| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 3:15:32 AM | | The fact of the matter is....I will state again, if torturing enemy combatants as well as our own military troops was not sucessful more times to none, torture would not be utilized, it's that simple. I will state the same question to you. What are your suggestions to alternatives to torture? I wonder what Hillary Clinton's alternative to torture would be? Maybe eat her cooking? Forcing someone to sit and listen to her husband deny over and over he did not have sex with that woman? :) | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 10:38:35 AM | | Nona, your skewed rationale promoting torture seems to come from your loss of humanity. The fact is: torture is illegal according to the Geneva Convention, as is wars of aggression. You doggedly support the war and torture because to acknowledge you were misled is to acknowledge your part in the atrocities. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 10:46:40 AM | Whiskey Papa:
You are correct about the Geneva Convention, there is no disputing that fact, however, terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention, therefore showing, the US is not illegal in torturing known terrorists. Where the horrible thing in my eyes that happens here, is when our nation screws up and tortures someone only to find out they are NOT terrorists. I am not in agreement with innocent people being tortured, whether they are US citizens or from other countries.
I 100% acknowledge that our government misled my nation. Some willingly, some unwillingly, however, we are there now and have to deal with now, not what "should have been".
Yes, I support war. This does not mean that I like war. War is a horrible thing, but realistically speaking, war has to be conducted unfortunately. I support we being in the Middle East, I know that particular location is very crucial to our interests.
I am not a part of the problem whiskey papa, I am just that....reality. I support war, I support torture, but I also support abortion as well as gay rights. For you to sum me up as a bad person because of my beliefs shows that you only focus on particular aspects of people and are incapable of believing that you can be wrong.
I personally feel that you are unrealistic in your assumptions of this ongoing war. I believe you are liberal who is out of touch with reality on this topic, however....I would never sum you up as such, for I feel people's opinions are just that opinons and it takes many different aspects of people's lives to form who they are. IN stating this, one can assume what they want of me, I'm comfortable with myself as well as my opinions and I am reality, I wish more knew what reality is. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 11:32:19 AM | Nona, to invade a sovereign country, a war of aggression, is illegal under the Geneva Convention. To label those who resist the invasion and the occupation as terrorists is self-serving and the subsequent torture of them is illegal. It seems to have been done more for some perverse gratification then for information.
Yes, you are part of the problem. You support the illegal war because you believe it is crucial to your interests. You justify murder, rape and torture because it is crucial to your interests. You must have a lot of shares in haliburton.
Reread your last paragraph, it is good for a chuckle. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 11:46:42 AM | That is your opinion however, if I had shares in Haliburton, I doubt I would debating with you on a free dating website right? lol
Yes, I support the war. Yes, I support war generally speaking. Get over it :)
My last paragraph to you might give you a chuckle but EVERYTHING you have been writing as of lately is enough to make one laugh outloud and thank god there are sane people within this world, therefore, touche. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 11:54:34 AM | You're not debating Nona. You are justifying your perverse lust for torture.
I suppose under that context you would mock the Geneva Convention as do the neocons. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 11:56:44 AM | | If you had any sense at all, you would know that the Geneva Convention does not protect the rights of terrorists. I will not mock the Geneva Convention, I am only mocking you. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 12:26:36 PM | | as I pointed out to you before, labelling someone a terrorist as justification for torture is self-serving . The Geneva Convention specifically forbids torture without destinction as does the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. It also places the onus upon those compelled to torture to disobey an order to torture. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 12:29:31 PM | | Once again for the third time, the Geneva Convention does not cover humane treatment of Terrorists, however, the McCain act does. You need to get your facts straight and figure out which document upholds your belief, there are some of us that know the difference in these documents. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention due to the fact they are not military personnel, another reason they are not covered by the Geneva Convention is due to the fact they disguise themselves as civilians to perform the havoc they perform, this within itself is against the Geneva Convention and therefore waives the terrorist's rights to the Geneva Convention. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 12:47:37 PM | | The Geneva Convention covers everyone without destinction. Labelling someone a terrorist so you can torture them is still illegal. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 12:52:41 PM | You are wrong. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Period. Feel free to look it up sometime, that is if you want to see how wrong you are.
Of course it's illegal to label someone a terrorist and merely torture them. Someone who with the burden of proof is found to be a terrorist is fair game. You forgot to add that one. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:32:31 PM | Let's concede your point just for the sake of argument, not permanently.
The Canadian they're torturing in Guantanomo is almost certainly innocent. They don't meet any "burden of proof" before labeling them terrorists. The fact is they invaded another country, and called anyone who fought back terrorists.
I was then, and am now, a supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan. But you can't treat those who resisted the invasion as terrorists just because they resisted invasion. The current occupants of the White House have taken your country to a level of evil you seem unwilling to acknowledge. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:52:39 PM | | I have loked it up Nona. The Geneva Convention prohibits torture without destinction as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Labelling someone a terrorist, while self serving, does not make torture right. You should also note that the US is a signator to both conventions. And is thus in violation of those conventions. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:56:05 PM | If you read what was stated before your reply, I too am not in agreement with people merely being labeled terrorists and torturing them, however, if the burden of proof is sufficient and shows without a doubt they have committed terrorist acts which would indeed prove they are terrorists, then torture their asses, due to the fact, that is the only way one will ever get information from them, their main goal is to die, therefore, measures have to be extreme to extract information. I'm sure there are incidents where torture did not have to be performed, but I find these are in the minority of cases, meaning, the terrorist wanted out of the organization etc...one never knows.
I acknowledge wrong doings by my government. Just because I support war generally speaking does not mean that I follow my government blindly. I find it total and utter ignorance when people state this of people who support war. Lo and behold if someone disagrees with the wannabe hippies of our generation. I for one do disagree and I support war, simply said.
Whiskey Papa:
Please show the link where you received your information. If you were reading the Geneva Convention, then why are you not stating the section where the rights of anyone who dresses as civilian while performing war crimes is exempt from protection from the Geneva Convention. Please show the link where you received your information and I will gladly point out the obvious to you. Thanks. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 2:35:31 PM | Check the Geneva Convention
also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UN Convention Against Totture.
All conventions prohibit torture , none make any qualification on who CAN be tortured.
The US alone makes any destinction on who can be tortured and is in violation of all the conventions which it signed and agreed to. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 6:22:44 PM | | The UN convention of torture is NOT the Geneva Convention. I'm still waiting on your information you reviewed so I can point out to you that the Geneva does not cover the humane rights of terrorists. Thanks o nce again for not providing that. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 7:54:35 PM | | I didn't see any mention of terrorist or any description that could be applied to terrorists that would allow them to be covered by the Geneva Convention...the un convention doesn't really describe what actually constitutes torture, the declaration of Human rights doesn't offer any definitions of torture either..."No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." seems pretty open to interpretation, can we jail people, handcuff them, question them for hours, etc? It seems in all of these documents there is no clear definition of torture they are all ambiguous ...... | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 8:03:39 PM | | It doesn't matter what the Geneva convention says even though the United States has signed it ,it disregards it. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/26/2008 9:31:49 PM | ok Nona, I'll make it easy for you since you are to lazy to look it up yourself.
The society of Professional Journalists has made a reference guide to the conventions, simply press the letter "T" in the guide and torture will come up. It begins:" Torture is forbidden in the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts..."
There is no destincion on who CAN be tortured.
While you are at it look up the Nuremburg Principles and count how many the US has violated. You'll have to take your socks off for this one. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/27/2008 5:17:33 AM | Wow, a professional journalist...that is your source on the Geneva Convention? 
While you are at it, learn what the Geneva Convention is and how to understand it.
| |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/27/2008 5:31:49 AM | Nuremburg Principles, what a joke that is... The Nuremburg trails wasn't to seek justice but a theatrical performance for which the outcome was already predetermined before the proceedings began.
But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/27/2008 5:50:15 AM | This is where you and your buddy on here are wrong in reference
to treatment of terrorists according to the Geneva Convention.
I will point out the particular articles which are utilized in
any country being authorized according to this document in waiving
the rights of terrorists to utilize said document.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer
corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or
outside their own territory, even if this territory is
occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the
following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.
Terrorists do not have a chain of command. (A) does not represent
them.
Terrorists do not carry their arms openly. Bombs strapped to
their chests are common weapons for terrorists. (C) does not represent
terrorists.
Terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention. (d) does not represent
them.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(Terrorists are not armed forces, they claim allegiance to
Allah. This also allows the waving of their rights with this document.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
I can go on and on with this document. I would like to know why
you are on your soapbox about humane treatment of terrorists? What
about all the people they beheaded while disregarding the Geneva
Convention? Even terrorists know they are not afforded rights
in under this document. You are only worried about terrorists as
compared to your own people. Not once have you denounced the
treatment of people worldwide by terrorists. It's obvious you are
a sympathizer. You remind me of a modern day "Judas". You are pathetic.
Topgear:
You are correct there, I do agree with you. The Nuremberg trials were indeed theatrics and yes, they did hang some bad people but I find the Germans can not be compared majority wise to terrorists.
The Germans tried numerous times to overthrow hitler, most of them paying with their lives. Also, the Germans were an actual Armed force, the terrorists are not.
Can we please get back on the topic of Hillary Clinton? This is ridiculous. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/27/2008 6:24:55 AM | | I have always been against the war in Iraq! | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/27/2008 6:46:06 AM | Nona, you are the one who bought up the subject of torture in message 176.
I told you your skewed rationale justifying torture seems to come from a darker source --a perverse lust.
I have given you an easy way to find the reference to torture in the Geneva Convention and I have pointed out that simply labelling someone a terrorist as justification for torture is still wrong and illegal under the Geneva Convention. You have attempted to mislead me by quoting a "document" purported to be the Convention when in fact it is a revised US "rules of engagement".
The Nuremburg Principles and the Nuremburg Trials are two different things. The pavlovian response from you and topgear displayed a profound ignorance of the Principles.
I do not support terrorism. If I did that would put me in support of the US invasion of Iraq and the continued terrorizing of the people in Gaza and the West Bank. People I do sympathize with. | |
|
| Hilary Clinton....
Posted: 4/27/2008 6:55:23 AM |
The pavlovian response from you and topgear displayed a profound ignorance of the Principles.
Excuse me Sir but I believe it is you that is omitting the truth or lack of understanding? You will not find one credible historian that will say that the Nuremburg trails was anything short of a Kangaroo court.
The Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
One must have a huge immagination to believe that the guidelines and the trial were two seperate things each supported the other? | |
|
Home
login 
