Cheney : Dunking in water is a "no-brainer"

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Look, people have info. We need info. We aren't pulling fingernails, electrocuting them, cutting off limbs, or breaking digits, we are simulating drowning, a psychological and physically and long-term mentially undamaging situation.

We can get the info we can through moral means, and too damned bad for the info we can't get. We need to treat prisoners humanely and demand the same.

We're welcome to use techniques from persuasion to rewards to enourage info. We do it with murderers and rapists, we've done it in previous wars.

The PC-ish ness of some people is disgusting. They think that if we ask nicely we'll get all of the info they want. They think solitary or sensory depravation is barbaric and that anything but a Filet Mignon and cable TV to inmates and enemy agents is just wrong.

A hint as to when you are using a weak argument is when you have to use phony straw men for the other side.

That's the case here. Basic, nutritious food when possible is all I expect. But that doesn't make your argument for you, so you use phony hyperbole.

I don't like the Iraq war and I think we are being idiots in our fight in the "war on fear". However, I am not naive enough to think that we don't have to use some psychological techniques to break down and get at people who have vital information.

You seem to think you have a right to the info that supercedes any moral issues - that's the logic you use. We 'need' the info and we 'have to use' certain practices to get it.

You use that logic to cross over the line from human treatment to waterboarding torture; why stop there? Your logic has no clear lines to stop at for even far worse practices.

I am as moral as any other red blooded American and if you doubt my hatred for Bush and his cronies, just look at my posts. People need to get off of their high-horses.

You need to get a better sense of morality. We may agree on the vast majority of Bush issues; that's no excuse for supporting torture on another.

Waterboarding being less evil than other practices doesn't make it ok.

I draw the line at saying we should ot allow any technique which is designed to force a prisoner to lose the ability to choose what to say through physical coercion.

Whether that coercion is pain, or sleep deprivation, or simulated drowning doens't matter. We treat prisoners humanely, period.

 

[nageov3t]

well, how else are you going to determine whether she's a witch or not?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

I agree with your sentiment for the most part, but you must abandon this externally-justified logic you're on, by saying well, this is harsh but it's not as harsh as what COULD be happening or what OTHERS have done.

Wrong is wrong. Torture is wrong. If we start to slide down from our historical moral high ground on issues like these, it's easy to keep right on sliding. Worse, it is difficult to support these same actions against OUR soldiers, should they be in captivity by foreign powers. It's a lot easier on the diplomatic front to say 'Treat our soldiers humanely' while showing the same example to those that we have captured (even if 95% of those we capture DO deserve extreme punishment for evil actions), than to be two-faced on the issue.

You also make a cheap argument that attempts to paint every non-supporter of state-sponsored torture as something of an appeaser or 'PC-ish'. The nature of terrorist operations is a lack of central control, and the disinformation gathered from extreme measures is likely to cause a lot of resources to be wastefully used chasing down bogus leads, or invididuals and materials long since moved from their previous location.

Solitary confinement is necessary for various practical purposes for various inmates across the board. When it comes to starvation, beatings, or attempting severe pain/humiliation/torture techniques, we should be above that. It's also ridiculous to say that anyone advocates given these captured persons steaks or television access. I think that even the most ardent Bush/Gitmo critic acknowledges the practical probability that 95+% of the detainees are probably guilty of killing or attempting to kill either U.S. soldiers or other civilians.

Which brings me to the closing logic on this. If there is evidence held against a detainee that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed acts of murder against soldiers or civilians, try them and EXECUTE THEM. Don't waste gobs of our money interrogating them for worthless info, and holding them for indefinite periods of time for crimes which we cannot reasonably prove. If you can't prove it, ship them to Afghanistan, stop spending money holding them.

1. It is not even that harsh. It is a psychological means to an end that avoid actual permanent damage and is quite effective. Torture is not torture. You cannot say that breaking fingers, electo-shock, or cutting off limbs is the same was waterboarding.

If that were true, then the mere threat of murdering somebody would result in the same punishment as murder. It doesn't, nor should it. Threatening somebody and bullying them with words is not the same as assault.

Taking a black/white approach is just stupid.

2. We have no historical "moral high-ground". Torture in the US has been happening since this country was formed and has been happening worldwide for thousands of years. It hasn't just popped up 5 years ago. However, politcal pundits have made it a polarizing issue in order to undercut the moral image of the President. Mind you, I am no fan of Bush, but this crap is just silly.

There are plenty of history books detailing how we tortured British, Southern, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam soldiers . To think otherwise, without reading the history, is naive and just plain idiotic.

3. It is a PC issue. Look at yourself, you make the ignorant leap to say that we have a moral high-ground, where we actually dont (and any learned and non-naive person knows that). Yet you have gotten sucked into the belief that even something as benign as waterboarding is evil. Why? Because you are not politically independant enough to think for yourself. Instead, much like the drooling Bushco right, you are a drooling leftco who thinks that everything should be this flowery world of peace love and dope.

Get real.

I don't support putting up room and board for non-vital prisoners and I agree of trying and release/hang/imprison of people. However, I completely disagree that this is a black/white situation whereby you polarize the issue and discount any methodology of torture, regardless of it's effectiveness, lack of negative points, and an ignorant, illogical, and fictional "historical moral high-ground".

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Look, people have info. We need info. We aren't pulling fingernails, electrocuting them, cutting off limbs, or breaking digits, we are simulating drowning, a psychological and physically and long-term mentially undamaging situation.

We can get the info we can through moral means, and too damned bad for the info we can't get. We need to treat prisoners humanely and demand the same.

We're welcome to use techniques from persuasion to rewards to enourage info. We do it with murderers and rapists, we've done it in previous wars.

The PC-ish ness of some people is disgusting. They think that if we ask nicely we'll get all of the info they want. They think solitary or sensory depravation is barbaric and that anything but a Filet Mignon and cable TV to inmates and enemy agents is just wrong.

A hint as to when you are using a weak argument is when you have to use phony straw men for the other side.

That's the case here. Basic, nutritious food when possible is all I expect. But that doesn't make your argument for you, so you use phony hyperbole.

I don't like the Iraq war and I think we are being idiots in our fight in the "war on fear". However, I am not naive enough to think that we don't have to use some psychological techniques to break down and get at people who have vital information.

You seem to think you have a right to the info that supercedes any moral issues - that's the logic you use. We 'need' the info and we 'have to use' certain practices to get it.

You use that logic to cross over the line from human treatment to waterboarding torture; why stop there? Your logic has no clear lines to stop at for even far worse practices.

I am as moral as any other red blooded American and if you doubt my hatred for Bush and his cronies, just look at my posts. People need to get off of their high-horses.

You need to get a better sense of morality. We may agree on the vast majority of Bush issues; that's no excuse for supporting torture on another.

Waterboarding being less evil than other practices doesn't make it ok.

I draw the line at saying we should ot allow any technique which is designed to force a prisoner to lose the ability to choose what to say through physical coercion.

Whether that coercion is pain, or sleep deprivation, or simulated drowning doens't matter. We treat prisoners humanely, period.

And this is the attitude where you lose the vast majority of Americans (and anybody else for that matter). Your black/white viewpoint of the world is simply asinine and not at all reasonable. Ohh noes, we keep them awake! Ohhh noes, we feed them a little bit less. Ohhh noes, we deprive them of senses!

My resorting to hyperbole and "straw men" is nothing more than a mocking of your illogical points of view.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Craig234
Let's waterboard your family, palehorse, and see how you feel about it being overly-sensitive pc bunk.

Jaskalas: First, the people 'responsible' for Abu Ghraib walk free - the grunts who were told to do these things are in jail. But that's not the point - the point is that the republican propagandists dismissed Abu Ghraib, which you admit deserved people going to jail for, as 'frat boy pranks'. That's what I commented on, so what's your point?

As for 'why the hell not' on waterboarding, because it's immoral, and the fact you have to ask shows you have a very poor set of morals. The fact that there are more effective techniques including positive ones - rewards - and the large number of innocents - I won't get into because the bottom line is we don't do it because it's immoral.

If the federal government has reasonable cause to believe that anyone in my immediate family is conspiring to commit terrorist acts against other Americans or American interests/property, then they have my blessings to waterboard the hell out of them! In fact, I'd get in line to help!

The point is that I'm not one of the tinfoil crowd who believes that the Federal government goes around using this every day on innocent people; second, and perhaps more importantly, I do not feel that waterboarding as inhumane.

ps: what the hell do you know about interogation? let me guess, you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night...

Right, and the government has special mind powers that can ID a terrorist 100% of the time with no errors . . . face it, with policies like what the current Administration have put in place, errors are bound to happen. And then how're you going to feel about it? What if we torture an innocent man? Or worse yet, what if we subject an innocent man to extraordinary rendition and some country like Egypt REALLY tortures him or even kills him?

 

[umbrella39]

As I have stated in the past, I have no problems with torture under certain conditions, the most important of which being, NOT getting caught doing it. When we are caught, the ones who feel the wrath are our own servicemen/women. However, in this day and age of media and the internet, you simply can not get away with anything anymore. So I think it best to not be seen by the rest of the world as a country that tortures in ANY form, its detainees.

 

[Craig234]

And this is the attitude where you lose the vast majority of Americans (and anybody else for that matter). Your black/white viewpoint of the world is simply asinine and not at all reasonable. Ohh noes, we keep them awake! Ohhh noes, we feed them a little bit less. Ohhh noes, we deprive them of senses!

My resorting to hyperbole and "straw men" is nothing more than a mocking of your illogical points of view.

I don't agree I lose the 'vast majority of Americans', and whether I do or not is irrelevant to the truth of my position.

I'll note, though, that the White House itself expresses offense at the very idea that Cheney supported Waterboarding, saying he does not and would not say that.

So, you are to the right of Cheney on the issue, sub-20% approval Cheney, and you want to make claims about Americans endorsing this torture.

My view is hardly black/white; the comment shows you fail to understand it. Oh, and you say my view is not 'reasonable'. Nice, complete argument you make there.

My position is good enough for the US criminal justice system and previous US wars, and is held by many now, but it's not 'reasonable'.

Ohh noes, we keep them awake! Ohhh noes, we feed them a little bit less. Ohhh noes, we deprive them of senses!

Well, I guess I just have to say you are what you are, a liar, since you continue to repeat the behavior after being challenged more politely.

You can mock saying forcing a person to be sleep-deprived for days to the point of their losing the ability of voluntary control over their actions is torture, but you just look like Rush mocking Fox's Parkinson's symptoms. "Ohhh noes, I can't sit still look at me moving around'. It's torture. Feeding them a little bit less? Hardly the issue. You just made that up out of nothing. Extreme sensory deprivation could be torture as well - again, if it's design to inflict such suffering as to make them unable to have voluntary control.

You can't defend your resorting to hyperbole and straw men. They are not legitimate argumentative responses, they say nothing about my argument. They are errors.

 

[Enig101]

Torture is one of the worst acts a person can commit. On the other hand, I can live with making prisoners uncomfortable within limits if it coerces them to give information. However, even to do that the government needs to be pretty damn certain there is information to gain.

What I do not like is the vague BS they have in that law they passed. I think it pushes it too far.

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: loki8481
well, how else are you going to determine whether she's a witch or not?

If she weighs as much as a duck... she's a witch.

I'm most wise in the ways of science.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The only thing I find surprising in this story is that the White House is denying he said it. I don't agree with water boarding, but the White House has been pretty consistent about openly wanting to push the envelope in terms of permissible interrogation techniques, and water boarding is by no means the worst technique we've used against a detainee in recent years.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. It is not even that harsh. It is a psychological means to an end that avoid actual permanent damage and is quite effective.<<<<< Torture is not torture. >>>>>You cannot say that breaking fingers, electo-shock, or cutting off limbs is the same was waterboarding.

I'm no longer going to qualify your blather with responses. "Torture is not torture". What are you smoking? Taking a black/white stance on the use of torture is NOT 'stupid', it's an easy and complete way of alleviating the entire controversy over the issue. Although many examples throughout our history have included torture, it has NOT been a standard operating procedure.

You go further and say I make 'an ignorant leap'. What kind of arrogant bastard are you? We *DO* have an historic moral high ground. Regardless of certain excesses, they are damned minor compared to how the Japanese treated captured allied servicemen, and how the Germans treated most of their imprisoned during WW2. Our moral high ground against the terrorist scum is undeniable, and we shouldn't so easily throw it away for the questionable advantages that torture provides.

You then spastically say this : "you are a drooling leftco who thinks that everything should be this flowery world of peace love and dope.

Get real."

To which I reply : F*CK YOU! You're a damned idiot for even considering posting such an unfounded B.S. statement, of personally offensive nature. Where did I ever mention anything related to peace, love, and dope? Why do you consider me 'drooling leftco', because I'm not signing up to wear jackboots for a politically extremist movement, because I don't support state-sanctioned torture whatsoever? If I was half the drooling liberal knee-jerk moron you seem to want to pigeon-hole me as, I probably wouldn't support capital punishment for those found guilty of murdering our soldiers or other civilians, would I? If I was half the drooling liberal knee-jerk moron you seem to want to pigeon-hole me as, I probably wouldn't still believe that we *DO*, in fact, still have the moral high ground compared to the common terrorists. I also don't believe in overreacting to the relatively minor threat of terrorism when it is far more likely that you will be die from infectious disease, car accidents, heart failure, or even drowning in your bathtub, than by those ineffectual jerkoff nutjobs.

YOU are the one giving them more power and respect than they deserve, by your advocacy of exaggerated response. A response, that with little arguability, debases us morally both domestically and abroad. YOU are a disgrace. Goodbye.

 

[ProfJohn]

It is amazing how exciting you guys on the left are getting over this little quote.
Yet when I posted a long interview with Clinton where he clearly suggest that torture may be appropriated in a ?ticking time bomb? type instance you all attacked me and ignored what Clinton actually said.

Once again I?ll post part of his answer to a question asking if the President needs the option to use torture.

"Look, if the president needed an option, there's all sorts of things they can do. Let?s take the best case, OK. You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal.

"We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

In other words the President can approve limted torture, and then get 'permission' from the court, even after the fact.
Later he says

?..."If they really believe the time comes when the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of someone or put a drug in their body to talk it out of ?em, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Court, or some other court, just under the same circumstances we do with wiretaps. Post facto."

Clinton says on a case by case basis that the President should have the ability to approve torture.

He also states that in general we should follow the Geneva Convention for various reasons, however the President should have the option on a case by case basis. He also spoke strongly against what happened at Abu Gharaib, and does not think we need a law to allow ?blanket torture?

I agree with Clinton, in cases where water boarding can be used to the save the lives of Americans then I have no problem with it being used.

Go to the link and click the little listen button and hear for yourself. Link

 

[Arkaign]

ProfJohn, although I disagree with your opinion on this issue, I commend you for posting a well-voiced and honest viewpoint on this thread.

I also ask those paying attention to remember that I defended Cheney somewhat on this issue, as the way the question was asked was VERY loaded.

And, as others have admirably noted, the White House itself has issued statements of denial regarding Cheney advocating the use of water-boarding.

 

[Pens1566]

Ticking bomb scenario is fiction. This isn't the 7:00pm - 8:00pm episode of 24. And if you'll note that Clinton said he would go the court to seek approval, where is that in W's law. Hint: it's not. He's the court. Judicial oversight is the key. It's also something this administration is very fond of neglecting.

Selective bolding of Clinton's statements might look like they support your position, but when the whole statement is read in context it doesn't.

"We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

Bolded what you conveniently left out.

 

[ProfJohn]

Come on now guys, how many movies have we seen where they dunk the bad guy in a bucket over and over, that has become an iconic image in American pop culture.

That is a FAR cry from water boarding which is done in a very different and much more controlled way.

Water Boarding, cold rooms, loud music, that is about as far as I go on torture. And that is only for the worst of the worst, people like the mastermind of 9-11 and the 93 WTC bomber. People who have information that can save lives if gotten out of them.

But what happened at Abu Gharaib is shameful and an embarrassment to the country and the military. Those people rightfully belong behind bars for the damage they have done to America and its image.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Text
Come on! What the hell else could he be referring to???"no-brainer"

By "no-brainer," he may have been referring to Bush. :laugh:

You mean Bush has nothing to fear from Zombies?:Q

Or maybe he still has.

"For sale, one brain. Never been used. Only dropped once.":laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Ticking bomb scenario is fiction. This isn't the 7:00pm - 8:00pm episode of 24. And if you'll note that Clinton said he would go the court to seek approval, where is that in W's law. Hint: it's not. He's the court. Judicial oversight is the key. It's also something this administration is very fond of neglecting.

Clinton also said we could go to the court post facto, as in after wards. If there was a case in which there was no time to go before a court.

And you can deny and spin, but Clinton seemed to approve of the use of torture in some very limited cases.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What if we torture an innocent man?

How many of the men that have been tortured, have been found guilty of something?

Or worse yet, what if we subject an innocent man to extraordinary rendition and some country like Egypt REALLY tortures him or even kills him?

Already happened

Maher Arar (Arabic: ???? ?????; born 1970 in Syria) is a Canadian software engineer. On September 26, 2002, during a stopover in New York en route from Tunis to Montreal, Arar was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service who may have been acting upon false and misleading information supplied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police[1] . Despite carrying a Canadian passport, he was deported to Syria in accordance with a U.S. policy known as "extraordinary rendition."[2] Arar was then held in solitary confinement in a Syrian prison where, according to a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Dennis O'Connor, he was regularly tortured until his eventual release and return to Canada in October 2003.[3] The episode strained Canada-U.S. relations and resulted in the creation of a public inquiry in Canada "into the actions of Canadian officials dealing with the deportation and detention"[4] of Arar. The commission's final report cleared Arar's name and was sharply critical of the RCMP and other Canadian government departments.

Maher Arar

A video of waterboarding for those curious
Waterboarding

Seems like torture to me

 

[Vonkhan]

In 1947 the U.S. convicted a former Japanese soldier of war crimes. He was sentenced to 15 years in a military prison. His crime:

He used waterboarding and simulated drowning during the interrogation of a U.S. soldier. The tribunal clearly found these techniques to be torture.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Ticking bomb scenario is fiction. This isn't the 7:00pm - 8:00pm episode of 24. And if you'll note that Clinton said he would go the court to seek approval, where is that in W's law. Hint: it's not. He's the court. Judicial oversight is the key. It's also something this administration is very fond of neglecting.

Clinton also said we could go to the court post facto, as in after wards. If there was a case in which there was no time to go before a court.

And you can deny and spin, but Clinton seemed to approve of the use of torture in some very limited cases.

Why would anyone need to "deny and spin" that? The question of whether or not people would EVER consider torture is not what's being debate here, the question is whether or not it should be an approved and routine method of interrogation.

 

[imported_Aelius]

It's very simple.

When our soldiers were being tortured at the very least they could say... at least we don't do that. It's by far the one thing that kept all those POWs in Vietnam alive at the Hanoi Hilton. I suspect they weren't the only American soldiers who thought that.

And it doesn't work people. Torturing makes you want to tell them anything to make them stop. That's the whole point of torture. What some people here want to think is that the person being tortured cherry picks the truth and doesn't bullshit to save his life. They lie. Everyone lies. Soldiers are trained to lie under torture or tell half truths or they leave out key info if Operational Security allows for the purpose of saving their lives. Ask anyone in the SAS. Probably any Special Forces unit goes under the same training. Not sure if they teach that at SERE. They should. However it doesn't take SERE training to say anything at all to make them stop. Ask Maher Arar.

It's not just a concept of having a moral high ground or that it may not work perfectly. It doesn't matter that the person torturing got the info to save lives or not. It's everything else that goes with it when you decide to torture someone. Where do you stop? 10? 100? 1000? If torturing isn't quite working out and the population is used to it... what is the next step? Even if we assumed for one second that torture was a 100% chance to get the right info every single time. You do that and everything that you have fought for is over and they won.

You want to save lives? You want your nation's principles of Freedom and Liberty to actually mean something other than black ink on paper? Then be willing to die. Die by the hundreds, thousands or millions for your principles.

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient. Otherwise they are meaningless. Text on a piece of paper.

Some people understand the concept of principles. Some don't.

Here is what frames my perspective on principles.

If it weren't for many Hungarian soldiers and an officer knowingly willing to die by disobeying a order to shoot my mother, in a line of dozens of children taken from the crowd with all the parents forced to watch, when she was just 11 years old in 1956 I wouldn't fvcking be here.

Period end of argument.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why would anyone need to "deny and spin" that? The question of whether or not people would EVER consider torture is not what's being debate here, the question is whether or not it should be an approved and routine method of interrogation.

Isn't the fundamental question whether one considers water boarding a form of torture to begin with?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Why would anyone need to "deny and spin" that? The question of whether or not people would EVER consider torture is not what's being debate here, the question is whether or not it should be an approved and routine method of interrogation.

Isn't the fundamental question whether one considers water boarding a form of torture to begin with?

The Geneva Convention, US War Crimes Act and Federal Anti-Torture Statue says it does.

Direct Quote next block of text only:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. "

"Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146)."

"The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits ?violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ?outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

"A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an ?act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.? A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim?s death. "

Source for the above.

"Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
State Parties Signature Ratification / Accession 1) Reservation / Declaration 2)

United States of America 12.08.1949 02.08.1955 02.08.1955. (text)"

"1) Ratification : a treaty is generally open for signature for a certain time following the conference which has adopted it. However, a signature is not binding on a State unless it has been endorsed by ratification. The time limits having elapsed, the Conventions and the Protocols are no longer open for signature. The States which have not signed them may at any time accede or, in the appropriate circumstances, succeed to them.
Accession : instead of signing and then ratifying a treaty, a State may become party to it by the single act called accession."

Source for the above.

I bolded what matters the most.

The end.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
We don't know if they have any info. Do you think that some of the people we've had in custody for 2+ years now still have valid operational knowledge?

the answer to that question is yes.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Pens1566
We don't know if they have any info. Do you think that some of the people we've had in custody for 2+ years now still have valid operational knowledge?

the answer to that question is yes.

Thats bs. If they do have knowledge of something that was to take place 2+ years in the future, and their jihad friends haven't figured out to change what the captured guy knew about, they're idiots and we're using terror to scare everyone ....... wait, that is what we're doing.