coercion never solves anything Watermark. We are individuals who are free to choose our own path. If you don't like the path I choose to follow, don't follow it yourself. That's what freedom is all about.

I don't understand why liberals (and many conservatives) are so obsessed with controlling people.

OK.

1238797945821.jpg
 
Back
Top