Jump to content

I would have voted for Condelezza Rice.


51FALCON
 Share

Recommended Posts

me51 (4/12/2008)
Republicans could have beat the democrats with the first black and woman at the same time. But we all know that democrats would knock her as a sell out because she has her own mind.

I'd say she would be knocked because she has done a poor job.

She ignored the nation's top threat until it was too late......she also helped with the torture crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/14/2008)
Bump for war crimes
Who knew that after being unsuccessful in finding bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we'll ultimately find him at The Hague? I wonder how the waterboarding charges will stand against the counter suit of sawing people's head off? Obviously al Qaeda is a stalwart for the Geneva Conventions.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/14/2008)
Bump for war crimes
Who knew that after being unsuccessful in finding bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we'll ultimately find him at The Hague? I wonder how the waterboarding charges will stand against the counter suit of sawing people's head off? Obviously al Qaeda is a stalwart for the Geneva Conventions.....

I see you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" defense

The argument could be made that she, along with the rest of Bush's administration should be brought up on criminal charges pertaining to the illegal manner in which this war was planned and executed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
Tetsujin-28 (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/14/2008)
Bump for war crimes
Who knew that after being unsuccessful in finding bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we'll ultimately find him at The Hague? I wonder how the waterboarding charges will stand against the counter suit of sawing people's head off? Obviously al Qaeda is a stalwart for the Geneva Conventions.....

I see you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" defense

The argument could be made that she, along withthe restof Bush's administration should be brought up on criminal charges pertaining to the illegal manner in which this war was planned and executed.

Possibly, but I was thinking more of the planning and execution of the torture policy.

True.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/14/2008)
Bump for war crimes
Who knew that after being unsuccessful in finding bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we'll ultimately find him at The Hague? I wonder how the waterboarding charges will stand against the counter suit of sawing people's head off? Obviously al Qaeda is a stalwart for the Geneva Conventions.....

I see you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" defense

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tetsujin-28 (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/14/2008)
Bump for war crimes
Who knew that after being unsuccessful in finding bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we'll ultimately find him at The Hague? I wonder how the waterboarding charges will stand against the counter suit of sawing people's head off? Obviously al Qaeda is a stalwart for the Geneva Conventions.....

I see you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" defense

The argument could be made that she, along withthe restof Bush's administration should be brought up on criminal charges pertaining to the illegal manner in which this war was planned and executed.
Incompetence isn't necessarily illegal. Combine that with the two Authorizations to Use Military Force (AUMF) bills fron Congress for both Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be a difficult case to prove, unless you expanded your charges to Congress as well to prove a broad conspiracy.

Most people forget the President was given very wide latitude, especially in the authorization of action against al Qaeda and the Taliban. In fact, it wasn't even contained to Afghanistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLBear (4/15/2008)

I see you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" defense

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.

You do realize that the torture tactics went beyond Al Qeada. General Miller was transfered to Abu Ghraib where he installed the torture tactics and where there were innocent men who were tortured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.

You do realize that the torture tactics went beyond Al Qeada. General Miller was transfered to Abu Ghraib where he installed the torture tactics and where there were innocent men who were tortured.

Which ones (torture techniques), on whom, and where? And don't talk to me about standing for long periods, cold rooms, and loud music, or the infamous pictures from Abu Ghraib. At least focus on something like waterboarding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/14/2008)
Bump for war crimes
Who knew that after being unsuccessful in finding bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we'll ultimately find him at The Hague? I wonder how the waterboarding charges will stand against the counter suit of sawing people's head off? Obviously al Qaeda is a stalwart for the Geneva Conventions.....

I see you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" defense

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.

Wrong is wrong, even if done to evil men. Reducing us to their level and their tactics only accomplishes their goals and nullifies ours.

War crimes charges do not have to be brought by those wronged. If they did, a valid way to avoid war crimes charges would be to kill everyone on the other side.

War crimes have to be brought by those afflicted or their nations. So when is Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or another state of terrorist origin going to bring War Crime charges against the US on behalf of al Qaeda? Because they would also have to stand as a representative of their actions as well if they chose some type of official capacity.

I'm not here to justify torture. However, I think this debate has taken on a life of it's own because of people's disdain for the administration, and any remote ties to anything illegal. Looking at it practically and logically, there just isn't much there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLBear (4/15/2008)
Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.

You do realize that the torture tactics went beyond Al Qeada. General Miller was transfered to Abu Ghraib where he installed the torture tactics and where there were innocent men who were tortured.

Which ones (torture techniques), on whom, and where? And don't talk to me about standing for long periods, cold rooms, and loud music, or the infamous pictures from Abu Ghraib. At least focus on something like waterboarding.

chest compressions and beatings. some even lead to death

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.

You do realize that the torture tactics went beyond Al Qeada. General Miller was transfered to Abu Ghraib where he installed the torture tactics and where there were innocent men who were tortured.

Which ones (torture techniques), on whom, and where? And don't talk to me about standing for long periods, cold rooms, and loud music, or the infamous pictures from Abu Ghraib. At least focus on something like waterboarding.

chest compressions and beatings. some even lead to death

What about the other two questions? On whom and where? And some type of source would be nice as well, particularly if it references this as official policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLBear (4/15/2008)
Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)

I subscribe to the "believing al Qaeda is going to bring forth war crimes charges against the US is illogical" school of thought. They're not even a party to the Geneva Conventions, so that would be an "interesting" legal approach.

You do realize that the torture tactics went beyond Al Qeada. General Miller was transfered to Abu Ghraib where he installed the torture tactics and where there were innocent men who were tortured.

Which ones (torture techniques), on whom, and where? And don't talk to me about standing for long periods, cold rooms, and loud music, or the infamous pictures from Abu Ghraib. At least focus on something like waterboarding.

chest compressions and beatings. some even lead to death

What about the other two questions? On whom and where? And some type of source would be nice as well, particularly if it references this as official policy.

If I recall correctly, this was about a month or so after General Millers visit to Abu to install the new methods.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4977986

The Death of an Iraqi Prisoner

by John McChesney

ll Things Considered, October 27, 2005 · Photographs of grinning GIs crouched over the iced-down, battered corpse of Manadel al-Jamadi were among the most horrific images of the 2003 Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The photos became one of the most powerful symbols for those who opposed to the American invasion of Iraq.

The Iraqi insurgent died within hours of his capture, while being interrogated by the CIA. A military autopsy ruled Jamadi's death a homicide, but no one has been held accountable for his death.

An NPR special report recounts the final hours of Jamadi's life, compiled from a review of thousands of CIA and military documents. Interviews with those present the night he died reveal the techniques used to extract information from Jamadi, and also show a discrepancy between military police and CIA agents about what happened just before his death.

Jamadi's Capture

The assignment was clear: kill or capture Jamadi. The CIA had identified the Iraqi as a former officer in Saddam Hussein's army and a key leader of a terrorist cell. He was also considered a suspect in an attack on the al-Rashid Hotel during a visit by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in October 2003.

At 2 a.m. on Nov. 4, 2003, a convoy of humvees and blacked-out CIA Chevy Suburbans entered a deserted street in a hostile Baghdad suburb. The humvees stopped in front of a three-story apartment building, and a platoon of Navy SEALs tumbled out of the humvees and raced up the stairs.

SEAL Dan Cerrillo described the capture to CIA investigators six months later. As Cerrillo placed a charge on the apartment, the door opened. Cerrillo rushed the door, striking Jamadi with it.

Then, according to the report, Cerrillo hit Jamadi "in the face with two fists and attempted to wrestle the subject to the ground, but Jamadi resisted and they engaged in hand-to-hand combat." After a considerable struggle, Jamadi was eventually subdued and cuffed by Cerrillo, a hood was placed over his head, and he was taken first to an Army base, then to the SEALS field base, known as Camp Jenny Pozzi.

Jamadi was interrogated there for nearly an hour and a half. Eyewitnesses interviewed by CIA investigators say Jamadi was seated and stripped, and cold water was poured over him. A Navy SEAL said at one point, the interrogator leaned into a pressure point on Jamadi's chest with his foreman.

Jamadi was then moved to Abu Ghraib for further interrogation. At the prison, MPs stretched Jamadi's arms directly behind him and shackled his wrists to window bars. If the arms bear the full weight of the body, the position can be extremely painful. But MPs later told CIA investigators that Jamadi had been given enough slack to kneel or stand.

During this new round of questioning by CIA agents, Jamadi slumped forward, with his weight on his shackled wrists. MPs, while trying to reposition Jamadi, discovered he was dead. His death occurred within five-and-a-half hours of his capture.

Death Ruled a 'Homicide'

Nearly two years later, the CIA is still investigating Jamadi's death. A military autopsy labeled his death a homicide, due to "blunt force trauma to the torso complicated by compromised respiration."

Autopsy photos show lacerations and multiple bruises on Jamadi's feet, thighs and arms. His most significant injuries -- five broken ribs -- are not visible in the photos. There were no bruises in that area, leading military medical examiners to say that the fractures were probably caused by a slow, deliberate application of force, such as someone kneeling on his chest.

NPR consulted Dr. Edmund Donoghue, chief medical examiner of Cook County, Ill., and president of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, on the military's autopsy report. Donoghue agreed with its findings.

How Jamadi was shackled "makes it very difficult to breathe because you are suspended in a very awkward position," Donoghue told NPR. "When you combine it with having the hood over your head and having broken ribs, it's fairly clear that this death was caused by asphyxia because he couldn't breathe properly," said Donoghue.

It remains unclear at what point Jamadi's ribs were broken.

Military officials who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal made it clear that at the time of Jamadi's interrogation, the CIA was playing outside the rules.

A 2004 report by Major General George Fay concluded: "CIA detention and interrogation practices led to a loss of accountability, abuse, reduced interagency cooperation, and an unhealthy mystique that further poisoned the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib."

The SEALs denied hitting Jamadi with enough force during his capture and transport to cause any lethal injury. The leader of the SEAL platoon, Lt. Andrew Ledford, was acquitted on charges of dereliction of duty for allowing his men to beat Jamadi. Careers were wrecked but no one was convicted of a crime. No action has been taken by the CIA.

Human rights groups and some members of Congress have expressed frustration with the slow pace of the CIA's response in this and other cases of alleged detainee abuse by the agency. In an Army trial scheduled for December, the CIA will again be under scrutiny for its role in the death of an Iraqi general, who was stuffed into a sleeping bag and died, according to an autopsy, of asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATLBear (4/15/2008)
A number of people from Abu Ghraib have been Court Marshalled and punished, including those involved in this situation. How you turn around and go after Condi Rice or George W. for war crimes is again a real stretch.

Just remember.......a couple years ago...Bush and Rice pretended like they didn't know anything about these "new methods" at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/12/2008)
But what would you have done when she was indicted for war crimes during the election?

This is how you go after her for war crimes

Keep trying, but it just isn't there. You can refer back to my post about how they are brought in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhug (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
A number of people from Abu Ghraib have been Court Marshalled and punished, including those involved in this situation. How you turn around and go after Condi Rice or George W. for war crimes is again a real stretch.

Just remember.......a couple years ago...Bush and Rice pretended like they didn't know anything about these "new methods" at all.

Who cares? It doesn't make their actions War Crimes. We walk a fine line between aggression and restraint. And in the vast majority of instances, we take action against our own who cross that line. Meanwhile our enemies operate with impunity and barbarity. You'll say, "two wrongs don't make a right.." etc., but there's precedence to comparative actions. We did things to Germans and Japanese in WWII that would be frowned upon by those evaluating adherence to the Geneva Conventions. However, given the gross atrocities by the aforementioned, the pursuit was focused on the egregious nature of their actions. We always have, and always should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but in our passionate disagreement about the conflict we're involved in, we can't be illogical about what's real, and what's exaggerated for the purposes of putting the entire conflict on some sort of trial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
ATLBear (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/15/2008)
grendel (4/12/2008)
But what would you have done when she was indicted for war crimes during the election?

This is how you go after her for war crimes

Keep trying, but it just isn't there. You can refer back to my post about how they are brought in the first place.

The UN can bring charges on behalf of those affected.

I'd like to see that Security Council vote. I mean, with all of the atrocities in Darfur, Myanmar, and all over Africa and Asia, I'm sure a handful of water boarding cases would deserve the same level of tribunal they created for Slobodan Milosevic. Not to mention the large number of perpetrators who've been handled through a military justice system for the most heinous acts, like rape and murder of civilians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/15/2008)
We also tried Japanese soldiers for war crimes... war crimes including waterboarding.
It was listed as an action, but wasn't the driving war crime. It's like in criminal law when you charge someone with murder along with other secondary and tertiary crimes related to the criminal act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...