Appeasement will kill us all.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Signed and dated, Apr 18, 1988. Oddly enough, Texas police officers were prosecuted for waterboarding witnesses to obtain confessions... five years before Reagan even signed the CAT. We knew waterboarding was torture then, we've prosecuted Japanese soldiers in WWII for it, conservative demigod Reagan prosecuted Texans for it, yet you ninnies still argue for it today. Stay classy.

Comments

[ericcoleman.livejournal.com]

You have to post this in politicartoons ... just so reality_hammer and jlc20thmaine have nothing to say

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Is that not what I did?

[ericcoleman.livejournal.com]

Nevermind ... someone already did

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Reality Hammer is too busy stockpiling weapons (http://reality-hammer.livejournal.com/917673.html) in preparation for the coming Obama genocide to respond. But he may find time later to check in when he and Rush Limbaugh have finished kicking every non-teabagging Republican out of the party.

[jblaque.livejournal.com]

Private Pyle's silence on this one is deafening, isn't it?

He's probably still moping over "Benedict Arlen."

I agree!

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

These criminal acts should be punished. I would like to see them tried in a US court for breaking US law rather than in some UN kangaroo court however. I don't like that precedent.

The US Constitution is the highest law in this country and no foreign body should ever be above it as far as US citizens are concerned.

But tried for breaking US law they should be! Torture is ILLEGAL! Punishment for crimes without due process is ILLEGAL. Cruel and inhumane punishment is ILLEGAL.

ALL responsible should be tried, and if guilty, convicted and put away for a very long time. I don't care which party they belong to, or who's orders they were following. "I was just following orders" is NOT an excuse -or a defense.

Re: I agree!

[texas-reddmann.livejournal.com]

"I was just following orders" is NOT an excuse -or a defense.

Which has been the basis for the Nuremburg trials for decades now. I hope they fry.

Re: I agree!

[ygrii-blop.livejournal.com]

No, no, no! This is different, see, because we're Americans! And, anyway, Ronald Reagan! So there.

I'll respond for JLC and SurRealitySlammer

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Harrumph harrumph.

< meaningless insult >

etc

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

If you weren't paying attention last time I said it, I'm not going to tell you again.

Re: I'll respond for JLC and SurRealitySlammer

[texas-reddmann.livejournal.com]

You forgot the condescending *pats you on head*.

But I'm sure they appreciate your help regardless.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

Waterboarding US citizens, who have rights under the US Constitution, is far different than waterboarding non-uniformed enemy combatants, who have no rights under the US Constitution.

[i.livejournal.com]

Here, you fucking moron, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture) is what your great god Reagan signed, since you were obviously too lazy to click the link above.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And the fact Reagan signed onto an international treaty agreeing that it is torture and it shouldn't be done to anyone, that part's meaningless.

Harrumph, harrumph.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Good thing that cartoon doesn't reference the Constitution.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

So you'd be OK with China randomly abducting Americans (or accepting Americans thoughtfully donated by other countries), declaring them enemy combatants, and torturing them willy nilly?

fail

[somastoner.livejournal.com]

...because if you are "non-uniformed" then all of your rights go out the window? Just because Bush labeled these people as "enemy combatants" and because we found a place in Cuba to torture does not make a damn bit of difference. It is still illegal as well as morally wrong to torture, no matter what you call it and no matter what lame excuses you try to use to justify it. Please also keep in mind that the US is a party to the Torture Convention, so not only the US Constitution applies in this situation...

[texas-reddmann.livejournal.com]

Yes, you still suck. Try reading what your god Ronnie signed. It's an INTERNATIONAL treaty, and covers EVEYRYBODY, not just uniformed combatants.



Congratulation, you've impressed one of the strangest people in the world.

The rest of us, we're laughing at your idiocy.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Woops. Your ignorance is showing.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

As has been pointed out to you 100 times already, this was an international treaty... it had nothing to do with the U.S. constitution or U.S. citizens only... it applied to everyone.

It states, amongst other things, that-

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

That's pretty clear.

[latenightapathy.livejournal.com]

Unless the US pays any attention to binding agreements it has signed, like the Geneva Conventions or any of the dozens of others that prohibit, in whole or in part, many of the activities the government and military have been guilty of. Not that you care, I'm sure, just pointing it out that technically we're violating the law anyway.

[jlc20thmaine.livejournal.com]

It's disturbing to see liberals throw around phrases they know are not true, such as "randomly abducting". And if you look at the definistion of torture, anything could be considered torture. But we would have to determine if "severe pain or suffereing" is part of waterboarding. Afterall, our own soldiers go through that as part of their training. Does that mean we are torturing them as well?

And if you want torture, I'll wait to see you lilberals cry and scream at the top of your lungs about this: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099

[xforge.livejournal.com]

"Pain on a level associated with organ failure." Go read the fucking memos Bush's people wrote, you pathetic fool.

And someone else torturing people doesn't make what we did any less torture. If that were true we'd be able to do anything we want because we could say "Hey, at least we're not dropping nuclear bombs on your country!" But then you probably think that's reasonable, you moronic asshole.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Afterall, our own soldiers go through that as part of their training. Does that mean we are torturing them as well?

I was never waterboarded, and none of the people I went to basic with or was stationed with were waterboarded. Where did you get that factoid?

[bluetooth16.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about my other Conservative friends, but I can't argue with this.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Because you're intelligent and sane, unlike the fools who just want people to pay attention to them.