Reply to thread

What do you think we should do to fight that ideology?  And please, for the love of all that's holy, do not simply say "work with the other nations of the world" because we've already established they will work their gums dry denouncing this or that and passing non binding resolutions but refuse to use force unless we act first.



As far as dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of terrorism, would simply taking out OBL and his crew have put an end to that problem?



Wait... Deliberately targeting civilians qualifies? Then please explain why it didn't qualify when that was our strategy in WWII against an enemy with the same deliberate strategy.



I want facts and sources. None of this non sanctioned Abu Ghraib shat either, if you're going to say we went far beyond waterboarding terror suspects as national policy, then I want to see proof.



To me supporting waterboarding is supporting waterboarding, its ONE specific technique that we employed. Torture is not ONE specific technique or action, it covers a LOT of ground. So you can count me in the Pro-Waterboarding crowd but its totally disingenuous to claim that I'm Pro-Torture.



Acts sanctioned by government as a matter of national policy are all I'm interested in hearing about. Bringing up Abu Ghraib just muddies the waters of a very specific inquiry. If you have proof that we did more than waterboard as national policy, I do want to see that proof.



You may as well be asking someone to prove that God doesn't exist. You cannot prove a negative. In order to rationally believe that such actions as the ones described were done as national policy, you need proof. Belief without proof is not skepticism, its conspiratorial.



They certainly shamed more than just those wearing the uniform with their actions too.



You did not directly answer my question but I'm guessing no, you don't think intent matters. The GC and International Law recognize intent as having a bearing on what is, and is not, torture. Are they wrong to take that into consideration?



You are correct. We created the term "enemy combatant" in order to legally try them in military tribunals and extend otherwise humanitarian considerations that we were NOT legally bound to grant them as "Unlawful Combatants" under the Geneva Convention. Following the GC and NOT inventing the new term, the 'unlawful combatants' could be legally executed without a trial and given no humanitarian considerations.



The GC stated what we were allowed to legally do to them, anything we wanted. We chose to be better than that and crafted the new designation in order to grant them rights they would not have had if we followed the GC.



I think you're living in a fantasy world if you think a quick surgical strike could have taken out OBL and his crew.



We fought an actual army in Kuwait, complete with uniformed soldiers and marked military vehicles... Apples and Oranges my friend.


Back
Top