Will Obama arrest the Us operatives who used torture?

[E.J.Armstrong]

The world largely welcomes the election of Barack Obama. One of the major issues he has to confront is the recent US record on human rights. He will undoubtedly be judged on what he does to all the people who flouted international human rights laws that the USA has signed up to.

As the USA is a signatory of the Geneva conventions which make torture illegal, will Obama issue arrest warrants for all those who conceived, approved, supervised, provided faciliites for and carried out the US torture programme around the world?

Also included will be all those who authorised the setting up of, payment for, operational supervision of and transportation of people into, secret gulags set up and sponsored by the USA for torture by proxy.

How quickly can he do this?

If he does not take quick and decisive action to arrest the criminals can his government be taken seriously in the area of human rights?

[Doubt]

If he does not take quick and decisive action to arrest the criminals can his government be taken seriously in the area of human rights?


He will be taken just as seriously as European leaders who did not arrest those responsible for European prison conditions in the 1970's.

[I Ratant]

Zey ver chust following ze orders!

[JimBenArm]

What's that annoying sound?

Oh, it's just EJ, whimpering again.

Never mind, just the usual background whining noise in this section...

[The Fool]

As the US doesn't use the T word to describe what happened i doubt if anyone is going to be crarged for doing the T word to anyone.

[WildCat]

It's on his "honey do" list, right after paying off the national debt.

[Kevin_Lowe]

As the US doesn't use the T word to describe what happened i doubt if anyone is going to be crarged for doing the T word to anyone.

The real problem is that cracking down on the torturers would be akin to cracking down on people who lynched blacks back in the day in the US slave states. You would absolutely be doing the right thing, but you'd face enormous opposition from evil people within your own citizenry who supported torture and/or murder.

As long as they stuck to torturing people who don't count (i.e. anyone from Iraq) as opposed to proper USian people, they were almost completely safe from justice and they knew it.

[RandFan]

To the extent that Americans have broken the law I don't mind if they are prosecuted. Is it an important priority in Obama's mind? I kind of doubt it.

The Democrats are in charge and Henry Waxman has been pretty busy with hearings. I think Waxman is a moral and ernest man. If he has oversight at all over this subject then I suspect we will have hearings. I wouldn't mind that at all.

[RandFan]

The real problem is that cracking down on the torturers would be akin to cracking down on people who lynched blacks back in the day in the US slave states. You would absolutely be doing the right thing, but you'd face enormous opposition from evil people within your own citizenry who supported torture and/or murder.

As long as they stuck to torturing people who don't count (i.e. anyone from Iraq) as opposed to proper USian people, they were almost completely safe from justice and they knew it.I don't believe this is true. I understand the desire to see America only in the worst possible light but we are not inherently immoral or evil. American's were outraged at Abu Ghraib. It was a singificant contributor to Bush's poll numbers going in the toilet.

There will be political considerations as it relates to this issue but I think it would be wrong to simply deduce that it's because Americans are evil people.

[ravdin]

To the extent that Americans have broken the law I don't mind if they are prosecuted. Is it an important priority in Obama's mind? I kind of doubt it.

The Democrats are in charge and Henry Waxman has been pretty busy with hearings. I think Waxman is a moral and ernest man. If he has oversight at all over this subject then I suspect we will have hearings. I wouldn't mind that at all.

The torture policy goes all the way to the top. However, I seriously doubt that Bush will ever face charges. Presidents don't prosecute other presidents. Obama won't want his successor coming after him some day.

[SimonD]

The torture policy goes all the way to the top. However, I seriously doubt that Bush will ever face charges. Presidents don't prosecute other presidents. Obama won't want his successor coming after him some day.

I agree. At best, some people who did the torture may be dragged through the courts. They will never arrest the people who gave the orders.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't believe this is true. I understand the desire to see America only in the worst possible light


We're talking about a regime that tortured people on a widespread, organised basis. You don't need to "desire to see America only in the worst possible light" to see that as being morally abominable, you just need basic human decency.


but we are not inherently immoral or evil. American's were outraged at Abu Ghraib. It was a singificant contributor to Bush's poll numbers going in the toilet.

I guess that showed him.

The real question would be, how many USians would answer "yes" to a poll question that read something like "I would support the Obama administration in vigorously investigating and prosecuting every instance of torture or the facilitation of torture which occurred under the Bush administration, at all levels of the military and government."


There will be political considerations as it relates to this issue but I think it would be wrong to simply deduce that it's because Americans are evil people.

It's because some USians are evil people, in that they support and defend torturers.

You're part of the problem, as demonstrated by the fact that you leaped to post nonsense about "desire to see America only in the worst possible light " when I pointed out that the fact it's politically impossible to bring your torturers to justice reflects a moral failing in the people of the USA taken as a national group. Not a failing in all US citizens. Just the ones that would rather not see their torturers brought to book, who I believe make up a sizable chunk of your population and your elected officials.

I'll be very glad to admit I was completely wrong if the Obama government promptly arrests everyone known to be involved, and the US population supports it. That would be wonderful. I just don't see it happening.

[Pardalis]

USians

Oh no, not that again... :rolleyes:

Anyone who uses that word should be ignored.

[E.J.Armstrong]

What's that annoying sound?

Oh, it's just EJ, whimpering again.

Never mind, just the usual background whining noise in this section...

When will Obama take action against all the US torturers?

[E.J.Armstrong]

To the extent that Americans have broken the law I don't mind if they are prosecuted. Is it an important priority in Obama's mind? I kind of doubt it.

The Democrats are in charge and Henry Waxman has been pretty busy with hearings. I think Waxman is a moral and ernest man. If he has oversight at all over this subject then I suspect we will have hearings. I wouldn't mind that at all.

What law?

Do you rule out torture under any circumstances?

[gtc]

Oh no, not that again... :rolleyes:

Anyone who uses that word should be ignored.

Yes. It says something if someone can't even bring themselves to use the term American.

[E.J.Armstrong]

The torture policy goes all the way to the top. However, I seriously doubt that Bush will ever face charges. Presidents don't prosecute other presidents. Obama won't want his successor coming after him some day.

I am afraid that unless he takes decisive and early action against all the torturers he will seriously undermine what he apparently hopes to achieve in improving the US's appalling human rights record.

[dudalb]

Just more proof that certain people hate the US, regardless of who is in charge. All Bush did was give them lot of material to work with.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Yes. It says something if someone can't even bring themselves to use the term American.

Please stop derailing the thread.

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Just more proof that certain people hate the US, regardless of who is in charge. All Bush did was give them lot of material to work with.


Evidence? Who, what when?

Apart from attempting to derail it do you have anything to contribute to the subject of the thread?

[dudalb]

I am afraid that unless he takes decisive and early action against all the torturers he will seriously undermine what he apparently hopes to achieve in improving the US's appalling human rights record.


Which will give certain people the excuse to go on hating the US.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm at a loss as to how he would do that. Does the PotUS have the authority to have anyone arrested, emergency war powers aside?

[gtc]

Please stop derailing the thread.

I am not derailing the thread.

Do you have anything to say about the subject of the thread?

Yes I do.

Anyone who is responsible for war crimes or the like should be punished. However, you do not speak for the world and what just because you consider something to constitute 'torture', the 'US torture programme' (sic) or 'gulags' does not mean that Obama or anyone else would also consider it to be so.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Which will give certain people the excuse to go on hating the US.



You appear to equate hatred of torture with hatred of the US. Why? That implies you believe it is american to torture.

Who are you trying to demonise here? Me or the american people?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I am not derailing the thread. QED



Yes I do.

Anyone who is responsible for war crimes or the like should be punished. However, you do not speak for the world and what just because you consider something to constitute 'torture', the 'US torture programme' (sic) or 'gulags' does not mean that Obama or anyone else would also consider it to be so.

I have never claimed to speak for the world.

Do you believe that torture in any form is acceptable or do you try to redefine what constitutes torture as the Us does?

The world has however spoken already and the Geneva conventions make torture illegal. The US has signed up to the Geneva Conventions. Water boarding is regarded as torture throughout many parts of the world and the US has admitted using waterboarding.

As you know it is not me defining that waterboarding is torture. See '...Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[5][8][30] politicians, war veterans,[9][10] intelligence officials,[31] military judges,[12] and human rights organizations.[13][14] David Miliband, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary described it as torture on 19 July 2008, and stated "the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture."[32] Arguments have been put forward that it might not be torture in all cases, or that they are uncertain.[33][34][35][36] The U.S. State Department has recognized that other techniques that involve submersion of the head of the subject during interrogation would qualify as torture.[37]
The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[38]...'

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Bush has already admitted setting up secret gulags and the world knows that illegally kidnapped people have been transported into those secret gulags for torture by proxy.

I am happy to see that the noose is tightening (albeit slowly) around torturers all over the world no matter how they squirm and try to redefine torture to their own benefit - as the US government has done and is still doing.

[PhantomWolf]

Does anyone know the extent of Obama's powers to demand such arrests and trials? I know that in NZ politicians are expected to keep out of judicial matters with the most they can do being laying a complaint with the police. I would assume that the US had a similar separation of the political and judical?

[RandFan]

You're part of the problem, as demonstrated by the fact that you leaped to post nonsense about "desire to see America only in the worst possible light " when I pointed out that the fact it's politically impossible to bring your torturers to justice reflects a moral failing in the people of the USA taken as a national group. Not a failing in all US citizens. Just the ones that would rather not see their torturers brought to book, who I believe make up a sizable chunk of your population and your elected officials.You've really become embittered lately. I'm sincerly sorry about that. In the past you were willing to debate me without attacking me personally. Oh well. If it feeds your ego that's fine. Whatever. At least America gives you a punching bag. We're good for that at least. :)

[RandFan]

I am not derailing the thread.Amazing, E.J. just had a bunch of his posts moved for derailing his own thread and he gives you a hard time for the same? He's such a hypochrite.

[RandFan]

I'm at a loss as to how he would do that. Does the PotUS have the authority to have anyone arrested, emergency war powers aside?Facts don't matter to some.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes. It says something if someone can't even bring themselves to use the term American.

Oh no, not that again... :rolleyes:

Anyone who uses that word should be ignored.

Well, if you can't shoot the messenger you can always find something to complain about instead.

It sure is easier than trying to defend torturers.

[fagin]

When will Obama take action against all the US torturers?
Ask him yourself. I doubt many people here have a direct line.

[fuelair]

The world largely welcomes the election of Barack Obama. One of the major issues he has to confront is the recent US record on human rights. He will undoubtedly be judged on what he does to all the people who flouted international human rights laws that the USA has signed up to.

As the USA is a signatory of the Geneva conventions which make torture illegal, will Obama issue arrest warrants for all those who conceived, approved, supervised, provided faciliites for and carried out the US torture programme around the world?

Also included will be all those who authorised the setting up of, payment for, operational supervision of and transportation of people into, secret gulags set up and sponsored by the USA for torture by proxy.

How quickly can he do this?

If he does not take quick and decisive action to arrest the criminals can his government be taken seriously in the area of human rights?

Another good try. Hopefully he will have arrested and tried those in the top level/Justice department who approved it but beyond that not any more likely than any other governments who have done such covertly (ours was semi-open). But good try and thanks for playing.:)

[Darth Rotor]

I'm at a loss as to how he would do that. Does the PotUS have the authority to have anyone arrested, emergency war powers aside?
What he can to is direct the Attorney General and the Justice Department to put together a task force, whose aim would be to conduct an in depth investigation, and to deal with discovered violations of US law accordingly. While he might not have a badge and show up at the door, he has members of the executive branch who could, or might.

I don't think it's particularly high on his list of things to do, however. I'd say he has at least five things of far greater importance to address:

Iraq
Afghanistan
Economy
Pakistan
Energy Policy

Making EJ happy isn't high on much of anyone's list, which may explain the themes we are presented with.

DR

[Pardalis]

Well, if you can't shoot the messenger you can always find something to complain about instead.

You've forfeited the right to be taken seriously by using that word, sorry.

It sure is easier than trying to defend torturers.Got any names?

[Darat]

...snip....

I don't think it's particularly high on his list of things to do, however. I'd say he has at least five things of far greater importance to address:

Getting a puppy
Iraq
Afghanistan
Economy
Pakistan
Energy Policy

Making EJ happy isn't high on much of anyone's list, which may explain the themes we are presented with.

DR

Fixed that for you.

[Darth Rotor]

Fixed that for you.
Thanks. :D If I may quote the very late Mark Twain, what the president elect seeks is a composite dog:
(roughly)

A composite dog is a dog which mixes togeter the finest attributes of many breeds of dog. A mongrel is all the riff raff left over.

ETA: I found the quote, the above is from long term memory:

Twain's words:
A composite dog is a dog that's made up of all the valuable qualities that's in the dog breed--kind of a syndicate; and a mongrel is made up of the riffraff that's left over. - Mark Twain in Eruption, p. 222. Used in "His Grandfather's Old Ram

DR

[dudalb]

Does anyone know the extent of Obama's powers to demand such arrests and trials? I know that in NZ politicians are expected to keep out of judicial matters with the most they can do being laying a complaint with the police. I would assume that the US had a similar separation of the political and judical?

He can probably tell the Attonry General to look into the matter,but he has NO power to order arrests and trials except through standard procedures of law, like any other criminal case.

[dudalb]

Thanks. :D If I may quote the very late Mark Twain, what the president elect seeks is a composite dog:
(roughly)

A composite dog is a dog which mixes togeter the finest attributes of many breeds of dog. A mongrel is all the riff raff left over.

ETA: I found the quote, the above is from long term memory:

Twain's words:
A composite dog is a dog that's made up of all the valuable qualities that's in the dog breed--kind of a syndicate; and a mongrel is made up of the riffraff that's left over. - Mark Twain in Eruption, p. 222. Used in "His Grandfather's Old Ram

DR


I like Bill Murray's descriptiion in "Stripes"..which someone kindly posted a video of in the "Mutt" thread here after I failed to find a copy on the net.

[ImaginalDisc]

What he can to is direct the Attorney General and the Justice Department to put together a task force, whose aim would be to conduct an in depth investigation, and to deal with discovered violations of US law accordingly. While he might not have a badge and show up at the door, he has members of the executive branch who could, or might.


So the answer is no, he doesn't. Ordering an investigation to be carried out is not tantamount to arresting people.

[Darth Rotor]

So the answer is no, he doesn't. Ordering an investigation to be carried out is not tantamount to arresting people.
I will split hairs with you for a moment here.

Ordering the investigation can lead to arrest, and as such becomes (through the accountability of the chain of command) something close to "arresting" whomever it is that gets nabbed, if someone does get arrested.

Odering an arrest without first following due process procedures, like getting the proper law enforcement processes initiated, may be what EJ is on about. Not sure.

Look at it another way: people credit Mao with killing over a ten million Chinese during some of his attempts to change China. He gave the orders and direction that led to the implementation of policy, so thanks to the above chain, he gets the credit for killing those folks.

DR

[I Ratant]

Facts don't matter to some.
.
The Attorney General can be directed to look into the potential for criminal activity and prosecution for.

[ravdin]

Does anyone know the extent of Obama's powers to demand such arrests and trials? I know that in NZ politicians are expected to keep out of judicial matters with the most they can do being laying a complaint with the police. I would assume that the US had a similar separation of the political and judical?

Obama could direct the Justice Department to investigate the practices of the previous administration. However, federal prosecutors' resources may be vast but they're not unlimited. Certainly there would be a vigorous defense and a bitter partisan fight, and there are plenty of more important tasks at hand (counterterrorism for example) that need to be addressed.

I'm sure it would thrill EJ and many of my neighbors in Berkeley to see Bush in a prison cell. But it will never happen. We need to stop the torture, but we also need to move forward. We have too many problems to tackle right now to engage in more political grandstanding just because the opposition party has won.

[ImaginalDisc]

Look at it another way: people credit Mao with killing over a ten million Chinese during some of his attempts to change China. He gave the orders and direction that led to the implementation of policy, so thanks to the above chain, he gets the credit for killing those folks.


The President of the United States has nothing like the authority Chairman Mao had. He simply can't have party X arrested. He can order an investigation to be carried out by other parties, which will be brought to the judicial branch of government, likely several times if warrants and such are requested, before anyone's brought to trial.

If Obama orders an investigation, the correct responsability to attribute to him would be "President Obama ordered an investigation." He would have arrested no one. Checks and balances aside, claiming the President is soley, directly responsible for the reprocussions of actions he orders ignores the responsabilities of others involved for good or ill.

[PhantomWolf]

I'd imagine that even if Bush was found to be responsible he'd end up with a Pardon like Nixon did.

[Darth Rotor]

The President of the United States has nothing like the authority Chairman Mao had. He simply can't have party X arrested.
We seem to be in violent agreement.

What none of us has addressed, which is related to EJ's original post, is whether or not Obama would choose to put behind us a portion of the issues on charges of torture, and the rendition program, through a limited and targeted use of the Presidential pardon. I can see arguments for and against. Does he play to the domestic crowd first and foremost, or the international crowd?

I'd guess domestic. Crystal ball is admittedly fuzzy.

DR

[paximperium]

I suspect Obama will likely begin an in depth review of the rendition and "forceful interrogation"/torture policy and those involved with it.

However, I doubt anyone will be arrested when it comes to these policies. The Bush Administration probably have used various legal loopholes to prevent their lackeys from being caught. What we will likely see(or not see) is these policies being quietly dropped.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It also occurred to me that Bush has the option of pardoning everyone involved, or alternatively dumping all the relevant records in the harbour and then pardoning the people who did that. He's still President, and it seems to be an inglorious US tradition to abuse the hell out of the Presidential pardon five seconds before you leave office.

[E.J.Armstrong]

You've really become embittered lately. I'm sincerly sorry about that. In the past you were willing to debate me without attacking me personally. Oh well. If it feeds your ego that's fine. Whatever. At least America gives you a punching bag. We're good for that at least. :)

Can you stop spamming this thread. If you wish to make unsupported personal attacks please take them elsewhere.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Amazing, E.J. just had a bunch of his posts moved for derailing his own thread and he gives you a hard time for the same? He's such a hypochrite.

You have been asked already to stop spamming this thread with unsupported personal abuse. If you carry on I will have to report you.

Pip pip.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Facts don't matter to some.

Please stop spamming.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Well, if you can't shoot the messenger you can always find something to complain about instead.

It sure is easier than trying to defend torturers.

It's a shame that they would rather attack the messengers than the torturers but I'm happy to demonstrate their MO.

Unless Obama acts immediately to arrest and try all the USA torturers and human rights abusers will he have any credibility around the world?

I hope that he will act to rectify the USA's appalling human rights record.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Ask him yourself. I doubt many people here have a direct line.


Don't worry, I certainly will.

I expect that many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of other people around the world will as well. We will be waiting to see if he is serious about human rights.

[E.J.Armstrong]

What he can to is direct the Attorney General and the Justice Department to put together a task force, whose aim would be to conduct an in depth investigation, and to deal with discovered violations of US law accordingly. While he might not have a badge and show up at the door, he has members of the executive branch who could, or might.

I don't think it's particularly high on his list of things to do, however. I'd say he has at least five things of far greater importance to address:

Iraq
Afghanistan
Economy
Pakistan
Energy Policy

Making EJ happy isn't high on much of anyone's list, which may explain the themes we are presented with.

DR

Are you saying that Obama cannot do more than 5 things at once? If he wants to be taken seriously he will have to act to bring all those in the US who authorised, directed, facilitated and carried out torture to justice.

Do you not welcome the net tightening around all US torturers?

Making Dart Rotor happy isn't high on Human Rights organisations list which may explain why you keep attacking the messengers.

[paximperium]

It's a shame that they would rather attack the messengers than the torturers but I'm happy to demonstrate their MO.

The irony is blinding. Whining and acting the martyr is your MO apparently. You are no messenger, just some biased internet troll who can't debate without derailing his own thread.


Unless Obama acts immediately to arrest and try all the USA torturers and human rights abusers will he have any credibility around the world? Sure, he will. In your little fantasy world he does things just to make you...oops, "the world" happy.


I hope that he will act to rectify the USA's appalling human rights record. Yes, I actually do hope he does. Not by listening to people like you but by doing the right thing.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Fixed that for you.

Where do Human Rights figure on your list?

[paximperium]

Are you saying that Obama cannot do more than 5 things at once? If he wants to be taken seriously he will have to act to bring all those in the US who authorised, directed, facilitated and carried out torture to justice.
Taken seriously by whom? You? Do you speak for the world now?

Do you not welcome the net tightening around all US torturers?
Yes. I wish they get the justice they deserve.


Making Dart Rotor happy isn't high on Human Rights organisations list which may explain why you keep attacking the messengers. More martyrdom playacting. You are no messenger, just some hate filled guy on the internet.

[E.J.Armstrong]

You've forfeited the right to be taken seriously by using that word, sorry. Er no he hasn't. the word American can be applied to a much wider group than those who live in the USA. As such it is inadequate. North Americans is likewis deficient. People of the US would do it but is too long. Usians has the merit of being both accurate and short.

Got any names?

How many do you want?

The main tortureres are those who authorised torture, namely George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, Richard Cheney.

The next group consists of all the people who facilitated the torture on facilities they control. This includes the CIA and many within the US military.

The next group includes those who actually carried out the torture, including many in the CIA and the US military.

I trust you will encourage Obama to arrest and try all of them.

[E.J.Armstrong]

The irony is blinding. Whining and acting the martyr is your MO apparently. You are no messenger, just some biased internet troll who can't debate without derailing his own thread. We all know tyou are unable to post without hurling abuse. Please stop spamming this thread or you will be reported. THanks

Sure, he will. In your little fantasy world he does things just to make you...oops, "the world" happy. You might be taken seeriously if you would only post some words to support your allegations but you won't. Continuously trying to demonise me because I don't agree with you has already been pointed out as your MO. You would rather attck the messenger thah construct a rational post. Now please stop spamming and demonising or you will be reported.

Pip Pip.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Taken seriously by whom? You? Do you speak for the world now? Taken seriously by people who want to stop human rights abuses around the world. I do not speak for the world.

Yes. I wish they get the justice they deserve. Good. I look forwards to Obama arresting and trying all US tortureres.

More martyrdom playacting. You are no messenger, just some hate filled guy on the internet.

Au contraire.

Your latest post merely indicates that when someone has the cheek to highlight human rights abuses by the USA, you hurl personal abuse at them in a futile attempt to demonise them and bully them into stopping bringing that message to the public.

In doing so repeatedly and consistently (as witnessed on this thread and many others) you continue to make my point for me very eloquently. You just haven't grasped that point yet. When you learn to make your point without hurling personal abuse you might be taken more seriously.

As it is trying to bully me and demonise me because I highlight human rights abuses in the USA suggests that you would rather demonise me than the perpetrators of the human rights abuses, which is really rather sad.

Pip pip.

[WildCat]

Is this all about the 3 people waterboarded in 2003 EJ?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Is this all about the 3 people waterboarded in 2003 EJ?


Its about all the people tortured around the world as part of the US official torture programme including: -

All the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib, Baghram and other US military run bases,

All the torture that was carried out in Guantanamo Bay.

All the secret gulags around the world into which the US illegally kidnapped and transported people for to be tortured by proxy.

I trust that you want all of those who ordered, condoned, facilitated and carried out the US torture programme to be brought to justice as soon as possible by Obama.

How can the US be taken seriously when it attacks other states for human rights abuses while it carries out human rights abuses itself and doesn't bring all those involved to justice?

Hopefully Obama will not pardon any human rights abusers from Bush to the CIA to the US military.

'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
—The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)'

[drkitten]

How can the US be taken seriously when it attacks other states for human rights abuses while it carries out human rights abuses itself and doesn't bring all those involved to justice?

Oooh, I know this one.

Because it has money, and industry, and technology, and guns.

Even a drunken Mafia kingpin is still a Mafia kingpin and should be taken seriously. If you tell the cop who is arresting you that you don't take him seriously and therefore refuse to accept his authority, you've just put yourself in a lot more trouble.

[Nogbad]

I don't think he will arrest them but he may slap their legs.

[JimBenArm]

Oh dear! They think we're bad! Whatever shall we do?

I know. Let's go torture someone. That always makes me feel better!

We'll play Celine Dion outside their mosque all night! I'm feeling extra cruel!

[Nogbad]

Oh dear! They think we're bad! Whatever shall we do?

I know. Let's go torture someone. That always makes me feel better!

We'll play Celine Dion outside their mosque all night! I'm feeling extra cruel!

:eek: Vicious!

Is that you Torquemada?

[E.J.Armstrong]

...

Because it has money, and industry, and technology, and guns. ...




Money? You mean the money that wasn't there when your capitalist banks went bust or the socialist handouts from Bush to the rich?

Industry? You mean all the industry that has been farmed out to that famous communist state, China and which no longer happens in the USA.

Technology. You mean the technology used to start so many wars?

Guns? You mean the guns that are killing US students and wedding parties in Afghanistan?

Got you. What an example to the world? Basically, like so many fascist arguments over the ages, might is right and the law can go hang?

If you really mean to be taken seriously can I just suggest you and look what happened to Mussolini. All that posturing. All that bravado. All that hanging upside down in the end when the decent world caught up with him.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Oh dear! They think we're bad! Whatever shall we do?

I know. Let's go torture someone. That always makes me feel better!

We'll play Celine Dion outside their mosque all night! I'm feeling extra cruel!


Do you want Obama to arrest and try all the US torturers and those who approved, facilitated and carried out torture or do you just think human rights are funny?

[JimBenArm]

Do you want Obama to arrest and try all the US torturers and those who approved, facilitated and carried out torture or do you just think human rights are funny?
I don't want Obama to do any such thing! What would Celine do for fans?
And I think human rights are hysterical! Rights? The only rights you have are the ones the U.S. says you have!
Don't like it? Too bad!
We're the U.S.
We Don't Care! We Don't Have To!TM

[paximperium]

Money? You mean the money that wasn't there when your capitalist banks went bust or the socialist handouts from Bush to the rich?

Industry? You mean all the industry that has been farmed out to that famous communist state, China and which no longer happens in the USA.

Technology. You mean the technology used to start so many wars?

Guns? You mean the guns that are killing US students and wedding parties in Afghanistan?

Got you. What an example to the world? Basically, like so many fascist arguments over the ages, might is right and the law can go hang?

If you really mean to be taken seriously can I just suggest you and look what happened to Mussolini. All that posturing. All that bravado. All that hanging upside down in the end when the decent world caught up with him.
EJ's rants are getting more amusing.:words:

[paximperium]

Do you want Obama to arrest and try all the US torturers and those who approved, facilitated and carried out torture or do you just think human rights are funny?
I think foaming in the mouth demagogues are. You guys are hilarious.

Notice how zero people are interesting in even talking to you? Do you truly believe your rabid foaming in the mouth biased threads actually convince anyone to your point?

[JimBenArm]

I think foaming in the mouth demagogues are. You guys are hilarious.

Notice how zero people are interesting in even talking to you? Do you truly believe your rabid foaming in the mouth biased threads actually convince anyone to your point?
Well, I'm starting to come around! Why, I even suggested they quit playing Lee Greenwood and switch to Celine, to be more multi-national!

[WildCat]

Its about all the people tortured around the world as part of the US official torture programme including: -

All the torture carried out at Abu Ghraib, Baghram and other US military run bases,
Did you miss the prosecutions that already took place? Is Obama expected to try them again for the same crimes?

All the torture that was carried out in Guantanamo Bay.
Such as...?

All the secret gulags around the world into which the US illegally kidnapped and transported people for to be tortured by proxy.
Ah, so now when Syria or Egypt tortures someone it's the fault of the US. Gotcha. Will this also include the extraordinary renditions undertaken by the Clinton administration?

I trust that you want all of those who ordered, condoned, facilitated and carried out the US torture programme to be brought to justice as soon as possible by Obama.
You mean the 3 people waterboarded, or do you have other examples in mind?

How can the US be taken seriously when it attacks other states for human rights abuses while it carries out human rights abuses itself and doesn't bring all those involved to justice?
Examples, or are we just going to get more hysterical whining from you?

Hopefully Obama will not pardon any human rights abusers from Bush to the CIA to the US military.
He won't have to, because there won't be a law to try them under IMHO.

'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
—The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 (1948)'
Define those terms in detail.

Oh, and:

Article 1.


All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
I anxiously await your country to give Queen Elizabeth et al their walking papers, since they were clearly born with more rights than others... :rolleyes:

When does the UK intend to abide by Article I?

[WildCat]

Well, I'm starting to come around! Why, I even suggested they quit playing Lee Greenwood and switch to Celine, to be more multi-national!
You monster!

[gtc]

If he wants to be taken seriously he will have to act to bring all those in the US who authorised, directed, facilitated and carried out torture to justice.

I am pretty sure that he will taken seriously even if he doesn't do your bidding.

Do you not welcome the net tightening around all US torturers?

Do you have any evidence that such a thing is happening or is this just wishful thinking?

[mrbaracuda]

Is this all about the 3 people waterboarded in 2003 EJ?

Waterboarding sounds way too nice! (http://www.cruisemates.com/images/RCI/Freedom/WaterPark.jpg) :D

[Travis]

Obama wouldn't do this for a very practical reason--at some point in his Presidency someone in his intelligence services will torture someone, and likely some innocent people too, and get some results from it that Obama will then make good use of. Same as happened under Clinton and pretty much every President since the start of WW2. So if he set such a precedent of going after Bush he'd simply be laying the groundwork for his own successor to go after him.

[RandFan]

Do you truly believe your rabid foaming in the mouth biased threads actually convince anyone to your point?Yes! Should he? No.

Look, a year from now, 4 years from now, 8 years from now. No one will have been arrested and tried for torture and that fact won't have any impact on E.J. anymore than the fact that Sylvia Browne is consistently wrong in her predictions have any effect on her. E.J. is dogmatic in his world view. His hatred for the US is more than his reason can stand.

[Pardalis]

Usians has the merit of being both accurate and short.

No it's stupid and unpronouncable.

I trust you will encourage Obama to arrest and try all of them.

No, that would be absurd.

[Darth Rotor]

Are you saying that Obama cannot do more than 5 things at once?
No. I suggested where a priority lies. Internal political considerations, see the issue of pardon above, may keep him from acting. Kevin Lowe makes a sound point: W could pardon any number of people, and effectively end any initiative Obama might, or might not, have planned for that issue. All I am sure he'll do is close the facility down, as he and McCain both promised during their campaigns. I'll bet the over on that. I am also pretty certain he'll fire General Hayden, CIA director, who we discussed some months ago as having confirmed use of a waterboard on three people.

In other news, a Morrocan court recently sentenced one of the Gitmo detainees, released to them by the US, to ten years of prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7730733.stm). Ever wonder why some of those people were in Gitmo in the first place, EJ?
A former prisoner at the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay has been jailed for 10 years by a court in Morocco. Said Boujandi, who is Moroccan, was found guilty on terrorism charges, including planning attacks against foreign interests in northern Morocco.
If he wants to be taken seriously he will have to act to bring all those in the US who authorised, directed, facilitated and carried out torture to justice.
No, he won't. You make an assertion here, and assume it true.
Do you not welcome the net tightening around all US torturers?
I don't spend much time worrying about it. You are welcomed to.
Making Dart Rotor happy isn't high on Human Rights organisations list which may explain why you keep attacking the messengers.
Copy cat? Not good form, EJ.

DR

[gumboot]

All the torture that was carried out in Guantanamo Bay.



For what it's worth, even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is one of the people who was tortured and is quite happy to point this out, has stated pretty clearly that he was not mistreated at Guantanamo Bay. Do you actually have any evidence that anyone was tortured there?

(By the way, in case anyone is interested, Al Qaeda training includes teaching their members to claim they have been tortured and abused if they are ever captured, so if you were able to confirm a prisoner as having genuinely gone through Al Qaeda training camps, I would be very cynical of any abuse/torture claims).

For people like KSM who didn't go through Al Qaeda training (not to mention the people in custody who aren't terrorists at all) it's another story entirely.

[Travis]

For what it's worth, even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is one of the people who was tortured and is quite happy to point this out, has stated pretty clearly that he was not mistreated at Guantanamo Bay. Do you actually have any evidence that anyone was tortured there?

(By the way, in case anyone is interested, Al Qaeda training includes teaching their members to claim they have been tortured and abused if they are ever captured, so if you were able to confirm a prisoner as having genuinely gone through Al Qaeda training camps, I would be very cynical of any abuse/torture claims).

For people like KSM who didn't go through Al Qaeda training (not to mention the people in custody who aren't terrorists at all) it's another story entirely.

I believe that fallacious and fictitious stories/movies like Road to Guantanamo have created the impression that the place is where much evil happens for no reason.

[tomwaits]

My father was stationed in Gitmo for a long period of time. I can say with confidence that there is no torture or mistreatment going on there. The issue is whether or not they should be tried or released, since they have not been sentenced and could be there for the rest of their life for all they know.