Yes, Let’s Show the Photos…As Long as We Show the Photos of WTC Victims for Every Frame of "Torture"

Story here.

And let’s not forget what Oregon democrats refer to as “hazing” in their anti hazing bill here:
(a) ‘Haze’ means:
(A) To subject an individual to whipping, beating, striking,
branding or electronic shocking, to place a harmful substance on
an individual’s body or to subject an individual to other similar
forms of physical brutality;
(B) To subject an individual to sleep deprivation, exposure to
the elements, confinement in a small space or other similar
activity that subjects the individual to an unreasonable risk of
harm or adversely affects the physical health or safety of the
individual;

(C) To compel an individual to consume food, liquid, alcohol,
controlled substances or other substances that subject the
individual to an unreasonable risk of harm or adversely affect
the physical health or safety of the individual; or
(D) To induce, cause or require an individual to perform a duty
or task that involves the commission of a crime or an act of
hazing.
How about the Taliban? Let’s definitely show those guys for every frame of “torture” the US inflicted on Jihadis:

The ACLU might want to go after Al Qaeda. Maybe they could sue them to death:

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

13 thoughts on “Yes, Let’s Show the Photos…As Long as We Show the Photos of WTC Victims for Every Frame of "Torture"

  1. What are you going to do Wako when enemies of our country make use of the same techniques… Say strong language against them and say that quit reminding you of Bush?

    Face Facts.. Not everyone in this world dose what you want them to do.

  2. Leftwing Wacko and all the other Leftwing Trolls on this blog are all united with the enemies of America. Happened a Long time ago.

    PS: It would be interesting to see if all the Left Wing Trolls on Victoria’s site have the same IP Address.

  3. Lew,

    This type of “honor killing” is not only prevalent in the Arab World, but also increasingly so in Europe. Ayaan Hirshi Ali’s (subject of the movie “Submission” by Theo Van Gogh, later assassinated by a fanatic Muslim) book, “Infidel”, discloses the increasing problems in Europe created by radical Islam, especially honor killings, due to European governments’ unwillingness to recognize and deal with the problem because they feel they must be “open minded” and “politically correct” in accepting foreign religious customs. Even England a few years back in investigating what they felt was an isolated “honor” killing in northern England suddenly found themselves opening over a 100 similar cases.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1019/p04s01-woeu.html

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aQe8VVyUR.qk&refer=uk

    It makes one wonder, how many such cases may be occurring in the US and dismissed,

    “For three days, the story was largely ignored by the national media. More than 72 hours after authorities found the bodies of Amina and Sarah — while their accused killer is a fugitive whom police say should be considered armed and dangerous — the story had still not been reported on the Associated Press national wire, and The Washington Times was the only newspaper outside Texas to cover the story.”

    http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/01/amw_seeks_texas_honor_killing_1.html

    And where was the shock and call for action from the feminist community, the ACLU, and those civil libertarians so intent on protecting women’s rights? So how many other such cases go unreported in the media, so as not to offend??

  4. Now this video is an example of what real torture actually is. Where are the scars that the poor widdle terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have to carry around all their lives? Oh right… they got to go back to their mandarin chicken with a side of steamed rice and veggies after they told the bad people how their buddies were planning to kill innocent people. This entire “torture” hysteria looks all the more pitiful when you stack it up against the real thing.

  5. “PS: It would be interesting to see if all the Left Wing Trolls on Victoria’s site have the same IP Address.”

    Haha. There are days when there is absolute silence from all the mini trolls. Silence speaks volumes I tell you.

  6. The UN Convention on Torture, which Ronald Reagan signed and championed, is very clear and its definition of what torture is obviously broad and inclusive. There’s actually a good discussion of it at Hot Air, which reproduces the legal definition thus:
    Article 1.
    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.
    2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
    Article 2.
    1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
    2. 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.
    3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
    Just ask yourself: reading this language and knowing that president Bush ordered the waterboarding of a man for 83 times to get evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, is it really a matter of debate whether the last president of the United States is a war criminal? How is one able to come to any other opinion?
    Remember:
    “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” is torture.

    Remember:
    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.

    Why are we still debating this?

  7. Because the vague wording applies broadly enough as to be null and void. First, there has be a universal definition of “severe” because it could be very credibly argued that a criminal who spends 20 years knowing that he’s going to die is experiencing “severe” mental suffering which is being deliberately inflicted upon him. There is also a built-in exemption for “lawful sanctions” and anything which a law allows is “lawful” and thus, since law has allowed waterboarding, it is a “lawful sanction”.

    This does not indict President Bush except for in the eyes of those who’re looking for a way in which they can get Bush. It has about as much legitimacy as the quioxotic attempt to impeach Bush for imagined offenses because Democrats were mad at him.

    However, if you want a really brutally realistic answer, a law which cannot be enforced effectively does not exist. And the UN is powerless to enforce any mumbojumbo it cooks up without the guns of the security council. Name one member of the security council that’s going to threaten the United States with force over something as ridiculously small potato as whether the US was a little rough on terrorists.

  8. Good luck with this “tortured” logic in a court of law Kmoo. As can be seen, you and your ilk fear a court of law mightily.

Comments are closed.