Torture Debate on Fox and friends. hee hee

BAM!

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

Let the "Jesse" bashing begin!

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

Slip of the tongue?

Anyone notice that Jesse didn't have any answers... Only condemnation for others who don't think like him.. Typical liberal response...

Annie Oakley wrote:

Let the "Jesse" bashing begin!

No popcorn smilie, so this one will have to do!

OK, I'll play!

He should have stuck with wrestling! What a buffoon!
Maybe he can get all the information we need with his signature move, the Body Breaker.

The most ridiculous part, this idiot obviously thinks we staged 9-11. He's a conspiracy theory nut!

Well Jessie, when you say crazy things, people are going to call you crazy...

I don't think that it's "obvious" that he believes that 9-11 is a conspiracy, just that by not receiving answers to some questions raises more questions for him.

I didn't understand his part on the buildings "falling at the rate of gravity" comment...as a physics teacher, maybe I am just looking at it too technically. What would prevent them from accelerating due to gravity?

What about his thoughts on waterboarding?

Again ,,, Water boarding is not physical torture.. It is a very extreme method but nobody died and there is no lasting physical damages like severed limbs and cut out tongues.. Again,,, No one on the left had a problem with this issue until after the elections... Why no uproar until now???

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

It absolutely was against the law.

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

It absolutely was against the law.

Proof???

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

Very good post Lucas, simple and to the point. Well said. There are a number of people that could learn from that statement.

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

It absolutely was against the law.

Link?

Annie Oakley wrote:

Let the "Jesse" bashing begin!

I took care of that for you. The popcorn smilie, that is.

Hats of to Fox News for allowing Jesse to share his views... Unlike other main stream news sources...

The Drifter wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Jesse or anyone else CAN ask questions... Just because he don't like the answers does not make him right..... And he needs to be more informed on the issues before he runs his mouth.. Again,, The torture of the terrorist was NOT against the law at the time it was being conducted...

Very good post Lucas, simple and to the point. Well said. There are a number of people that could learn from that statement.

I'll agree with that.

According to Article VI of the United States Consitution, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Following this, the two most important signed and ratified treaties concerning torture should be worth looking at.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Domestic legislation has also, in implementing these treaties or otherwise, affirmed the illegality of torture.

The Torture Act of 2000
18 U.S.C. §§ 2340
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

The War Crimes Act of 1996
18 U.S.C. § 2441
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

Military Commissions Act of 2006
S.3930

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES.—The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441.

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Additionally, the United States has prosecuted those who torture using waterboarding both domestically and internationally.

Evan Wallach

US v Lee, 744 F.2d 1124; 1984

United States of America v. Hideji Nakamura, Yukio Asano, Seitara Hata, and Takeo Kita, U.S. Military Commission, Yokohama, 1-28 May, 1947.

I'll go ahead and step in it now.

Any person that claims they would not waterboard someone in hopes of saving innocent lives is one of three things. 1. A liar 2. A coward 3. Ignorant. Mostly #3.

If the burden of the decision to waterboard were dropped in your laps (with real lives on the line), it's hypocritical to act as if you would emphatically say no. Even if it is against the law.

Too many people are spewing all this rhetoric about waterboarding thugs when they have no idea what's at stake. It's a little different than deciding what's for supper.

Some of you anti enhanced interrogation people should run for some kind of office in hopes of becoming President some day. We need people like you in the Oval Office making sharp, quick decisions with your nads like mountains. You sure make it look easy, rared back on your laptop judging such tough decisions.

It's untelling what I'd do to some thug if I thought it would save innocent lives. I'd hold a torch to myself if I thought it would save lives, much less some terrorist that would kill our children if he had the chance. Wouldn't you?

I wanna puke!

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I'll go ahead and step in it now.

Any person that claims they would not waterboard someone in hopes of saving innocent lives is one of three things. 1. A liar 2. A coward 3. Ignorant. Mostly #3.

If the burden of the decision to waterboard were dropped in your laps (with real lives on the line), it's hypocritical to act as if you would emphatically say no. Even if it is against the law.

Too many people are spewing all this rhetoric about waterboarding thugs when they have no idea what's at stake. It's a little different than deciding what's for supper.

Some of you anti enhanced interrogation people should run for some kind of office in hopes of becoming President some day. We need people like you in the Oval Office making sharp, quick decisions with your nads like mountains. You sure make it look easy, rared back on your laptop judging such tough decisions.

It's untelling what I'd do to some thug if I thought it would save innocent lives. I'd hold a torch to myself if I thought it would save lives, much less some terrorist that would kill our children if he had the chance. Wouldn't you?

I wanna puke!

Puke, if you must. I feel the same way when people automatically think that torture bears the truth.

I guess the old saying, "what would Jesus do?" no longer applies. I seriously doubt that He would have waterboarded anyone, nor would He be for it. And I doubt that anyone would call Him a liar, a coward, or ignorant.

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I'll go ahead and step in it now.

Any person that claims they would not waterboard someone in hopes of saving innocent lives is one of three things. 1. A liar 2. A coward 3. Ignorant. Mostly #3.

If the burden of the decision to waterboard were dropped in your laps (with real lives on the line), it's hypocritical to act as if you would emphatically say no. Even if it is against the law.

Too many people are spewing all this rhetoric about waterboarding thugs when they have no idea what's at stake. It's a little different than deciding what's for supper.

Some of you anti enhanced interrogation people should run for some kind of office in hopes of becoming President some day. We need people like you in the Oval Office making sharp, quick decisions with your nads like mountains. You sure make it look easy, rared back on your laptop judging such tough decisions.

It's untelling what I'd do to some thug if I thought it would save innocent lives. I'd hold a torch to myself if I thought it would save lives, much less some terrorist that would kill our children if he had the chance. Wouldn't you?

I wanna puke!

Puke, if you must. I feel the same way when people automatically think that torture bears the truth.


I guess the old saying, "what would Jesus do?" no longer applies. I seriously doubt that He would have waterboarded anyone, nor would He be for it. And I doubt that anyone would call Him a liar, a coward, or ignorant.

Sometimes enhanced interrogation techniques will bear the truth.

To think anyone on earth could do what Jesus would do in all cases is also ignorant. Maybe you can compare your life with his. Maybe you don't, but the rest of us fall short.

Can you honestly tell me that you would never harm anyone in any way if you thought there was a chance it would save 300 innocent lives?

I'm sorry, if you answer no, I'm going to spew supper.

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

One more thing Annie.

I would chew the nose off a terrorists face if I thought it would save you or your families life, and I don't even know you personally. I hope you would do the same for me and my family.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

How did Congress approve the methods in 2002? The World Socialist Web Site hyperbole you linked only refers to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which did not strengthen the legality of torture but reaffirmed the Common Article III definition, which specifically designates torture as a war crime.

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

How did Congress approve the methods in 2002? The World Socialist Web Site hyperbole you linked only refers to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which did not strengthen the legality of torture but reaffirmed the Common Article III definition, which specifically designates torture as a war crime.

There are plenty more links... I just used that one so I would not be accused of only including right leaning links.... Bush attorneys got the definitions of what is and is not torture changed and "enhanced methods" were approved by congress... A little tricky but some times things need to change for the security of our country...

Ja'far wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Congress approved the methods in 2002 and 2006.. Actually one of the sources mentioned in this thread, the military commissions act of 2006 helped strengthen the legality of the measures.. I will admit that the Bush attorneys were quite clever and creative in getting the changes put in but congress DID approve the methods so the torture WAS legal at the time it was conducted...http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/tort-s29.shtml

How did Congress approve the methods in 2002? The World Socialist Web Site hyperbole you linked only refers to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which did not strengthen the legality of torture but reaffirmed the Common Article III definition, which specifically designates torture as a war crime.

From the "Prohibited Conduct" section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

(A) TORTURE.—The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.