October 11, 200719 yr WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. "I don't think it. I know it," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused." Carter also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights. Carter's comments come on the heels of an October 4 article in The New York Times disclosing the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques." These include "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," according to the Times. The White House last week confirmed the existence of the documents but would not make them public. Responding to the newspaper report Friday, Bush defended the techniques used, saying, "This government does not torture people." Asked about Bush's comments, Carter said, "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. "But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/car...ture/index.html imo he is right we are torturing individuals and the congress approved it. The democrats and republicans in office make me sick for such things currently.
October 11, 200719 yr at least our foreign policy is good at making friends! Who gives a f*** if the rest of the world likes us. It's like america is Kevin on the wonder years and all we care about is people liking us. You can do the right thing in the world without people liking you.
October 11, 200719 yr at least our foreign policy is good at making friends! Who gives a f*** if the rest of the world likes us. It's like america is Kevin on the wonder years and all we care about is people liking us. You can do the right thing in the world without people liking you. so other than various humanitarion missions we have going on in the world...what are we doing right? i agree...America shouldnt have to care if the rest of the world likes us...but when the rest of the world hates us for starting frivelous wars, torturing people, picking a fight to start another war...that is not good policy...personally id rather live in a world where America is respected, not feared...because one day, that fear will turn into a rage where we are fighting more than a few terrorists
October 11, 200719 yr Bush says we don't torture because his definition of torture is different than the definition commonly accepted in the United States before Bush (and during his administration) and around the world. I ask: how is simulated drowning not torture? Presumably, they put your head in the water (or whole body) and leave you in there long enough to think they're going to drown you. Totally torture.
October 11, 200719 yr It inflicts no physical pain, its all psychological. I don't see a problem with it when it comes to terrorists but when John McCain, who actually experienced torture techniques firsthand disagrees with me I start to have reservations. It is a complex issue, I have a hard time forming a complete black and white stance on it. I'll gladly say f*** Jimmy Carter though when it comes to him making these statements and stuff especially when he has a movie coming out soon.
October 11, 200719 yr Waterboarding is absolutely torture. We executed Nazi war criminals after the Nuremberg trials who had committed waterboarding. Plus, torture DOESN'T WORK. Even the Israelis, who are constantly under attack by Hamas militants and others, have sworn off torture, because they know it doesn't work. They have found that traditional police methods have been far more effective.
October 11, 200719 yr Of course we torture. Psychological torture is every bit as bad as physical torture. If you can hurt someone so much that you get them to tell you things they don't want to tell you, then that is torture, no matter how you do it. And whether it's physical or psychological, you have to reach the same threshold of pain and agony in order to get that person to squeal. To me, the distinction between different types of torture is non-existent, and if torture in one form is unacceptable, then it should be unacceptable in all forms. The point about torture being counter-productive from a practical standpoint somehow gets overlooked a lot because people choose to focus on the "we're America, we're better than everyone else, we don't do this kind of thing" line of argument. So, let's just focus on the practicality issue for a second: Torture is counterproductive. It leads to bad information. Bad information leads to bad decision-making. Bad decision-making leads to bad outcomes. Are there occasions where it works? I'm sure there are. But if the Israelis have come to the conclusion that the long-term risks outweigh the benefits, we should probably listen to them. Of course, we are America and we should be different. I'm a pretty big believer in the idea of soft power, and, man, are we blowing our soft power on this issue. America is a brand whose image has been tarnished. The only instance where I am not against these practices is the "ticking bomb" scenario, where there is a known imminent threat to many lives, where the person to be tortured is known to have the information needed, and where all other options have been exhausted. In that case, the risk/benefit equation unfortunately necessitates torture. But that's it. As for Jimmy Carter, the more noise that is made about this issue, the better. I support his stance and his choice to speak up.
October 11, 200719 yr Of course, we are America and we should be different. I'm a pretty big believer in the idea of soft power, and, man, are we blowing our soft power on this issue. America is a brand whose image has been tarnished. I think it can be argued that American soft power took down the USSR.
October 11, 200719 yr Of course, we are America and we should be different. I'm a pretty big believer in the idea of soft power, and, man, are we blowing our soft power on this issue. America is a brand whose image has been tarnished. I think it can be argued that American soft power took down the USSR. So what were our ops doing behind the iron curtain for over 50 years? I didn't say it was ALL as a result of soft power. At least the CIA was somewhat effective back then. Now it's a joke.
October 11, 200719 yr It was a mix of the two. There is no question about that. Soft power: our economic and political model (and ideas) worked much better than theirs. The result of that soft power? We were able to outproduce them and win the arms race. That led to their economic and political downfall. Penguino, how do you know torture is likely still effective? All credible authority on the subject disagrees with you.
October 11, 200719 yr Jimmy Carter tortures me every time he opens his mouth. How come he doesn't think about that!
October 13, 200719 yr WASHINGTON -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, said America's weakest and least effectual modern President on Wednesday. "I don't think it. I know it," Capt. Malaise told CNN's most credulous buffoon. "Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," said the man that pressured a vital US strategic ally to permit the return of a vicious murderer, despite the likelihood of immediate theological revolution. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused," continued a man with a record of supporting brutal dictators and certifying clearly fraudulent communist-run elections. The peanut farmer also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights. Milquetoast's comments come on the heels of an October 4 article in a recently discredited news rag disclosing the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques." These include "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," according to the anti-American, pro-socialist tabloid. The White House last week confirmed the existence of the documents but would not make them public. Responding to the newspaper report Friday, Bush defended the techniques used, saying, "This government does not torture people." Asked about Bush's comments, the noted liar said, "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. "But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them." CNN's dead-weight anchor did not bother to question the guest about what the definition of torture is or should be, nor did he request an confirmation of the contents of the documentation that allegedly supports the opinions posing as facts from a man that should do us all a favor and die of old age already.
October 13, 200719 yr WASHINGTON -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, said America's weakest and least effectual modern President on Wednesday. "I don't think it. I know it," Capt. Malaise told CNN's most credulous buffoon. "Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," said the man that pressured a vital US strategic ally to permit the return of a vicious murderer, despite the likelihood of immediate theological revolution. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused," continued a man with a record of supporting brutal dictators and certifying clearly fraudulent communist-run elections. The peanut farmer also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights. Milquetoast's comments come on the heels of an October 4 article in a recently discredited news rag disclosing the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques." These include "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," according to the anti-American, pro-socialist tabloid. The White House last week confirmed the existence of the documents but would not make them public. Responding to the newspaper report Friday, Bush defended the techniques used, saying, "This government does not torture people." Asked about Bush's comments, the noted liar said, "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. "But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them." CNN's dead-weight anchor did not bother to question the guest about what the definition of torture is or should be, nor did he request an confirmation of the contents of the documentation that allegedly supports the opinions posing as facts from a man that should do us all a favor and die of old age already. Wow, you are a complete asshat. Good job!
October 13, 200719 yr Wow, you are a complete asshat. Good job! Thank You! I am pleased that your response to my excersize in boredom held such vehemence. Oh come on. Who edits an article like that? That's some strong bias. A bored man, that is tired of Jimmy Carter's shenanigans. The re-edit was every bit as biased as the original piece, except that I wasn't at all subtle about it.
October 13, 200719 yr Wow, you are a complete asshat. Good job! Thank You! I am pleased that your response to my excersize in boredom held such vehemence. If you say something that stupid, you deserve to be called on it.
October 13, 200719 yr Wow, you are a complete asshat. Good job! Thank You! I am pleased that your response to my excersize in boredom held such vehemence. If you say something that stupid, you deserve to be called on it. I thought it was one of the best condemnations of Jimmy Carter I have ever read.
October 13, 200719 yr Wow, you are a complete asshat. Good job! Thank You! I am pleased that your response to my excersize in boredom held such vehemence. If you say something that stupid, you deserve to be called on it. I thought it was one of the best condemnations of Jimmy Carter I have ever read. It's a hypocritical stance at best, since many of the accusations he makes in it can easily be applied to, among others, Bush I, Bush II, Reagan (and of course Clinton). But he would never say them about those guys. It's a fun game to play. "record of supporting brutal dictators and certifying clearly fraudulent communist-run elections." I lolled. I wonder if he's a part of the revolution to get Reagan put on the dime?
October 13, 200719 yr Wow, you are a complete asshat. Good job! Thank You! I am pleased that your response to my excersize in boredom held such vehemence. If you say something that stupid, you deserve to be called on it. I thought it was one of the best condemnations of Jimmy Carter I have ever read. It's a hypocritical stance at best, since many of the accusations he makes in it can easily be applied to, among others, Bush I, Bush II, Reagan (and of course Clinton). But he would never say them about those guys. It's a fun game to play. "record of supporting brutal dictators and certifying clearly fraudulent communist-run elections." I lolled. I wonder if he's a part of the revolution to get Reagan put on the dime? However, both Bush's, Clinton, and even Regan (as much as I despise the man) haven't been as large a political hypocrite as Jimmy Carter as of late. For what its worth, it was US policy to support brutal dictators, just so long as they weren't friends with the Soviets. Whateva, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just despise the man that is known as Jimmy Carter.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.