The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[BigRob]

So, the Afgan taxi driver, I can't recall his name just now, you know, the guy that got hung from the ceiling and beaten until he died, do you dismiss that incident in one way or another, or is it the example you're looking for? You do remember that incident, don't you? It's hard to find stories without the name attached. Does anyone remember?

His name was Dilawar, and this information came to light during a criminal investigation conducted by the Army. I am not dismissing the incident, I want examples of innocent people killed in custody when those responsible were not held accountable or investigated.

We can all agree that there have been horrific incidents, but those responsible have been and are being held accountable. These situations are different than those of state sanctioned actions such as GITMO.

One of the things that Clinton did right, then, was supporting t he idea of regime change in Iraq, without actually finding an excuse to invade that nation. Yes, that was a good thing.

How many UN Resolutions did Iraq need to violate? How many Kurds did Saddam need to gas before you would accept an invasion?

 

[PLC1]

His name was Dilawar, and this information came to light during a criminal investigation conducted by the Army. I am not dismissing the incident, I want examples of innocent people killed in custody when those responsible were not held accountable or investigated.

We can all agree that there have been horrific incidents, but those responsible have been and are being held accountable. These situations are different than those of state sanctioned actions such as GITMO.




How many UN Resolutions did Iraq need to violate? How many Kurds did Saddam need to gas before you would accept an invasion?

Oh, so now you're raising the bar.

What do you think about the photos of rape? Do you think the perps will be prosecuted? Do you think anyone above the rank of leutnent will be prosecuted?

 

[BigRob]

Here's one from a leftist source, MSNBC. Of course, such a leftie source is not credible, but it does lend some credence to the preposterous notion that tor... I mean enhanced interrogation, went beyond waterboarding three of the very worst:

There is a difference between enhanced interrogation and blatant torture as seen by the fact that we have and are holding those accountable who carried out torture. If it was not approved by Congress, then we have held those accountable who carried it out. That is the difference.

Here's one about those photos that Obama has refused to release:

Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'

Again you seem incapable or unwilling to see the difference between these actions, when we prosecute those who were responsible, and the legal procedures we carried out in the form of waterboarding.

But, then, there is no doubt that this one is overblown, too. Just keep repeating the mantra:

Only three bad guys, and we saved LA.
Only three bad guys, and we saved LA.
Only three bad guys, and we saved LA.

There. Doesn't that feel better?

Now you are back at actions in GITMO, after attempting to relate it to actions taken in other places that are not related. What happened at GITMO was legal, what happened in the other places was not, seeing as how we are prosecuting those responsible.

There is a clear difference between GITMO and events like Abu Ghraib that you seem to not comprehend or willingly ignore.

 

[BigRob]

Oh, so now you're raising the bar.

I have the same position I have had all along.

What do you think about the photos of rape? Do you think the perps will be prosecuted? Do you think anyone above the rank of leutnent will be prosecuted?

I think after an investigation they will be tried if there is evidence they are guilty. As for prosecuting people who are higher up, if they were involved they should be, and if there is no evidence they were involved then they should not be prosecuted. At most they should be relieved of duty.

 

[PLC1]

There is a difference between enhanced interrogation and blatant torture as seen by the fact that we have and are holding those accountable who carried out torture. If it was not approved by Congress, then we have held those accountable who carried it out. That is the difference.




Again you seem incapable or unwilling to see the difference between these actions, when we prosecute those who were responsible, and the legal procedures we carried out in the form of waterboarding.

The rapists were prosecuted? Were those who ordered said rapes also prosecuted?

Congress doesn't have to approve torture for torture to have happened. It appears that the policy is to prosecute low level soldiers when things go awry, that is to say, become known. That way, it can be said with a straight face, "We didn't engage in torture." That can be supported by (1) redefining torture and (2) disowning anything that can't be dismissed as not really being torture.

Now you are back at actions in GITMO, after attempting to relate it to actions taken in other places that are not related. What happened at GITMO was legal, what happened in the other places was not, seeing as how we are prosecuting those responsible.

There is a clear difference between GITMO and events like Abu Ghraib that you seem to not comprehend or willingly ignore.

Oh, so it makes a difference where the actions occurred. Beatings and rapes are OK, so long as they didn't happen in GITMO. There, now I got your point.

 

[BigRob]

The rapists were prosecuted? Were those who ordered said rapes also prosecuted?

They are under investigation.

Congress doesn't have to approve torture for torture to have happened. It appears that the policy is to prosecute low level soldiers when things go awry, that is to say, become known. That way, it can be said with a straight face, "We didn't engage in torture." That can be supported by (1) redefining torture and (2) disowning anything that can't be dismissed as not really being torture.

I hate to break this to your but your personal definition of torture does not make if "the" definition. What makes the definition is how our lawmakers write it, and a bi-partisan Congress and President wrote what we operated on.

Further, a few members of the military breaking our laws in the instances you are referencing or torture does not mean the US engaged in torture. It means that a few people broke the law and are being investigated and prosecuted for it.

Oh, so it makes a difference where the actions occurred. Beatings and rapes are OK, so long as they didn't happen in GITMO. There, now I got your point.

No, it makes no difference where the actions occurred, (although in some cases it could) the difference is the actual actions that occurred. Waterboarding someone under the direction of Congress is not the same as beating someone hanging from a roof to death. You relate the two, but they are not related.

Further, misrepresent as you like, but I never said beatings and rapings were OK. Congress never authorized that, and those who carried that out are being held accountable.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh, so now you're raising the bar.

What do you think about the photos of rape? Do you think the perps will be prosecuted? Do you think anyone above the rank of leutnent will be prosecuted?

yes I think the perps will be prosecuted.

 

[Dr.Who]

The rapists were prosecuted? Were those who ordered said rapes also prosecuted?

I think those who allegedly ordered such rapes will be prosecuted too.

 

[PLC1]

I think those who allegedly ordered such rapes will be prosecuted too.

If you're correct, then we may just regain some credibility as a nation that doe not engage in torture. That will be a great day.