I don’t really know what else to say at this point. Every couple of weeks our ex-vice President is on TV telling that nation that torture and lawbreaking are completely acceptable behavior. Our current administration has declined to investigate serious allegations of torture and lawbreaking. Media pundits run around explicitly advocating for torture. Somehow, this has all bypassed FoieGrasIsEvil and he is living is some alternate reality where torture and lawbreaking is considered outrageous behavior. If you really think that, then you need to pick up a newspaper or watch one of the Sunday bobblehead shows occasionally.
That’s because lawbreaking and torture IS outrageous behavior. And my main (and possibly incoherent) position has been that you are way overstating the general public’s advocacy for either.
You would get a lot more debate on “what constitutes torture” rather than “do you think torture is good?”.
I don’t think eyewitnesses, notoriously bad, are considered “direct evidence”. I need to go back and check out the article, but I didn’t get the impression that they were consistent, either.
Unless you can come up with a reason why our ally is lying then I’m going with this account.
And if he is lying then I suggest it’s time to up sticks and leave them to it.
It doesn’t have to be Karzai who is “lying”. And he’s not much of ally, especially since he threatened to joined the Taliban.
I’m cool with that.
Wow, you really are a scumbag.
Cite.
Cite. Particulalrly for the first two, so we can avoid the side debate of that is and isn’t "torture?.
Cite.
So who is ‘lying’ and why?
Why did the Afghan Govt and the villagers sit down together and concoct this?
Why did The Complaints Commission delegation ‘led by the Chief of Complaints Commission and composed of representatives from the ministries of Defense, Interior, National Directorate of Security and the Office of Administrative Affairs’ go along with it?
Are they all in on it?
Including Starkey - the Times journalist who investigated?
Why then would NATO admit they were civilians?
Complex conspiracy involving everyone from the London Times to the Afghan Govt or a massacre?
The POINT of cells is that each doesn’t know about the other, so that they CAN’T give up information when captured. :smack:
Coming fro you, that’s a compliment.
Maybe, but they CAN give up information on the guys providing them with intelligence, training, and most importantly with the IEDs themselves. You think any schmuck can build an effective explosive device? These organizations usually have a limited number of “engineers” serving any number of cells;* they’re* the priority targets, not the guys in the field.
Yeah, assassinating children is one thing, but *nobody *mocks Barry Sadler.
You malign a group of people who have acted with honor and risked and given their lives for our country. You rightly get called a scumbag for doing so, and you take it as a compliment. :rolleyes: I guess it’s just the sort of thinking one should expect from a scumbag like you.
And while I’m flattered that you think my person has so much gravitas that what I say so colors your hateful stupidity that it strips it of either the hate or the stupidity, sorry, scumbag, that’s not the way the world works.
I always new you were prone to phony piety, but had no idea that your brain was as contaminated as that of that fount of hate and stupidity, Der Trihs. Consider ignorance fought.
The UN said this (from your article):
What I’d need to know is how the UN came about the information and what their investigation entailed. If their investigation was going to Afghanistan and asking the same Afghan team that released the earlier report, then essentially it’s just the same investigation by proxy (meaning it was conducted by a bunch of incompetents working for Karzai.)
The UN report is definitely more concerning though, and I’ll anticipate more information coming out from it.
If we find any evidence that people who were restrained were then shot, that would be a serious violation of the UCMJ.
The plural of a bunch of “eye witness reports” that are coming in from a bunch of sources of variable repute isn’t “evidence”, but my hunch is we definitely killed people we shouldn’t have killed.
That can either be an accident that happened in the heat of combat (which is not a criminal act) or it can be something else. I still haven’t seen information to tell me what happened (and my hunch that we even killed 8 civilians is not guaranteed to be correct.)
Going to war means killing a lot of civilians, usually way more civilians die in wars than soldiers. Where it becomes a legal concern is when civilians are deliberately targeted.
However, shooting prisoners (even if it the soldiers involved genuinely believed them to be enemy agents) is against the UCMJ and ancient rules of war and is generally something punishment-worthy. But again, I’ll be reserving my condemnation for when a legitimate authority publishes a detailed report on what happened.
Right now we’re at the preliminary stage and a lot of the information is from very questionable sources. I actually expect the most reliable report to come from the U.S. military.
Well, I beg to differ with both of you. "“There are, generally speaking, two types of evidence from which a jury may properly find the truth as to the facts of a case. One is direct evidence - such as the testimony of an eyewitness.” Black’s
Law Dictionary, 6th ed., s.v. “Evidence.”
I certainly don’t suggest that the witnesses’ evidence is conclusive; they could be lying or mistaken, and John is right that they don’t fully match up with each other. I merely point out that the statement that there isn’t any direct evidence is false. There is some evidence, and it warrants investigation, so that the soldiers may get the exoneration they deserve if the story is false, and get the punishment they deserve if it’s true.
AFAICT, there WAS an investigation, but by the US military and by NATO into the events, and, again AFAICT, the soldiers were in fact exonerated…again, by the US Military and/or NATO. The trouble is that many people simply don’t believe anything the military says or does, and they think (rightfully or wrongfully…or something inbetween) that all such investigations are automatically whitewashes. Which puts us all back to square one, where either you believe the eye witness testimony, or you believe the military’s version. It’s the helicopter shootings all over again, with a lot of discussion, lots of assumptions, and very little in the way of hard facts.
-XT
Right. It’s an overstatement to say that politicians and media pundits routinely advocate for torture without being treated as if they are advocating for something outrageous? You really have to be living in an alternate reality to think that that’s an overstatement.
Additionally, here’s one poll:
There are similar polls all over the place. When anywhere from 15-49 percent of the American people think torture is okay, it’s hardly an overstatement to say that support for torture is not some fringe viewpoint, but a mainstream viewpoint.
For purposes of your point, I’d go as far as to add the 22% to the 49%, as these people evidently believe that under some extraordinary circumstances, torture is justified.
It reminds me of Colbert “America isn’t the kind of country that uses torture. We may have tortured people, but we aren’t the kind of country that does” (very roughly from memory).