LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Hegseth refuses to rule out use of torture

P

Politruk

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
13,244
When Senator Angus King pressed him on it.

King asked, “Are you rejecting Title 18 and Title 42, I think, also has provisions that incorporate the Geneva Convention and the laws of armed combat. Are you saying that those laws should be repealed? That is the law of the land right now.”

“Senator, we have laws on the books from the Geneva Conventions into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and then underneath that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagement are put into place. We fight enemies also as our generation understands that play by no rules. They use civilians as human shields –” Hegseth said as he avoided the question.

King then followed up, “So are you saying that the Geneva Convention should not be observed?”

“We follow rules, but we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars,” Hegseth replied.

Later in the exchange, King said, “You’re saying two different things: you are saying we follow rules but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases, is that correct? Burdensome rules?”

“Senator, I am making an important tactical distinction that war fighters will understand, that there are other goals we swear an oath to defend….” Hegseth said.

In one final attempt to get an answer, King asked again: “I just want to be clear, are we going to abide by the Geneva Convention and the prohibitions on torture or are we not? Or is it going to depend on the circumstances?”

Hegseth replied, unable to tell Senator King that he would abide by the international laws of warfare: “…What an America first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America first understands we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective, we equip them properly for that objective—and we give them everything they need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat America’s enemies which is why we sit quietly and peacefully in this conference room.”
 
The scary thing is, what happens if Hegseth decides that America's own citizens are "enemies" and turns his goons on us?
Because, at this point, there is little to stop him from doing so.

These are truely scary times. No sane, decent human being can, or should, support this individual (or anyone like him) from EVER having any position of authority in our government.
 
He has to fit in with his Supreme Leader, who has said on multiple occasions that he approves of torture.
(Waterboarding doesn't sound very severe).
 
Agreed. I cannot believe the Republicans have neither the honor nor the courage to do their jobs and shoot down this appointment. Hegseth is a horrible person in every way, but beyond that- he is utterly unqualified for the job he is being selected to do.
 
PaxNurgle said:
The scary thing is, what happens if Hegseth decides that America's own citizens are "enemies" and turns his goons on us?
Because, at this point, there is little to stop him from doing so.
Click to expand...

Scarry time to be an overtly anti-American, Jihadi dick sucking, communist fuckwit. :D (y) (y)

PaxNurgle said:
No sane, decent human being can, or should, support this individual (or anyone like him) from EVER having any position of authority in our government.
Click to expand...

If you voted Democrat in 2024 you only say that because he's not on your side....... otherwise you LOVE people like that in government, so long as they are on your team. Don't be mad or upset your going to get some of what you been dishing out. It's a bad look.
 
PaxNurgle said:
The scary thing is, what happens if Hegseth decides that America's own citizens are "enemies" and turns his goons on us?
Because, at this point, there is little to stop him from doing so.

These are truely scary times. No sane, decent human being can, or should, support this individual (or anyone like him) from EVER having any position of authority in our government.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Dali Bama (peace be upon his holy name) did? To the tune of around 2700 +/- kills using drone strikes. It’s estimated the collateral damage (civilians/non combatants) was around 116. Those stats are from the Dali’s admin, but foreign observes claim six times that many.

Some of these were US citizens deliberately targeted and killed in drone strikes, without those individuals ever having been given their constitutional right to due process of law.

Hypocrite, thy name is Liberal.
 
PaxNurgle said:
Agreed. I cannot believe the Republicans have neither the honor nor the courage to do their jobs and shoot down this appointment. Hegseth is a horrible person in every way, but beyond that- he is utterly unqualified for the job he is being selected to do.
Click to expand...

Pax, please cry harder. Your tears are almost as delicious as the nectar of the gods....

1737125721771.png
 
Bray123 said:
He has to fit in with his Supreme Leader, who has said on multiple occasions that he approves of torture.
(Waterboarding doesn't sound very severe).
Click to expand...

Waterboarding? Nasal cleansing, that's all. There are far better techniques available if they're needed.

Dental procedures without anesthetic to start with. After all, we should take care of our prisoners teeth. Adequate dental care is a human right, and you'd be surprised at how many need root canals and substantial fillings. Almost every tooth in many cases. Nothing to say anesthetic is needed though. And nobody can say providing adequate dental care is torture either. :D:D:D:D
 
Politruk said:
When Senator Angus King pressed him on it.

Hegseth replied, unable to tell Senator King that he would abide by the international laws of warfare: “…What an America first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America first understands we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective, we equip them properly for that objective—and we give them everything they need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat America’s enemies which is why we sit quietly and peacefully in this conference room.”
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what the answer should be. Angus King is just another Democrat traitor trying to hobble America's military with artificial and unrealistic constraints.

He needs dental care.
 
Rightguide said:
Bullshit. We aren't going to abide by international conventions we aren't a signatory to.
Click to expand...
America became a signatory to the Geneva Conventions waaaay back in 1949.
A signatory to a treaty must abide by it as it has the "force of law".
As America's trashiest First Lady once said "Fock Greece Mess"...oops....I meant to say 'Be Better".
Realistically, you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being better than any of the liberals and/or centrists on this board, but you could try to strive to be better than the second-tier ankle biters here (such as 'Chloe Tzang' and Lace_Castro)
 
ChloeTzang said:
And this is exactly what the answer should be. Angus King is just another Democrat traitor trying to hobble America's military with artificial and unrealistic constraints.
Click to expand...
The laws of war are not "artificial and unrealistic constraints."
 
RobDownSouth said:
America became a signatory to the Geneva Conventions waaaay back in 1949.
A signatory to a treaty must abide by it as it has the "force of law".
As America's trashiest First Lady once said "Fock Greece Mess"...oops....I meant to say 'Be Better".
Realistically, you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being better than any of the liberals and/or centrists on this board, but you could try to strive to be better than the second-tier ankle biters here (such as 'Chloe Tzang' and Lace_Castro)
Click to expand...
Yeah so what? Did I say it didn't? The United States has supported and ratified many key international conventions on the laws of war, but there are several notable treaties and provisions it has not fully supported or ratified. For your edification, a simple search reveals the following:


The United States has supported and ratified many key international conventions on the laws of war, but there are several notable treaties and provisions it has not fully supported or ratified.

1. Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977)​

  • Protocol I: Extends protections to victims of international armed conflicts, including civilian populations and infrastructure, and includes provisions on the conduct of hostilities.
    • U.S. stance: Signed but not ratified, largely due to concerns about ambiguous definitions of lawful combatants, which could extend protections to irregular forces or terrorists.
  • Protocol II: Focuses on protections for victims of non-international armed conflicts, such as civil wars.
    • U.S. stance: Signed but not ratified, with concerns about restrictions on counterinsurgency operations.
  • Protocol III: Related to the use of the Red Crystal as an additional emblem.
    • U.S. stance: Ratified.

2. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)​

  • Establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression.
  • U.S. stance: Signed under President Bill Clinton but never ratified, and later "unsigned" by President George W. Bush. The U.S. objects to the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, particularly in cases not referred by the United Nations Security Council.

3. The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (1997) – Ottawa Treaty​

  • Prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.
  • U.S. stance: The U.S. has not signed or ratified, citing security concerns, particularly regarding the Korean Peninsula. However, the U.S. has taken steps to limit the use of landmines outside specific circumstances.

4. Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008)​

  • Prohibits the use, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions.
  • U.S. stance: Not signed or ratified, citing military utility and concerns over existing stockpiles. The U.S. maintains that cluster munitions are lawful if used in compliance with international humanitarian law.

5. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (1996)​

  • Prohibits all nuclear explosions for military or civilian purposes.
  • U.S. stance: Signed but not ratified. The U.S. has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992 but has not ratified the treaty due to concerns about verification and restrictions on national security options.

6. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1968)​

  • Removes statutory limitations for prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity.
  • U.S. stance: Not ratified. The U.S. relies on its own legal framework for addressing such crimes.

7. Arms Trade Treaty (2013)​

  • Regulates international trade in conventional arms to prevent human rights abuses.
  • U.S. stance: Signed under President Barack Obama but not ratified, and President Donald Trump later announced U.S. withdrawal of support. Concerns include potential restrictions on domestic gun ownership and exports.

8. 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict​

  • Aims to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts.
  • U.S. stance: Ratified only in 2009, decades after its adoption, due to initial concerns about the implications for military operations.

Summary of Key Concerns​

The U.S. has often refrained from full support of certain conventions due to:
  1. Sovereignty: Avoiding constraints on U.S. decision-making or military operations.
  2. Legal Exposure: Concerns about the prosecution of U.S. personnel or leaders in international courts.
  3. Operational Flexibility: Resistance to limitations on specific weapons or tactics deemed necessary for national defense.
So Rob, there you have it, another example where I have sacrificed three minutes of my time to tune you up and help you to be a more informed citizen.
 
Rightguide said:
Yeah so what? Did I say it didn't? The United States has supported and ratified many key international conventions on the laws of war, but there are several notable treaties and provisions it has not fully supported or ratified. For your edification, a simple search reveals the following:


The United States has supported and ratified many key international conventions on the laws of war, but there are several notable treaties and provisions it has not fully supported or ratified.

1. Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977)​

  • Protocol I: Extends protections to victims of international armed conflicts, including civilian populations and infrastructure, and includes provisions on the conduct of hostilities.
    • U.S. stance: Signed but not ratified, largely due to concerns about ambiguous definitions of lawful combatants, which could extend protections to irregular forces or terrorists.
  • Protocol II: Focuses on protections for victims of non-international armed conflicts, such as civil wars.
    • U.S. stance: Signed but not ratified, with concerns about restrictions on counterinsurgency operations.
  • Protocol III: Related to the use of the Red Crystal as an additional emblem.
    • U.S. stance: Ratified.

2. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)​

  • Establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression.
  • U.S. stance: Signed under President Bill Clinton but never ratified, and later "unsigned" by President George W. Bush. The U.S. objects to the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, particularly in cases not referred by the United Nations Security Council.

3. The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (1997) – Ottawa Treaty​

  • Prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.
  • U.S. stance: The U.S. has not signed or ratified, citing security concerns, particularly regarding the Korean Peninsula. However, the U.S. has taken steps to limit the use of landmines outside specific circumstances.

4. Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008)​

  • Prohibits the use, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions.
  • U.S. stance: Not signed or ratified, citing military utility and concerns over existing stockpiles. The U.S. maintains that cluster munitions are lawful if used in compliance with international humanitarian law.

5. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (1996)​

  • Prohibits all nuclear explosions for military or civilian purposes.
  • U.S. stance: Signed but not ratified. The U.S. has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992 but has not ratified the treaty due to concerns about verification and restrictions on national security options.

6. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1968)​

  • Removes statutory limitations for prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity.
  • U.S. stance: Not ratified. The U.S. relies on its own legal framework for addressing such crimes.

7. Arms Trade Treaty (2013)​

  • Regulates international trade in conventional arms to prevent human rights abuses.
  • U.S. stance: Signed under President Barack Obama but not ratified, and President Donald Trump later announced U.S. withdrawal of support. Concerns include potential restrictions on domestic gun ownership and exports.

8. 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict​

  • Aims to protect cultural heritage during armed conflicts.
  • U.S. stance: Ratified only in 2009, decades after its adoption, due to initial concerns about the implications for military operations.

Summary of Key Concerns​

The U.S. has often refrained from full support of certain conventions due to:
  1. Sovereignty: Avoiding constraints on U.S. decision-making or military operations.
  2. Legal Exposure: Concerns about the prosecution of U.S. personnel or leaders in international courts.
  3. Operational Flexibility: Resistance to limitations on specific weapons or tactics deemed necessary for national defense.
So Rob, there you have it, another example where I have sacrificed three minutes of my time to tune you up and help you to be a more informed citizen.
Click to expand...

Sharing is Caring. Thank you for this - I knew less than half of these, and the half I knew was only vaguely. THIS is informative. 🌹
 
Rightguide said:

2. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)​

  • Establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression.
  • U.S. stance: Signed under President Bill Clinton but never ratified, and later "unsigned" by President George W. Bush. The U.S. objects to the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, particularly in cases not referred by the United Nations Security Council.
Click to expand...
That's indefensible, to be sure!
 
Politruk said:
When Senator Angus King pressed him on it.

King asked, “Are you rejecting Title 18 and Title 42, I think, also has provisions that incorporate the Geneva Convention and the laws of armed combat. Are you saying that those laws should be repealed? That is the law of the land right now.”

“Senator, we have laws on the books from the Geneva Conventions into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and then underneath that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagement are put into place. We fight enemies also as our generation understands that play by no rules. They use civilians as human shields –” Hegseth said as he avoided the question.

King then followed up, “So are you saying that the Geneva Convention should not be observed?”

“We follow rules, but we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars,” Hegseth replied.

Later in the exchange, King said, “You’re saying two different things: you are saying we follow rules but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases, is that correct? Burdensome rules?”

“Senator, I am making an important tactical distinction that war fighters will understand, that there are other goals we swear an oath to defend….” Hegseth said.

In one final attempt to get an answer, King asked again: “I just want to be clear, are we going to abide by the Geneva Convention and the prohibitions on torture or are we not? Or is it going to depend on the circumstances?”

Hegseth replied, unable to tell Senator King that he would abide by the international laws of warfare: “…What an America first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. America first understands we send Americans for a clear mission and a clear objective, we equip them properly for that objective—and we give them everything they need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat America’s enemies which is why we sit quietly and peacefully in this conference room.”
Click to expand...
Pete has 50 votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RobDownSouth
SecDef Hegseth overrules Trump, fires Negro chairman of Joint Chiefs
4 5 6
Replies
126
Views
1K
PaxNurgle
P
RobDownSouth
Wall Street Journal Exclusive: Trump offers deal to withdraw Hegseth from Dept of Defense
Replies
7
Views
234
UltraChad
UltraChad
B
Daily Dumb. Hegseth Removes References to Hiroshima Bomber Because 'Enola Gay'
Replies
20
Views
220
Politruk
P
ChloeTzang
Trump is Back: Fucking over enemies of the USA
4 5 6
Replies
136
Views
2K
ll74
ll74
B
Dumb of the Day: Drunk will Polygraph his Staff for Leaker of False Story
Replies
20
Views
224
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
Back
Top