hence the use of foreign installations so the US can pay lip service to meeting its requirements
Yeah, but St. Obama of Barack and his Secretary of State closed all of them, didn't they?
while torturing the crap out of whoever they fancy.
sufficiently ambiguous
The only ambiguity is whether water boarding meets the legal definition of Torture. Experts disagree. Of course, nobody on the political left really likes an answer of 'it's a bit more complex than that' so instead jump up and down making wild and unfounded allegations (like accusing people of war crimes) because it makes a good placard.
Ninfan: a decade in the Army (and counting) gives me a bit more knowledge about this than just reading headlines.
Yeah, but Ninfan watches Infowars, so is much more qualified than you.
No funny picture Ninfan?
[quote=mrblobby ]U
Without the scrutiny of the legislature and the courts, and outside the public eye, Obama is authorizing murder on a weekly basis, with a discussion of the guilt or innocence of candidates for the "kill list" being resolved in secret on "Terror Tuesday" teleconferences with administration officials and intelligence officials.
The thought of what Trump might do with this very uneven playing field is more terrifying than any terrorist threat.
^this
There's no doubt Obama would have been applying some restraint with the drone stuff, and is not a decision he would have taken lightly.
Trump will be all "pew pew die die"
Wonderful Alpha, then you'll know very well that GC don't extend to domestic or foreign terrorists, and the importance of words like perfidious.
Imagine, a president who listened to the advice of the experts and let them lead the decisions - who would have thought that was a bad thing?
That would be a great thing, you just missed out the tiny little detail of him only listening to the experts who say things he already agrees with...
He's certainly not listening to, or letting experts lead things in other areas is he?
You understand the difference between those who are recognised as lawful combatants, and protected under the Geneva conventions, and those who are not, right?
If you'd rather get into the legal minutiae of whether the people you are at war with are at properly at war with you, rather than the harder ethical/moral discussion then okay. I'm sure lawyers can generate some wiggle room there, they did in the past.
Of course there are the issues of the:
- [url= http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ ]Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5)[/url]
- [url= http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx ]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7)[/url]
- [url= http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx ]UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[/url]
- [url= https://dontbeadickday.com/ ]Wheaton's Law[/url]
And of course the [url= https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf ]Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[/url] which defines torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as war crimes under Article 8 (2 a ii, iii & xxi and 2 c i & ii), and as crimes against humanity under Article 7 (1 f & k).
So torture, registration for certain groups, control of the media, camps to put certain people in and mass deportations. Think I've heard this tune before, so far trump's presidency has been disgusting.
That would be a great thing, you just missed out the tiny little detail of him only listening to the experts who say thing he agrees with...
Apparently there are a lot of "experts" that reckon waterboarding works - they just don't seem to talk to anyone else.
Bit like listening to the FBI an CIA about interference in the election - I guess he only started to say nice things when a couple of hundred highly trained eyes were staring at him, or maybe somebody left a memo out called 10 best ways to kill a president when he had his tour.
The only ambiguity is whether water boarding meets the legal definition of Torture.
The only people for whom there is any ambiguity over this are those who are actively seeking it and hiding behind phrases such as 'enhanced interrogation techniques'.
Does anyone really think that the act of putting a cloth over the mouth of a restrained person, then pouring water on it in such a ways as to deliver the sensation of drowning, is not subjecting them to severe pain and suffering?
Define severe
Tell you what we will get the water and a cloth and you pop round for a go. You an give us your experience. Though if it works you will just tell us what we want to hear so it stops. If you don't we will carry on till you do. Sound fair?
Define severe
Now do that day in, day out, hundreds of times, with no way to stop it.
if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horrific-sensation-drowning-after-trumps-9696333
Sounds pretty trivial to me.
ignoring the moral element it is ineffective as mikes notes as you will start saying things just to get it to stop
Its just pointless it gives information which is utterly unreliable and leaves you morally compromised for the manner in which you obtained it
Personally I dont think i would support it even it was effective whilst it is not then the only reason to support it is because you are the sort of person who thinks its ok to torture people.
Torture is illegal and doesnt work.
Surprised by Mays comments in the HoC yesterday. We are guilty of torture too.
ignoring the moral element it is ineffective as mikes notes as you will start saying things just to get it to stopIts just pointless it gives information which is utterly unreliable and leaves you morally compromised for the manner in which you obtained it
Well, I broadly agree, and that's General Matiss' point, and undoubtedly why Trump respected his judgement enough to let him make the decision
But that doesn't really anwer the question as to whether it is or isn't illegal torture does it?
Would be interesting to hear Jack Straws comments on some of these issues...
ninfan - Member
Define severe
In the context of this conversation, I find these two words as horrific as anything Trump has uttered.
Starts to clarify where his support comes from...
Can we waterboard ninfan to see if he thinks it is severe?
Torture is defined by the UN Convention against Torture, which the US has signed, as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" in order to get information.
The US legal code defines torture as an action "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering", while the US Constitution bans "cruel and unusual punishment".
Of course waterboarding when it was being employed was merely an "enhanced interrogation technique" wasn't it?
Reporter - What about waterboarding?
Trump - I'm talking about information gathering methods with my experts. This includes waterboarding but I won't make any statement until I've considered their advice
Not sure what is more disturbing in that video:
Donald Trump's words or the sound of ninfan's aroused breathing.
Have we done this yet? The Netherlands welcomes Donald Trump:
http://mashable.com/2017/01/24/netherlands-trump-viral-video/#YutsXbfXMOqZ
The Indy has a fun story about Trump staffers using private servers 😆
Have we covered his daughter and chief adviser being registered to vote in two different states yet, I believe trump calls that voter fraud.
He's a ****in nutjob and to hear a US president advocate Torturing people is scary.
Even allowing for him being full of shite and never actually doing it what kind of message does it send to all the other nutjobs who might.
It a ****s charter.
he has alternative facts to explain that one
ninfan - MemberBut that doesn't really anwer the question as to whether it is or isn't illegal torture does it?
What would legal torture be?
Putting someone in prison for 20 years.
IIRC its what you do after a legal kidnapping
Oh good apparently Mrs May is going present The Donald with a quaich.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38756197
"The gift of an engraved quaich reflects the US President's Scottish ancestry"
I wonder what they engraved it with.
Hopefully [url= https://www.buzzfeed.com/hilarywardle/custard-flavoured-jobby ]some messages from the people of Scotland[/url].
Lol. As "proof", they say:
[i]"Despite being issued with a National Security Agency-made "hardened" phone, Trump's social media activity indicates he is still using an Android. The NSA devices, which are secured with biometric authentication, are restricted to only downloading secure apps from the Defense Information Systems Agency's store. It is highly unlikely that Trump could download Twitter onto such a device."[/i]
I wonder how Obama managed to use Twitter for all that time then?
Maybe Obama had a computer....
Meanwhile his press secretary has accidentally tweeted his password, two days in a row.
I'm just going to leave [url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/ ]this[/url] here. Apologies if it's been done already, but I can't face trawling back through the swamp.
Not sure why he'd feel a need to do that at this point though
Probably similar reasons to what [url= http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/01/26/america-trump-messy-truth-van-jones-orwell-sot.cnn ]van jones suggests about voter fraud - a distraction[/url]
Enrange the masses whilst pushing through thoughtless changes to enrich your swamp dwelling fossil fuel buddies
[quote=BadlyWiredDog ]I'm just going to leave this here. Apologies if it's been done already, but I can't face trawling back through the swamp.
Donald Trump’s beautiful big family was there. His favorite childhood dog was there, too, back from the farm where he still lives to this day.
😆
[quote=ninfan ]
I wonder how Obama managed to use Twitter for all that time then?
I wonder how you're allowed out the house without adult supervision.
I refer the honourable gentlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago:
[i]What is it about lefties that whenever they can't win on the points they resort to personal insults? I thought being 'progressive' and standing for social justice and equality meant you were all better than that, and that's why you were all able to maintain the righteous moral high ground? Turns out that it's just a skin deep facade...[/i]
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/donald-trump/page/133#post-8241001
[quote=ninfan ]I refer the honourable gentlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago:
What is it about lefties that whenever they can't win on the points they resort to personal insults? I thought being 'progressive' and standing for social justice and equality meant you were all better than that, and that's why you were all able to maintain the righteous moral high ground? Turns out that it's just a skin deep facade...
> http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/donald-trump/page/133#post-8241001
br />
Can you honestly not work out Obama's method of tweeting vs Chump's?
I refer the honourable gentlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago:
You really are struggling 😆
Which justifies the abusive tantrum how?
🙄
Lefties: (sweary warning)
REEEEEE! 😀
Lefties:
Righties
I know which side I'm happy to be on
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Well, That's what happens when you leave the lab kit out...
https://mobile.twitter.com/autumpatrice/status/823164742646845444