Pelosi caught in bold faced lie!!

Cerise said:
Instead of trying to deflect, why not address the fact that Pelosi has lied about what she knew, and when she knew it?
Click to expand...

I'm not deflecting, I said let's go ahead and have a hearing. Now I'm asking if you'll support hearings for anyone that authorized the torture?

Are you going to avoid that one? It's a simple question.

The CIA has countered with documents showing that the so-called "torture" saved thousands of American lives
Click to expand...

No, they haven't.
 
Gonz said:
Websters is not law.
Click to expand...

You asked for a definition I told you where to find it.

As for the law, that's why I added "Also much precedent has been set by how we've tried people from other countries for torture."

You cut that part out for some reason.
 
I can find plenty of definitions. I want to know what the legal definition & where it can be found in the US Codes/USCMJ.
 
spike said:
I'm not deflecting, I said let's go ahead and have a hearing. Now I'm asking if you'll support hearings for anyone that authorized the torture?

Are you going to avoid that one? It's a simple question.
Click to expand...

Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique. Not torture. No, I would not support hearings on the authorization of EITs. :rolleyes:


No, they haven't.
Click to expand...


Yes, they did.
 
spike said:
Now I'm asking if you'll support hearings for anyone that authorized the torture?
Click to expand...

If they acted in good faith and as respresentatives to or of of the US Commander in Chief, no, there should be no hearings. The acts were binding under the CiC. As CiC, he has the right & responsibility to protect the US. Nor is he bound by UN charters.

War is hell.
 
Gonz said:
If they acted in good faith and as respresentatives to or of of the US Commander in Chief, no, there should be no hearings
Click to expand...

Then hearings for those who ordered it and authorized it. Not for those that carried it out?
 
spike said:
I'm not deflecting, I said let's go ahead and have a hearing. Now I'm asking if you'll support hearings for anyone that authorized the torture?
Click to expand...

The first thing you will have to establish is that it actually was torture.
 
spike said:
Nope, it's torture. The precedent has been set by our prosecution of Japanese soldiers for the same thing and by Reagan's DOJ.
Click to expand...

The same thing??? You musta missed this -- just like you missed Cerise's answer in her post #25 which had been posted for three hours before you again demanded she answer you. You really should try reading the posts -- especially the ones directed at you.

SOURCE (You may not like her but she does her homework)

To claim that the Japanese -- architects of the Bataan Death March -- were prosecuted for "waterboarding" would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.

What the Japanese did to their POWs made even the Nazis blanch. The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners' healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded; and injected them with chemical weapons in order to observe, time and record their death throes before dumping them in mass graves.

While only 4 percent of British and American troops captured by German or Italian forces died in captivity, 27 percent of British and American POWs captured by the Japanese died in captivity. Japanese war crimes were so atrocious that even rape was treated as only a secondary war crime in the Tokyo trial, similar to what happens during an R. Kelly trial.

The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."

The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.

Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.

Or they would "waterboard" the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.
Click to expand...
 
Gonz said:
If they acted in good faith and as respresentatives to or of of the US Commander in Chief, no, there should be no hearings. The acts were binding under the CiC. As CiC, he has the right & responsibility to protect the US. Nor is he bound by UN charters.War is hell.
Click to expand...

Exempt from U.N. charters?

Ahhhhhhhhh! But he is bound by his honor and the honor of the country he represents to international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.
 
As I recall, the Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. A suspected combatant not in uniform is treated as a spy, and enjoys none of it's protection.
 
Professur said:
As I recall, the Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. A suspected combatant not in uniform is treated as a spy, and enjoys none of it's protection.
Click to expand...

The Bush Administration treated terrorist suspects as "enemy combatants" in 2001. Because of that designation, "enemy combatants" maintain "combatant immunity" under the Geneva Conventions. Not wearing a uniform isn't a crime under the laws of war. If it were, select units (SEALS, Special Forces who many times operate out of uniform) would technically be classified as war criminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top