Obama Has Paralyzed the CIA

WinterBorn said:
Its not my definition. It is the definition used in the measure that we, as a nation, accepted and signed.

If you want to lobby to include solitary confinement, then do so.
Click to expand...
No I'm simply using it to demonstrate that your interpretation of the definition is too broad.
 
Southern Man said:
No I'm simply using it to demonstrate that your interpretation of the definition is too broad.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not my definition. It is the defintion stated in a measure which was submitted to, and adopted by the UN General Assembly, and was accepted, adopted and signed by the United States.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, I'm simply using it to demonstrate that your interpretation of the definition is too broad.
Click to expand...

There is very little interpretation to it. The details are pretty well laid out.

You are trying to interpret "all persons" to mean all persons in certain countries. There is no basis for that.
 
WinterBorn said:
And yet, there was no basis for the assumption that "All Persons" meant anything except all persons. That is clearly shown in Principle 5.
Click to expand...
Again, it's common contract interpretation. The contract applies to the persons agreeing to it and no one else.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, it's common contract interpretation. The contract applies to the persons agreeing to it and no one else.
Click to expand...

No, a common contract interpretation for "all persons" would be all persons, not a select group.

If I signed a contract with you to provide security against all threats, would you expect me to only stop threats from the people who signed the contract?

And the description in Principle 5 clearly stated that race, religion, nationality, or political affiliation was no reason for allowing them to be tortured.
 
Southern Man said:
The contract would have to say as such. The UN thing does not.
Click to expand...

The UN measure does say such. It says "All persons". You have tried to limit that to only citizens of the signor nations.

And Principle 5 states "These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of any given State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status.".

Which means the principles will be applied to all persons in any country, regardless of status.

So the document goes to some length to include everyone, and no where does it mention the limitations of "only citizens of the signor nations".
 
Southern Man said:
We've been through this before, remember. After I proved it was Clinton's fault so you called me a racist then insulted my mother?
Click to expand...

I haven't been through anything with you that has ever resulted in you proving a point .. including this issue.

All that you proved when you thought to post a racist joke to me was that you are exactly what I believe you to be .. and if you post another I'll again have choice words for you, your mother, and every other member of your lineage.

What year do you exist in?

Are you of the belief that if you say something racist to me that I have no right to respond?
 
SR_ said:
Again, you are confused. The United States has NOT ever charged, convicted, or executed anyone on the charge of water boarding. ALL Japanese officers that were charged or convicted of war crimes, were sentenced or executed for actual war crimes, not for waterboarding.

In addition, the method the Japanese used for waterboarding, IS NOT the method we use. It is not the method legally laid out in the SOP for interrogations.

You do great injustice to those POW's who were in fact tortured to ATTEMPT to elevate something you do not even take the time to learn about when you try and equate a technique that is harmless with something that indeed caused substantial harm.

There is no point about the sheriff. What some hicks do is not comparable to that of trained intelligence interrogators, it also has no bearing in this discussion because US Citizens have specific civil rights applied within our OWN justice system.

As I demonstrated, you cannot equate the civil criminal justice dept. and what they can or cannot do within the laws governing the executive branch in relation to the arrest and rights of US Citizens to that of terrorists captured on the battlefield. We dont even give the same "rights" to captured POW's on the battlefield. There is no habeus corpus provided to captured POW's during times of war, are you going to now suggest that since we dont provide a POW with legal aide that we are torturing them because you point to some US case where police officers arrested someone and didnt read them their rights?

AGAIN... PERSPECTIVE.

SR
Click to expand...

Perspective indeed.

Let me take a wild guess .. you're a conservative.

What you present is a conservative perspective .. and you illustrate why that perspective has been widely rejected by all the world. You demonstrate that conservative perspective is not really designed for thinking people. You demonstrate why that perspevtive is rapidly shrinking.

Start from here .. arguing that waterboarding is not torture is ONLY designed for morons. There is no argument that it isn't torture as there would be no argument that it isn't torture if used against American soldiers.

Save the crap about my doing an injustice to POW's as I have one of those aforementioned US soldiers close to me and if waterboarding were to be used against her or anyother POW, it should be classified as torture .. as I'm REAL sure anyone who has undergone it will testify.

Save that bullshit.

Frankly, that's all need be said to any thinking individual.

The point about the sheriff .. that you keepmissing .. is that waterboarding is torture. PERIOD.

But even deeper, watervoarding is specifically mentioned in the cases against the Japanese soldiers who were hanged or sentenced to long prison terms that was presented.

Feel free to use to make a false case of waterboarding wasn't the only crime they were convicted of to pretend it wasn't considered torture if you choose .. but the truth of this issue is all too obvious .. to thinking people.

What continues to amaze me is the ignorance of conservative thought and perspective. Why fight this issue?

Why put up an argument that is so foolish it's laughable instead of standing behind the obvious truth and presenting that perspective you talk about as sane?
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
I haven't been through anything with you that has ever resulted in you proving a point .. including this issue.

All that you proved when you thought to post a racist joke to me was that you are exactly what I believe you to be .. and if you post another I'll again have choice words for you, your mother, and every other member of your lineage.

What year do you exist in?

Are you of the belief that if you say something racist to me that I have no right to respond?
Click to expand...
So why is it that such a high percentage of black fathers don't support their families?
 
SR_ said:
Again, you are confused. The United States has NOT ever charged, convicted, or executed anyone on the charge of water boarding. ALL Japanese officers that were charged or convicted of war crimes, were sentenced or executed for actual war crimes, not for waterboarding.

In addition, the method the Japanese used for waterboarding, IS NOT the method we use. It is not the method legally laid out in the SOP for interrogations.

You do great injustice to those POW's who were in fact tortured to ATTEMPT to elevate something you do not even take the time to learn about when you try and equate a technique that is harmless with something that indeed caused substantial harm.

There is no point about the sheriff. What some hicks do is not comparable to that of trained intelligence interrogators, it also has no bearing in this discussion because US Citizens have specific civil rights applied within our OWN justice system.

As I demonstrated, you cannot equate the civil criminal justice dept. and what they can or cannot do within the laws governing the executive branch in relation to the arrest and rights of US Citizens to that of terrorists captured on the battlefield. We dont even give the same "rights" to captured POW's on the battlefield. There is no habeus corpus provided to captured POW's during times of war, are you going to now suggest that since we dont provide a POW with legal aide that we are torturing them because you point to some US case where police officers arrested someone and didnt read them their rights?

AGAIN... PERSPECTIVE.

SR
Click to expand...

Excellent response! This is exactly the problem with posters who grab their talking points from MSNBC about waterboarding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top