It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by Question
I have plenty of swords and knives, know how to use them and use them well, and trust me, would have no qualms with cutting someone's genitals and giving them a taste of a living hell before turning them to the police (if they manage to survive that long)
Such acts are criminal and you would risk prosecution for committing them.
Why do you boast about your theoretical potential to inflict torture?
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by mmiichael
... the US had to show him and by inference the other bad guys in the region that they were deadly serious. Deadly.
It worked.
They scared North Korea into building The Atom Bomb - to boost their deterrence capability.
Kim Jong Il saw what happened to countries who lack a nuclear deterrent, and then expedited the development his own countries deterrent.
Originally posted by mmiichael
As much as I dislike nuclear proliferation, exacerbated by the Cold War, we've seen no atomic weapons used in warfare for 64 years. No one wants to incur the serious wrath of the US.
Originally posted by Kryties
It's got nothing to do with not wanting to " incur the serious wrath of the US". It has got everything to do with the fact that once one bomb goes off, that's pretty much it for human civilisation.
Say for instance NK nuked Los Angeles, the US nuke Pyongyang as a response. The Russians and the Chinese then come along and start tossing nukes left, right and centre at all their enemies and bobs-your-uncle we have nuclear annihilation.
Originally posted by Poet Of Deception
It was torture having to read through your post! Seriously it was your choice to be in the army you knew the risks and what you were signing up for!
Originally posted by Question
To answer as to why I would harm the criminal even when "subdued"? Because it will give him something to think about next time he tries to pull off the same stupid stunt. It will make them think "s**t! I lost my balls last time I tried to break into this house, do I REALLY want to try breaking in again?"
It may be against the law in your hippie state, but here we still have the "home is your castle/fortress" law, or some such thing, I can't remember the actual name, the only thing I remember is that basically if you break into my home and I kill you, I won't get prosecuted since I was protecting my property and my loved ones.
[edit on 28-4-2009 by Question]
Castle Law
Most states appropriately understand the right to defend your home against intruders and have adopted the Castle Law or Defense of Habitation Law, a legal doctrine linked to the Second Amendment and The District of Columbia vs. Heller–the first U.S. Supreme Court decision that directly address a private citizen’s rights to bear arms (the debate had been whether the Second Amendment applied to individual citizens or state-run militias).
The Castle Law basically supports the idea that your home is your “castle” and that you have every right to defend it against harm (including people in your home as well as personal property).
Duty to Retreat Provision
Some states may require a “duty to flee” provision, before engaging in battle with an intruder. This is largely an unpopular law with the general population that requires that one first attempt to flee prior to the use of lethal force; in other words, it is on the burden of the defense to prove that the use of force was only used as a last resort.
Senior FBI agents stationed in Iraq in 2004 alleged in an e-mail that President George W. Bush signed an executive order approving the use of dogs, sleep deprivation and other tactics to intimidate Iraqi detainees.
The FBI e-mail -- dated May 22, 2004 -- followed disclosures about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and sought guidance on whether FBI agents in Iraq were obligated to report the U.S. military’s harsh interrogation of inmates when that treatment violated FBI standards but fit within the guidelines of a presidential executive order.
According to the e-mail, Bush’s executive order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq, which would is considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Bush has never before been directly linked to authorizing specific interrogation techniques at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
T“We have also instructed our personnel not to participate in interrogations by military personnel which might include techniques authorized by executive order but [are] beyond the bounds of FBI practices.''
One month after the e-mail was sent to FBI counterterrorism officials in Washington, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales held a news conference in an attempt to contain the fallout from the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Gonzales told reporters that the abuses, which included sexual humiliation of Iraqi men, were isolated to some rogue U.S. soldiers who acted on their own and not as result of orders being handed down from high-level officials inside the Bush administration.
Gonzales also said the White House defined torture as a “a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering. That's the definition that Congress has given us and that's the definition that we use.”
However, on March 8, 2008, Bush vetoed congressional legislation that called for a specific ban on waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques, including stripping prisoners naked, subjecting them to extreme cold and staging mock executions.
"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," Bush said in a radio address explaining his veto.
"We created alternative procedures to question the most dangerous al-Qaeda operatives, particularly those who might have knowledge of attacks planned on our homeland." Bush said. "If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the [Army] field manual, we could lose vital information from senior al-Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives."
Gonzales added: “But the president also determined -- and this is quoting from the actual document, paragraph 3; this is very important -- he said, ‘Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the Armed Forces are to treat detainees humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.’”
Originally posted by dooper
Before that in Jump School, we lost one who died.
[edit on 28-4-2009 by dooper]
Originally posted by mmiichael
So those kids, thinking they were actually causing pain and suffering were knowingly contravening the Constitution and Geneva Agreements. Right?
Something to consider.
Originally posted by platosallegory
I looked at these memos and these things are not torture. I went through worse during basic training in the Army.
I remember doing drills in pouring rain for about 15-20 minutes. We were running in place and doing push ups. We also went on a field exercise in a storm and had to sleep on the side of the road in wet leaves and grass, It was so wet me and my battle buddy had to sleep back to back to avoid the wet ground.
Putting someones head under water for 20-40 seconds is nothing. This only happened to 3 or 4 terrorist and it led to some helpful information that stopped attacks in LA and New York.
Corruption: 1 a: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b: decay, decomposition c: inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d: a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3chiefly dialect : pus
Waterboarding, being put in a room with bugs or putting you in a cold room is not torture.
I had much worse happen to me during basic training. If you gave me a choice to be waterborded 20-40 seconds a day for 8 weeks vs basic training, you could waterboard me.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
The people who do the dirty work are just following their superiors orders, who take orders from their superiors, etc.. all the way up to Mr. George W. Bush who signed off on these things in the first place.
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by Question
To answer as to why I would harm the criminal even when "subdued"? Because it will give him something to think about next time he tries to pull off the same stupid stunt. It will make them think "s**t! I lost my balls last time I tried to break into this house, do I REALLY want to try breaking in again?"
No offense but the death penalty doesn't dissuade people from committing crimes so I doubt you'd be able to be more effective.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
Originally posted by mmiichael
So those kids, thinking they were actually causing pain and suffering were knowingly contravening the Constitution and Geneva Agreements. Right?
Something to consider.
Wait, what?
You're comparing kids in a classroom to the United States Government? How is that something to consider?
If anything you've only demonstrated the "sheep" mentality that allows all of these atrocities to occur on the basis of executive decisions. The people who do the dirty work are just following their superiors orders, who take orders from their superiors, etc.. all the way up to Mr. George W. Bush who signed off on these things in the first place.