US torturers to go free

[INRM]

Tyr_13,

Conspiracy to torture. Ordering people to torture, collusion to torture, conspiracy to deny human rights, conspiracy to commit cruel and unusual punishment, criminal negligence, abuse of power, etc.

That sounds about right

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Looks like this has always been about EJ. Oh well.
EJ posted the above, well after he had already read this:

Since he is continuing to fling his claims that "I'm a torture supporter", despite knowing my change in position, his honesty is open to see.

Interestingly, despite your so called 'conversion' on another thread you had failed to correct your stated opinion on this thread where you repeatedly expressed a support for torture whenever it suited you (a position you lied about taking incidentally) before I posted my comments. That seems to indicate that your 'conversion' to a support for human rights is open to question.

I wold like to think that your 'conversion' to a respect for human rights was real but it appears the level of credence is low to nonexistent, especially as you have yet to apologise for calling me a 'vile' person for being against torture in every circumstance - a position that bizarrely you now claim to hold.

If you had any vestige of honesty in your 'conversion' to a respect for human rights you might apologise for attacking people for holding the same position on torture but you won't.

You are now being held accountable for all your personal abuse and being tested to see if your word can be trusted. You are now being held to account for all your abuse and lies.

Pip pip.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

So, EJ, when exactly did you decide to end your association with reality? So far in this thread:

You've likened the US to Nazi Germany

You have dared the US to invade Holland

You seem to think moral outrage over said invasion of Holland would somehow be a shield against cruise missiles.

You claim an international organization that is reliant on the cooperation of its members doesn't have to be concerned when member nations don't take it seriously.

Why is providing evidence such an apparently difficult thing for you to do. I look forwards to you being able to rustle up a rational argument that does not depend on fantasy and that is supported by evidence.

Why does your political position in support of one particular country drive you to follow my words so closely? We're all ears.

I've repeated told you that until you provide evidence for your claims you will never be taken seriously. Until you do...


PS
Do you honestly think that the EU cares for such juvenile threats in support of people suspected of human rights abuses? Not even the most right wing nutters like Bush, Cheney and Rice would dare to carry them out.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

If you want to talk about evidence building from people's posting patterns in threads, I think there is more to support the idea that you're just an adversarial ideologue only interested in demonizing things you are predisposed to dislike and not a person in search of open and honest discourse. It is also odd that you see that your actions draw criticism that for some reason you call personal abuse, and yet assume the problem is with everyone else. If you want to talk about it further, open a thread on posting patterns and your personal confirmation bias.

I support the law and human righst and you say I am not being honest? How bizarre is that?
When will all you guys realise that you will not be taken seriously until you provide some evidence for your assertions. Once again your post is fact and evidence free. Thanks for making my case for me so eloquently. Now, if you want to follow me around hurling abuse because you disagree with me over Israel at least be honest about it. I suspect that your consistent and persistent behaviour is no secret to many others on this site.

This is a false dichotomy. There are more than two positions to take. Also, your wording makes this a leading question. A person could support the use of torture techniques in very limited circumstances, and yet believe in human rights in every other case. You could be against torture, but against the right of women to vote, or Catholics to live, or the US to exist.

But that is complete nonsense, as I suspect you know. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly an unambiguously declares that torture is wrong. It doesn't say that torture is all right when you decide you or your friends or your government feel like it.

As far as what you meant, or should have meant, in your question I can understand why people use torture or feel that they need to and even forgive it is some cases. I don't believe the genin need to be prosecuted, although I would support arresting the higher ups who ordered and tried to justify it. However, ultimately, I'm against torture in just about all the circumstances that I can think of.

In other words you are in favour of torture when the circumstances suit you. Do you realise that the USA has signed up to a series of international agreements on human rights that declares torture to be wrong in ever circumstance. I suspect that you do not actually know what the USA has signed up to. Can I suggest yet again that you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Your support for torture when it suits you and your country is well noted.

Now, you and your fellow travellers need to know that I am holding you to account for all the abuse you have hurled at me over many months for taking a different position to you on Israel. If you carry on following me around and trying to demonise me in such a transparent way you are going to be held to account publically and on every occasiosn you do it.

You are free to disagree with my views but when you continue to hurl abuse in a concerted attempt to bully me or others from presenting my views with support from high quality sources on any country then I am going to hold your behaviour up for inspection by every decent poster on this site.

I do hope you particularly and all your Israeli government supporting friends understand?

 

[Darat]

Several posts moved to AAH. Remember your Membership Agreement and if you can't post without breaching Rule 12 then simply don't post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What charges could be brought against "higher ups"?

Torture, for those who actually ordered it.

There is also "complicity" in the C.A.T. and "conspiracy" in the U.S. Code, which may be possible legal theories for some "higher ups" who did not actually set the policy.

From the C.A.T. Article 4:

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

From the U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 113c Section 2340A:

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

 

[BeAChooser]

A country gets moral authority by behaving in a moral way, consistently and especially when right wing nutters are telling that countries institutions to do otherwise.

But do you think two different actions can have a differing morality ... i.e., can one be more moral than another? Can the act of saving 1000 lives, by waterboarding someone (causing temporary pain and discomfort) to get them to talk, be more moral than not waterboarding the person, when it's possible that doing so could save those 1000 lives?