Originally Posted by minimin
No,(but other forms of torture used--slapping hitting on the stomach, but not to cause internal bleeding of course, also slamming heads and bodies into walls) its not just because its only PAINFUL, doesn’t mean it should be regarded of good or fun or any less lawless, or anyless unconstitutional. Its still a crime and and I believe breaks atleast four treaties if I am correct. Just because, we should prep for situations like this doesn’t make it anymore right. Shouldn’t we have some scruples. Just because it doesnt kill doesnt mean that its okay.
>If you think these things are painful, you are right. But if these people were free, and had you in their hands, you would suffer far worse. Quote which part of the Constitution these practices violate (and remember that the US Constitution only applies to Americans under American authority), and name even one of the treaties which were violated. Remember that the Geneva and Hague conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers, and not to spies, terrorists, or others.
Two wrongs don’t make it right(plus they werent torturing US in the first place). We invaded a country took down the leader and tortured people. How correct is that and why do we have to meddle in the affairs of another country regardless of how evil the dictator is. North Korea has a pretty mean dictator does that mean we invade for no reason other than wanting to??(make every nation just like ours, we cant make every nation a democracy because we want it to be that way) Now why Bush go to Iran instead where the real problem was?
>No, two wrongs don't make a right, and I agree that going to Iraq was a mistake. But the reasons for going are now moot, and became so as soon as the first bombs were dropped. The past can't be undone, the only thing that can be done is to make the best of situations as they arise now and in the future.
As said does that make Bush's actions okay or does that make him and Cheney a war criminal themselves. regardless of what an article says...that i will look at later. but still, Just because the president does it doesnt make it legal, does he have the right to kill under this article.
>But it does. A presidential finding is law, the president has such powers in matters of national security. Lincoln used it to imprison 70,000 American citizens during the war without ever charging them with a crime. If the president says it is legal, then it is, and actions committed in the definition are not crimes, and therefore, under US law, Neither Cheney, Bush, nor those who they ordered can be described or charged as war criminals. Other countries might take a different view, and if they decide that Bush, et al were war criminals by the definition of their own laws and treaties, then that is their right.
How would prosecuting torture hinder the presidents actions to make quick decisions in a crisis, so long as he doesnt use torture.
>Because "torture" is useful. If it weren't, why would anyone bother to do it? If you read the reports you have been reading about the subject more carefully, you'll notice that even they say that useful information was gained that prevented attacks and saved lives. But, to some people, I guess the lives of the innocent are less important than the comfort of a captured terrorist.
Regardless of whats been done in the past torture isnt okay by any standards, or for anyone. Its my opinion and aint gonna change anytime soon. hmmm...depressing world we live in these days...
>I never said it was okay, but some things which are not okay are sometimes necessary. What happens if the government captures a terrorist who is part of a plot to blow up your neighborhood? One who knows where the bombs will be put, and the names of the people who will put them there. Should the government just ask nicely and hope he'll tell them what he knows? A tough question, isn't it?
|