Because they did not commit war crimes.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes
- Thread starter White Eagle
- Start date
Because they did not commit war crimes.
That's it? That's all you got? "You're fairly sure..."
Oh, okay.
You've convinced me.
What are you babbling about?
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Posts
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
You've convinced me.
There are two questions everyone needs to answer for themselves. Of course well meaning people can disagree.
1. Is the USA doing Secret Renditions?
2. Is torture by proxies overseen by the CIA a war crime?
There are two questions everyone needs to answer for themselves. Of course well meaning people can disagree.
1. Is the USA doing Secret Renditions?
2. Is torture by proxies overseen by the CIA a war crime?
We cannot answer No.1 because it would be secret as you have posed the question. 2. If it were actual torture, as opposed to mere partisan name calling, there are several questions. Does the CIA actually oversee it or merely dump him off and wash their hands? The more difficult question is whether there is any actual, ENFORCEABLE law prohibiting it? So called "International Law" often is not enforceable and should not be considered "law". The US has not signed and adopted the Treaty creating the International Criminal Court, and lacks the Constitutional power to subject US citizens to it for act while they were within US territory. It is doubtful that an Americancan can be guilty, in a legal sense, of a "war crime" for an act in the US, unless it is something prohibited by US or state law.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Posts
- 117
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Not secret, huh?
JayHawk
Rambunctiously Pugnacious
Holy shit.... keep going boys... I cannot wait to see what kind of logic emanates from this exchange..... 
To a foreigner I can see how they could make the case that our leadership are war criminals. The loser in most conflict are of that opinion. The world has been losing a long time in comparison to American dominance, so it makes sense. What I find amusing is how many come begging to one door (State or any of our NGOs) and then cry out bogey man in the media or via their public outlets. It is almost saying "we really wanna be your best friend but dude you suck".
ANyways keeps going I am sure it will be like Alex Jones meeting Glenn Beck.
To a foreigner I can see how they could make the case that our leadership are war criminals. The loser in most conflict are of that opinion. The world has been losing a long time in comparison to American dominance, so it makes sense. What I find amusing is how many come begging to one door (State or any of our NGOs) and then cry out bogey man in the media or via their public outlets. It is almost saying "we really wanna be your best friend but dude you suck".
ANyways keeps going I am sure it will be like Alex Jones meeting Glenn Beck.
Apollo
Do you lick pussy?
In all seriousness though, this is not surprising. It has been shown the CIA's method of torture has been somewhat useless in getting information out of terrorist. It has all but stopped when Americans went through that whole moral period years back.
JayHawk
Rambunctiously Pugnacious
No No No... according to the Alex Jones types we do it in other countries....
According to some if we take folks and interrogate them it is torture.
If we leave them in the country to which they have harmed for interrogation then that is our responsibility as well.
Notice the Marathon bomber taken yesterday was not given Miranda warnings under an exception to that rule for public safety. That is, when public safety requires that he be interrogated, the warning need not be given. I am not suggesting how he will be interrogated, but it is a recognition that sometimes the interrogation is critical to find what he knows to protect the public, and that right trumps his right to know that he can keep quiet. He still has his 5th amendment right to silence, but not his court-invented right to be advised.
The Bush administration recognized that that same consideration created the need for enhanced interrogation techniques. No, not torture, no one advocates that, but methods short of torture which might seem excessive in a mere criminal prosecution.
There is a probability that he is in touch with others, within and without the US, who are planning similar attacks. We must at least try to find what he knows and should not allow an exaggerated concern for his feelings to prevent us from trying.
The Bush administration recognized that that same consideration created the need for enhanced interrogation techniques. No, not torture, no one advocates that, but methods short of torture which might seem excessive in a mere criminal prosecution.
There is a probability that he is in touch with others, within and without the US, who are planning similar attacks. We must at least try to find what he knows and should not allow an exaggerated concern for his feelings to prevent us from trying.