Really? It used to be a crime. Japanese soldiers were convicted for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Top Dems Well Aware Of CIA Interrogations
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Yes, it's a crime for those covered by international law and the Geneva convention. Terrorists are not under those rules of law, or any other law. No law can be broken where there is no law. What is it about that simple concept that escapes you?
Article from the NY Post nails it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....ad/1d1c0941659b5bd5/90940852ba73dd27?lnk=raot
I believe you're trying to sidestep the issue. You questioned whether waterboarding can even be considered a form of torture. THIS is the singular issue I am presently addressing. The fact that it had been considered a crime suggests that it is a form of torture. Whether terrorists are classified as prisoners of war or enemy combatants is a separate issue. Whether enemy combatants should or should not be subjected to torture is a separate debate. I limited my prior post solely to the issue of whether waterboarding is a form of torture, which you had questioned. History and common sense suggest that it is. So let us first be clear on that point before addressing any others.
As for referring to the New York Post, you may as well quote Ann Coulter.
In reference to the NY Post and Coulter, truth is truth regardless of who speaks it whether or not they have always been truthful before. The article is the truth.
You have the edge in your torture argument, especially considering I said it's arguable in a general sense. I wasn't clear enough, so let me be clear. In regard to terrorists, water boarding, torture or not, is OK by me. Again that's just one man's opinion and the law should not be dictated by one mans opinion. Laws can also be changed as times changed. Surely you can't argue against that.
Careful, Cap'n. Hapaboy might call you a moral relativist.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/searc...=2928967&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Quote from Thunderdog:
Careful, Cap'n. Hapaboy might call you a moral relativist.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/searc...=2928967&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Being a recovering Liberal I sometimes slip in to my old way of thinking.I doubt that Hap would state that some laws don't need to be updated. Which laws need changing? Now there's the rub.
It appears that Congress wished to change the laws regarding military oversight and interrogation techniques with HR 2082 - - - seeking to uphold the Army Field Manual, but it was VETOED by ONE MAN.
Just like Bush vetoed a bi-partisan effort in Congress towards Children's Health Insurance.
One man, one veto.
One law.
GWB.
BUT, as you keep conveniently ignoring, congress could have overridden the veto and chose not to. So one can easily conclude that the law was supported by all those in congress that sided with the president. Not one man, but many, just as it should be. You would have the great messiah dictating one proclamation after another just for the sake of expediency.