POLITICS 11/30/2017 01:42 pm ET Updated Nov 30, 2017 Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration’s ‘Ci

A federal judge in washington running the war in iraq?

What will liberals think of next?

 

1) Below are several references on military leaders being against torture.
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/re...nd-admirals-president-elect-trump-use-torture

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/286209-trump-bucks-military-on-waterboarding
The comments prompted retired military leaders — including two former CIA directors — to again reject the use of waterboarding, a practice banned by international law in which water is poured over a captive to simulate drowning.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-op-kaiser24sep24-story.html
The group of retired flag officers first came together in 2005, when a dozen of them signed a letter opposing the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general for his role in developing Bush's policies on torture in the war on terror....
..."The moral of the story," said the general, "is we Americans have been so thoroughly imbued with the idea that you have to treat prisoners humanely — and this [story] is an example of why. It is an illustration of how by treating an individual decently you are much more likely to get any information you might want — and it's more likely to be correct."

2) Waterboarding is torture and President Trump agrees:
"Don't tell me it doesn't work -- torture works," Trump said. "Okay, folks? Torture -- you know, half these guys [say]: 'Torture doesn't work.' Believe me, it works. Okay?"

3) I have no problem killing terrorists in a combat situation but summary executions of prisoners is against American values.

 

Why bother with a trial? The US government should just charge whoever they want to charge with being a terrorist, including you and torture and execute them, preferably the same day in order to save money.

Educate yourself, you have no clue. This is the simplified version, just for you.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 contain a number of provisions that absolutely prohibit torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment and outrages upon individual dignity.

For example, torture is prohibited by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, Article 12 of the First and Second Conventions, Articles 17 and 87 of the Third Convention, Article 32 of the Fourth Convention, Article 75 (2 a & e) of Additional Protocol I and Article 4 (2 a & h) of Additional Protocol II. In international armed conflict, torture constitutes a grave breach under Articles 50, 51, 130 and 147 respectively of these Conventions. Under Article 85 of Additional Protocol I, these breaches constitute war crimes. In non-international armed conflict, they are considered serious violations.

In addition, Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, Article 75 (2 b & e) of Additional Protocol I and Article 4 (2 a & h) of Additional Protocol II prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". In international armed conflict, these acts constitute grave breaches. In non-international armed conflict, they constitute serious violations.

Finally, the prohibition of torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment and outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, is recognized as a customary rule in the ICRC’s study Customary International Humanitarian Law (Rule 90) and by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/torture-law-2011-06-24.htm

You keep proving you know very little, if anything. The following is popularly called the Supremacy Clause, you're welcome.

Article VI Section 2.

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.

Because when Muslims murder and torture innocent people, it's terrorism but when the US government murders and tortures innocent people it's for your "safety".

You don't have to say it, you imply it with your own words.

Your own words contradict you ... every time.

 

Yes, he is a combatant in an undeclared war.

I'm not taking a stand against my own country. I am merely commenting on how my government, with my tax dollars, breaks the law as it please, both domestic law and international law. My country is one thing, and its government is very much another thing.

 

Right. He went out for a stroll one day and all of a sudden, he was in Fallujah.

 

Actually, we executed terrorists after WWII. No trials, just shot when they were caught.

I have no problem with water boarding whether you want to call it torture or not, because as I said, terrorists do not have Constitutional rights. I really couldn't care less how many people have a differing opinion. Don't care if they are generals or whatever. It's bull if you ask me to say torture doesn't work. It does. We are a sovereign nation and no bound by "international law" except by treaty. The Geneva Convention for instance, makes exceptions for terrorists or non-state sponsored combatants.

 

WWII was over 72 years ago. A few things have changed since then.

I'm sure you don't care about our military leadership and why they are concerned about torture, the Geneva Convention and other issues you are so quick to dismiss.

 

Like I said, terrorists after WWII were summarily executed. No trials.

Educate yourself, you have no clue. You don't have to simplify anything. I have no interest in debating someone who talks down to me and thinks they are intellectually superior. You say my words imply I'm a racist? What words imply that? Your acting morally and intellectually superior to me is racist to me.

The US government doesn't murder and torture innocent people. That is just your hate America viewpoint. You've been thoroughly brainwashed by liberal teachers.

Those violations of international laws and war crimes as you state, do not apply to terrorists as I've said over and over.

 

Nothing has changed. Military leaders have differing opinions. The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.

 

You can say anything you want as many times as you believe you might convince someone, it's just as irrelevant as you are. The facts (as fully sourced, unlike your incessant racist and barbaric drivel) speak for themselves, you don't get to make them up.

 

Your drivel is racist. I'm a republican. Republicans freed the slaves and fought for civil rights. Your party is the party of racism and slavery.

 

Strongly disagreed since a lot of things have changed since Pearl Harbor and now.

 

Do you apply that logic to Confederate traitors as well?

 

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

 

Where does the Constitution provide for renouncing citizenship outside of naturalization with a recognized government of another state?

 

You want to compare terrorists to Confederates that just goes to show you how stupid our education system has become. The Civil War is over, it was fought and won by the Union, and now all the confederates are dead. No I don't apply that logic to Confederates. I apply that to terrorists traitors who fight against their country.

 

Really? Now instead of flying planes over Pearl Harbor, they fly them into skyscrapers. Still surprise attack.

 

You think they're the same? hmmmm. That's kind of, you know, uuuumm.... scary.

 

So you don’t apply standards evenly and don’t really believe that fighting against your country deprives you of all rights.

 

Confederates took up arms against their nation, did they lose all of their rights and do you believe for instance we should tear down monuments to those traitors?

 

Did you think about this question before you asked it?

 

Of course I did. That’s why I asked it. The only way in the Constitution to renounce your citizenship is to be naturalized by another government.

Do we recognize the government of ISIS or its citizenship?

 

I don't know why you insist upon conflating the Civil War to terrorism. Keep it up. I have no interest in such a stupid and pointless debate.

 

It doesn't make any sense.

Okay.

 

So only terrorists take up arms against their country? The Confederates didn’t?