[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Corrupt Government See other Corrupt Government Articles Title: We Should Thank Those Who Torture (Michael Reagan) Source: Lew Rockwell URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog ... hould-thank-those-who-torture/ Published: Dec 25, 2014 Author: Laurence M. Vance Post Date: 2014-12-26 05:54:32 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 7519 Comments: 23 Says Michael Reagan, the son of conservative god Ronald Reagan. “We shouldn’t be second-guessing and beating up on the CIA, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all the other men and women who’ve helped to keep us safe for the last 14 years. We should be thanking them.” He especially likes it when someone’s genitals are put in a vice. Guess he never read what his father said when he signed the Convention Against Torture in 1988: “Ratification of the Convention by the United States, will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately prevalent in the world today.” I wonder how many unsolved crimes Michael Reagan would confess to if the CIA put his genitals in a vice? 7:54 pm on December 25, 2014 Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6. #1. To: Deckard (#0) The claim the author makes about Reagan's 'especially liking putting nuts in a vice' claim seemed a little off to me. Being that the Internet is full of falsehoods, I read the op-ed myself, rather than have someone read it and write about it to tell me what was in it. I didn't get the same impression. http://m.albanyherald.com/news/2014/dec/21/michael-reagan-a-time-for-torture/?templates=mobile Nexus6  posted on  2014-12-27   1:42:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Nexus6, Deckard (#1) The claim the author makes about Reagan's 'especially liking putting nuts in a vice' claim seemed a little off to me. Being that the Internet is full of falsehoods, I read the op-ed myself, rather than have someone read it and write about it to tell me what was in it. I didn't get the same impression. From the Michael Reagan Op-Ed. I asked one of the unshaven, rugged, glass-eating Italian secret servicemen working in our motorcade detail how they finally found out where General Dozier was being held. He told me that after his colleagues caught a few members of the Red Brigade they were taken to the basement and interrogated. The terrorists became very talkative after their genitals were placed in a vise. The agents who used this persuasive technique — which also led to the capture of hundreds of Red Brigade members and put the deadly terrorist group out of business — were disciplined by their superiors. They were suspended for five days and went to the beach. As the Italians proved, sometimes in war you have to use “enhanced” interrogation methods to get the successful ending you want. In 2001 we found ourselves in a bloody war against terrorists. The White House knew it. The CIA knew it. Even the media and Democrats in Congress knew it. The American people figured it out too. What the CIA did to extract information from the Islamist terrorists was not nice, but it was not really torture. We shouldn’t be second-guessing and beating up on the CIA, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all the other men and women who’ve helped to keep us safe for the last 14 years. We should be thanking them. To correct Michael Reagan, torture is torture, regardless of purported excuses or alleged or real extenuating circumstances. Crushing testicles in a vice is torture. It is a violation of law at all times and under all circumstances. It is a violation of customary international law which cannot be opted out of. The United States has participated in the prosecution and conviction of people based on this law. Torture is practiced on the principle of might makes right, not actual lawfulness. The criminals depend on the government to protect them from prosecution. This did not work out too well for some perpetrators for WW2 Germany or Japan, or the former Yugoslavia when the government lost the ability to protect from prosecution. Credit for G.W. Bush administration public support for crushing testicles should go to John "Testicle Crusher" Yoo, adviser to President George W. Bush. http://revcom.us/a/028/john-yoo.html John Yoo – Presidential Powers Extend to Ordering Torture of Suspect's Child by Philip Watts December 30, 2005, posted at revcom.us John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles. This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel. What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat. It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, “Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the ‘war on terror’ than John Yoo.” This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world. Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him? Yoo: No treaty. Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo. Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/nov/17/what-bush-wants-to-hear/ Volume 52, Number 18 · November 17, 2005 Review What Bush Wants to Hear By David Cole The Powers of War and Peace:The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11 by John Yoo University of Chicago Press, 366 pp., $29.00 [Excerpt] Yoo’s most famous piece of advice was in an August 2002 memorandum stating that the president cannot constitutionally be barred from ordering torture in wartime—even though the United States has signed and ratified a treaty absolutely forbidding torture under all circumstances, and even though Congress has passed a law pursuant to that treaty, which without any exceptions prohibits torture. Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the president the “Commander-in-Chief,” no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the president would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished. [emphasis added] In comment about torture under the Obama administration, Testicle Crusher Yoo expressed a negative opinion about the troubling rectal feeding. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/even-john-yoo-cant-get-behind-forced-rectal-feeding/ Even John Yoo Can’t Get Behind Forced Rectal Feeding by Evan McMurry 3:34 pm, December 14th, 2014 Mediaite Former Bush counsel John Yoo, author of the famous “torture memos” that allegedly discovered legal justification for the Bush administration’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Sunday morning that forced rectal feeding and other gruesome acts detailed in the Senate Intelligence Committee report released last week were not approved by the Justice Department and should not have been carried out. “Those are very troubling examples,” he said. “They would not have been approved by the Justice Department. They were not approved by the Justice Department at the time…They were not supposed to be done and those people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders.” The Law of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law in War, Gary D. Solis, U.S. Military Academy, Cambridge University Press, New York, First published 2010, Reprinted 2010 (thrice), 2011 At page 446: [footnotes omitted] 12.2.1 Defining Torture as a LOAC Violation Torture is prohibited by 1907 Hague Regulation IV, Article 4 (by implication); by 1949 Geneva Convention common Article 3, and common Article 50/51/130/147; by 1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 75.2 (ii); Additional Protocol II, Article 4.2.(a); and by the Statutes of the ICTY and ICTR. "State practice establishes this rule [against torture] as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts." LOAC/IHL similarly prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The prohibitions against torture – international, domestic, military, civilian – are universal and comprehensive, yet torture appears to be more common today than in any recent time. LOAC = Law of Armed Conflict IHL = International Humanitarian Law ICTY = International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ICTR = International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda At page 440: [footnotes omitted] In international law, the 1984 UN Convention against Torture (CAT), and its Optional Protocol, prohibit torture, as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States ratified the CAT in 1994. Torture is a jus cogens offense – a peremptory norm in international law; a state may not "opt out" of the criminality of torture or of the enforcement of international legal provisions against it. "[P]erpetrators may be held criminally responsible notwithstanding national or even international authorization by legislative or judicial bodies to apply torture." From the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Part I Article 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. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2 Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 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. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 4 Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm2_22x3.pdf FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, Headquarters, Department of the Army, September 2006 Pages M-4 - M-5 GENERAL CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS HUMANE TREATMENT M-15. All captured or detained personnel shall be treated humanely at all times and in accordance with DOD Directive 3115.09, "DOD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning"; DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program,” and no person in the custody or under the control of the DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in US law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. All intelligence interrogations, debriefings, or tactical questioning to gain intelligence from captured or detained personnel shall be conducted in accordance with applicable law and policy. M-16. Any inhumane treatment—including abusive practices, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in US law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005—is prohibited and all instances of such treatment will be reported immediately in accordance with paragraph 5-69 thru 5-72. Beyond being impermissible, these unlawful and unauthorized forms of treatment are unproductive because they may yield unreliable results, damage subsequent collection efforts, and result in extremely negative consequences at national and international levels. Review by the servicing SJA is required prior to using separation. Each interrogation plan must include specific safeguards to be followed: limits on duration, interval between applications, and termination criteria. Medical personnel will be available to respond in the event a medical emergency occurs. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-lawyers-are-war-criminals.html Sunday, October 08, 2006 When Lawyers Are War Criminals Scott Horton [excerpt] United States v. Altstoetter: Lawyers As War Criminals Concerned about the level of resistance faced by German troops in the occupied territories, Hitler instructed Field Marshall Keitel to issue a special decree authorizing extraordinary measures pursuant to which political suspects would simply "disappear" to special detention facilities and might face summary court proceedings. The death penalty appears as the punishment most frequently contemplated. The decree, issued on the same day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) and as the German drive on Moscow stalled and the Soviet counteroffensive had begun, is known as the "Night and Fog Decree" (Nacht- und Nebelerlass), a reference to the covert action it authorized. Contemporaneous documents make clear that it was motivated by the high level of casualties German soldiers were sustaining behind the front in occupied territory. Pacification of this territory was given a high priority. A team of Justice Department lawyers worked with Keitel and his team at the German General Staff (OKW) on the drafting of the decree and further steps for its implementation. This included a series of highly particularized rules setting out how such detainees were to be treated by police, justice officials and others. The rules specified how such individuals would be permitted to make wills, issue final letters of farewell, what would be done with children born to detainees and how their death could be recorded in the registry. Other lawyers prepared parallel orders creating special secret courts and detention facilities for those interned under the Nacht- und Nebelerlass. These courts were crafted under domestic German law and thus constituted a projection of German law into the occupied territories. These arrangements flouted the protections of the Hague Convention, specifically the right of "family honor, lives of persons" and the right "to be judged under their own laws." To the extent applied against uniformed service personnel, they also violated the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War of 1929. However, the Justice Department lawyers advanced the view that the Hague and Geneva Conventions were inapplicable because their adversaries did not subscribe to these documents. This decree was applied brutally, and with particular force in France. A total of at least 7,000 persons were detained; a large number of them perished. The Justice Department lawyers justified these acts as steps available to an occupying power in order to protect its troops against terrorist acts or insurgency. Further, the occupied territories could be divided, roughly, into three categories: (i) areas directly incorporated into the German State (for instance, Austria, Alsace-Lorraine, the Eupen-Malmédy region of Belgium, Danzig and portions of Poland); (ii) areas under German occupation and direct administration (such as Bohemia and Moravia); and (iii) areas under puppet régimes (such as Hungary and Slovakia). As for the first, they asserted the right to treat persons found within those territories under German law. As to the second, they claimed the right as occupier to promulgate new rules and orders, and to derive them from Germany. As to the third, they relied on the acquiescence of régimes like Vichy France and Hungary. Their positions on these points were at least colorable from a legal perspective. The Justice Department lawyers were indicted and charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes arising out of the issuance and implementation of the Nacht- und Nebelerlass. The United States charged that as lawyers, "not farmers or factory workers," they must have recognized that their technical justifications for avoiding the application of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were unavailing, because these conventions were "recognized by all civilized nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war." That is to say, they were customary international law. Further, the United States charged, this decree "would probably cause the death of human beings," grounding a charge of homicidal intent. After trial, the two principal Justice Department lawyers, one a deputy chief of the criminal division, were convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, less time served. This judgment clearly established the concept of liability of the authors of bureaucratic policies that breach basic rules of the Hague and Geneva Conventions for the consequences that predictably flow therefrom. Moreover, it establishes a particularly perilous standard of liability for government attorneys who adopt a dismissive attitude towards international humanitarian law. nolu chan  posted on  2014-12-27   19:35:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#2) I do understand that there is a vigorous debate over use of torture and even the definition of torture. I was more concerned that the original poster shared a piece that incorrectly stated something as fact. It is impossible to have a full and fair debate if one party arbitrarily invents things to support their narrative. Nexus6  posted on  2014-12-27   19:52:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Nexus6 (#3) Welcome to the site. I have upgraded you to full posting. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-12-29   0:56:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: A K A Stone (#5) Thank you. I was considering signing up on a couple of different conservative or libertarian sites, but this looked like a better option. FreeRepublic seemed to be a place peopled entirely by Republican Party loyalists and Liberty Post looked more like a lunatic asylum. Nexus6  posted on  2014-12-29   1:17:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 6. #7. To: Nexus6 (#6) was considering signing up on a couple of different conservative or libertarian sites, but this looked like a better option. FreeRepublic seemed to be a place peopled entirely by Republican Party loyalists and Liberty Post looked more like a lunatic asylum. I will take that as a compliment. I would hope that this place grows again. It rises and falls. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-12-29 08:58:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 6. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com