100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: CIA official: | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 18, 2:53 pm ET VIENNA (Reuters) – President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA interrogators who used waterboarding on terrorism suspects amounts to a breach of international law, the U.N. rapporteur on torture said. "The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard. Nowak did not think Obama would go as far as to seek an amnesty law for affected CIA personnel and therefore U.S. courts could still try torture suspects, he said on Saturday. Obama has affirmed his unwillingness to prosecute under anti-torture laws CIA personnel who relied in good faith on Bush administration legal opinions issued after the September 11 attacks. Obama said he had ended harrowing techniques used against detainees by Bush-era CIA personnel, but that U.S. intelligence agents still operated in a dangerous world and had to be confident they could perform their jobs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090418/pl_nm/us_un_usa_interrogations  I will explain it for you
 We gonna put the people from the Bush Admin that told the CIA personel to do that stuff in prison just like the Nazis they are
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Bush and **** Cheney wanted FALSE confessions that they could bring to the American people to justify whatever they wanted to do.
Prove it Its been on the news. They wanted these torture victims to make false confessions linking Sadam to Al Qaeda. The memos from various departments repeatedly state that the information gained from torture was unreliable. Yet,Bush Admin wanted to continue anyway. They didnt even care about the truth.
Its been on the news thats reliable info. I guess then all the people who went to the tea parties are racist rednecks then because that was also on the news. Its in the files that have been released I get most of my info from the news instead of my imagination like some others do.
Then why wont theey release all the memos and not just the ones they hand pick to prove their point? If you were watching the news then you would know that they are More came detainee abuse pics and files came out just the other day More to come
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
like I've said before....if you have the proof to convict...do it. stop talking about it and just releasing bits and pieces. i suspect more will be going down with the ship if everything is released, but if they can be found guilty...it is the duty of those in charge to do something
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TJN
on
Sun 04/26/09 02:29 PM
|
|
I wonder if Bradbury ever went through SERE school? Yes it is training and yes you have it in your mind that it is training. The thing about SERE school is to resist interogation. Its not a fun course and in no means would i call what they do torture. Its not pleasent going through what they do but you learn from it. ways to resist certain types of interogation. I think its irresponsible for these memos to get out and what types of methods they use to obtain information. It just lets the enemy know what to expect and know what they will be put through if captured. Back to the OP Ther certainly are a lot of probably's and possibly's and seems to, in this article. "We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered."
this right here states it wasnt torture so why try prosicuting people. You cant change the rules after the fact and then go after people for something you NOW deem unlawful! That's an attempt by the Bush Administration to justify their means! Waterboarding has for years been prosecuted as a war crime. show me proof. it stated in the article waterboard did not constitute torture Actually it is torture under the law. For example,a Sherrif and his deputies got put in prison for it.
"We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered." That was taken right out of the article in the thread. Thats what that guy said. People have went to prison for doing it
You cant put civilian and military together they have a diferent set of rules they follow. and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture! "and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture!"  The article aint the law
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the U.N. human rights chief said on Friday. "I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told a news conference in Mexico City. This was dated FEB of 2008 Let me explain it to you! As I stated earlier you cant change your mind about something and say its against the law now and go back and punish someone who did something when it wasnt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
like I've said before....if you have the proof to convict...do it. stop talking about it and just releasing bits and pieces. i suspect more will be going down with the ship if everything is released, but if they can be found guilty...it is the duty of those in charge to do something  You do realize that I'm not in charge of releasing anything, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if Bradbury ever went through SERE school? Yes it is training and yes you have it in your mind that it is training. The thing about SERE school is to resist interogation. Its not a fun course and in no means would i call what they do torture. Its not pleasent going through what they do but you learn from it. ways to resist certain types of interogation. I think its irresponsible for these memos to get out and what types of methods they use to obtain information. It just lets the enemy know what to expect and know what they will be put through if captured. Back to the OP Ther certainly are a lot of probably's and possibly's and seems to, in this article. "We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered."
this right here states it wasnt torture so why try prosicuting people. You cant change the rules after the fact and then go after people for something you NOW deem unlawful! That's an attempt by the Bush Administration to justify their means! Waterboarding has for years been prosecuted as a war crime. show me proof. it stated in the article waterboard did not constitute torture Actually it is torture under the law. For example,a Sherrif and his deputies got put in prison for it.
"We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered." That was taken right out of the article in the thread. Thats what that guy said. People have went to prison for doing it
You cant put civilian and military together they have a diferent set of rules they follow. and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture! "and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture!" The article aint the law
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the U.N. human rights chief said on Friday. "I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told a news conference in Mexico City. This was dated FEB of 2008 Let me explain it to you! As I stated earlier you cant change your mind about something and say its against the law now and go back and punish someone who did something when it wasnt. The Airforce and Navy Offices of Legal Council,and the folks in charge of training Marines for torture resistance all said in the memos to the Bush Admin that it was torture and could place people into the position of being prosecuted. Its a war crime and has been for decades
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
like I've said before....if you have the proof to convict...do it. stop talking about it and just releasing bits and pieces. i suspect more will be going down with the ship if everything is released, but if they can be found guilty...it is the duty of those in charge to do something You do realize that I'm not in charge of releasing anything, right?
do you realize I was speaking in general to those in charge and not you personally??  if I was speaking directly to you I would have quoted you or used your name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from things I have read and seen, it doesn't seem that Obama finds it as serious
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if Bradbury ever went through SERE school? Yes it is training and yes you have it in your mind that it is training. The thing about SERE school is to resist interogation. Its not a fun course and in no means would i call what they do torture. Its not pleasent going through what they do but you learn from it. ways to resist certain types of interogation. I think its irresponsible for these memos to get out and what types of methods they use to obtain information. It just lets the enemy know what to expect and know what they will be put through if captured. Back to the OP Ther certainly are a lot of probably's and possibly's and seems to, in this article. "We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered."
this right here states it wasnt torture so why try prosicuting people. You cant change the rules after the fact and then go after people for something you NOW deem unlawful! That's an attempt by the Bush Administration to justify their means! Waterboarding has for years been prosecuted as a war crime. show me proof. it stated in the article waterboard did not constitute torture Actually it is torture under the law. For example,a Sherrif and his deputies got put in prison for it.
"We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered." That was taken right out of the article in the thread. Thats what that guy said. People have went to prison for doing it
You cant put civilian and military together they have a diferent set of rules they follow. and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture! "and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture!" The article aint the law
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the U.N. human rights chief said on Friday. "I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told a news conference in Mexico City. This was dated FEB of 2008 Let me explain it to you! As I stated earlier you cant change your mind about something and say its against the law now and go back and punish someone who did something when it wasnt. The Airforce and Navy Offices of Legal Council,and the folks in charge of training Marines for torture resistance all said in the memos to the Bush Admin that it was torture and could place people into the position of being prosecuted. Its a war crime and has been for decades
Do you have a link to that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from things I have read and seen, it doesn't seem that Obama finds it as serious The world don't revolve around Obama. That's why we have the rest of the government. You know that we have 2 other equal branches of the federal goverment right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 04/26/09 02:45 PM
|
|
I wonder if Bradbury ever went through SERE school? Yes it is training and yes you have it in your mind that it is training. The thing about SERE school is to resist interogation. Its not a fun course and in no means would i call what they do torture. Its not pleasent going through what they do but you learn from it. ways to resist certain types of interogation. I think its irresponsible for these memos to get out and what types of methods they use to obtain information. It just lets the enemy know what to expect and know what they will be put through if captured. Back to the OP Ther certainly are a lot of probably's and possibly's and seems to, in this article. "We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered."
this right here states it wasnt torture so why try prosicuting people. You cant change the rules after the fact and then go after people for something you NOW deem unlawful! That's an attempt by the Bush Administration to justify their means! Waterboarding has for years been prosecuted as a war crime. show me proof. it stated in the article waterboard did not constitute torture Actually it is torture under the law. For example,a Sherrif and his deputies got put in prison for it.
"We previously concluded that the use of the waterboard did not constitute torture," Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005 memo. "We must reexamine the issue, however, because the technique, as it would be used, could involve more applications in longer sessions (and possibly using different methods) than we earlier considered." That was taken right out of the article in the thread. Thats what that guy said. People have went to prison for doing it
You cant put civilian and military together they have a diferent set of rules they follow. and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture! "and in the article it stated waterboarding did not constitute torture!" The article aint the law
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the U.N. human rights chief said on Friday. "I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture," the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told a news conference in Mexico City. This was dated FEB of 2008 Let me explain it to you! As I stated earlier you cant change your mind about something and say its against the law now and go back and punish someone who did something when it wasnt. The Airforce and Navy Offices of Legal Council,and the folks in charge of training Marines for torture resistance all said in the memos to the Bush Admin that it was torture and could place people into the position of being prosecuted. Its a war crime and has been for decades
Do you have a link to that? It was on the news. Hardball with Chris Mathews covered it for several days in a row.He read the stuff straight off the memos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from things I have read and seen, it doesn't seem that Obama finds it as serious The world don't revolve around Obama. That's why we have the rest of the government. You know that we have 2 other equal branches of the federal goverment right?
I was speaking of him specifically...not what he can or can not do. I was responding to the comments I have read. and YES...i know how it works |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Chris Matthews (yes it's from wiki...but quotes are quotes)
He frequently commented favorably about Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. On February 12, 2008, on MSNBC, he said: "The feeling most people get when they hear an Obama speech...I felt this thrill running up my leg." He also said, "Obama comes around, and this is the new testament." [6] Matthews was criticized for un-objective coverage of Obama, which violated objective journalism.[7] On November 6, 2008, after the election, he stated on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," that "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work." yeah...he's not biased |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I didnt say he said that. It was on the news and i was just proving a point that I know will fall upon deaf ears. But I had to say it just to apease myself
I apologize. I read it wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 04/26/09 03:01 PM
|
|
On Chris Matthews (yes it's from wiki...but quotes are quotes) He frequently commented favorably about Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. On February 12, 2008, on MSNBC, he said: "The feeling most people get when they hear an Obama speech...I felt this thrill running up my leg." He also said, "Obama comes around, and this is the new testament." [6] Matthews was criticized for un-objective coverage of Obama, which violated objective journalism.[7] On November 6, 2008, after the election, he stated on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," that "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work." yeah...he's not biased I felt this thrill running up my leg." He also said, "Obama comes around, and this is the new testament." [6] Matthews --------- He has a passion for politics. First viable black candidate.Obama wasn't even on the map eight years ago.
Matthews was criticized for un-objective coverage of Obama----- Arn't they all critisized for that?
"I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work."------ Anyone that cares about this country should
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from things I have read and seen, it doesn't seem that Obama finds it as serious He'd have to implicate Pelosi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Chris Matthews (yes it's from wiki...but quotes are quotes) He frequently commented favorably about Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. On February 12, 2008, on MSNBC, he said: "The feeling most people get when they hear an Obama speech...I felt this thrill running up my leg." He also said, "Obama comes around, and this is the new testament." [6] Matthews was criticized for un-objective coverage of Obama, which violated objective journalism.[7] On November 6, 2008, after the election, he stated on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," that "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work." yeah...he's not biased I felt this thrill running up my leg." He also said, "Obama comes around, and this is the new testament." [6] Matthews --------- He has a passion for politics. First viable black candidate.Obama wasn't even on the map eight years ago.
Matthews was criticized for un-objective coverage of Obama----- Arn't they all critisized for that?
"I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work."------ Anyone that cares about this country should
why am i not surprised??? he is a biased reporter...same as those you criticize on the other side. at least i can take the media with a grain of salt and form my own opinion based on knowing they will slant stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 04/26/09 03:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and people wonder why I find it funny when one discredits one source for being biased then they use a biased source
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Sun 04/26/09 03:10 PM
|
|
I wonder about a lot of things
|
|
|
|
|
