Wiki eh? Those soldiers were not authorized to waterboard anyone. They acted outside of the law.
Exactly, they acted outside of the law. They did not have the authority to waterboard anyone. The CIA interrogators, on the other hand, acted within the law. What they did was perfectly legal.
Those people acted outside of the law. The CIA interrogators did not. Hence no convictions, or indictments for that matter. It's really quite simple.
The lack of indictments alone are enough. However, since it is you that is claiming that the waterboarding of Zubaydah et al was illegal, the onus of proof is on you.
Well if nothing else, cheer up, the grim reaper never takes a vacation. And as a even handed fellow, never discriminates regarding any particular partisan viewpoint.
I call shens. Prove that. :thumbsdown:
I already did in a previous post, including names, dates, times and places. If you're too reading challenged to comprehend the list, or you're too incompetent to search for those quotes and confirm them, it's you're problem, not ours.
You really are a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal. I posted two of those names AND the circumstances under which they were canned. If you're not also mouse challenged, search another of my posts for Richard Clarke and Eric Shinseki.
You're damned right you can't speak for "most every American military man" so don't pretend that you can.
EVERY American citizen is responsible for obeying the laws of the United States of America. However, 58 percent of the American public are not responsible for upholding those laws. That's the responsibility of our elected officials and our law enforcement agencies.
Neither are 58 percent of American troops responsible for upholding those laws. That's the responsibility of their command structure all the way up to their Commander In Chief.
At the time, the most senior elected official of our civilian government and the Commander In Chief of our armed forces was the EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush who should be tried and convicted for his crimes. :thumbsdown:
Are you even an American citizen? If you are, you are a disgrace to our nation and to every American citizen and every value and every ideal Americans have fought and died to establish and defend for 234 years. :'(
If you're not an American citizen, please shut the fuck up and go back and shit all over whatever UN-American hell hole spawned you.
"Acting under orders" worked well at Nuremberg ...
When one of the thread participants resorts to arguing "They were only following orders", the Nuremberg citation becomes inevitable...Well, that didn't take long. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#cite_note-canonical_version-2
When one of the thread participants resorts to arguing "They were only following orders", the Nuremberg citation becomes inevitable...
Wiki eh? Those soldiers were not authorized to waterboard anyone. They acted outside of the law.
Exactly, they acted outside of the law. They did not have the authority to waterboard anyone. The CIA interrogators, on the other hand, acted within the law. What they did was perfectly legal.
Those people acted outside of the law. The CIA interrogators did not. Hence no convictions, or indictments for that matter. It's really quite simple.
The lack of indictments alone are enough. However, since it is you that is claiming that the waterboarding of Zubaydah et al was illegal, the onus of proof is on you.
Personally, I find it amusing that most every American military man who has gone through waterboarding would like to see it used, if need be, on terrorists.
Well, that didn't take long. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#cite_note-canonical_version-2
You implicitly make the argument with your repetetive "it was legal when they did it" posts.Ok, but what does that have to do with this thread? Who here has resorted to a "They were only following orders" argument?