Forums » Off-Topic
why did we fight the evil communists again, if we are gonna do the same shit they did?
reminds me of the soviet dissident literature i read, particularly solzhenytsin (gulag archipelago, first circle, day in the life of ivan denisovitch), harry wu (bitter winds, laogai, troublemaker), brezhneva (the world i left behind), and many others.
of course, ideologues don't like to read books. these are the type of people who scream about defending the constitution and democracy but cannot name half of the bill of rights and do not know who their senator is.
where are all the anti-soviet right-wing spittle spewing loudmouths who cried about the evils of the soviet system? now they are quiet? now torture is ok?
my senators:
jim inhofe: supports torture of POWs and oppression of gays. made fun of
dead workers after the OKC bombing.
tom coburn: says abortion doctors deserve the death penalty.
the constitution, off the top of my head:
- freedom of speech, religion, press
- right to bear arms
- no illegal search and seizure
- dont have to quarter soldiers
- right to speedy and fair trial in a jury of your peers
- do not have to incriminate yourself
- powers of federal government not mentioned are delegated to the states
- slavery is illegal
- voting rights cannot be restricted on basis of gender, creed, race, religion, etc
- alcohol is illegal.. wait, no, its legal again (what a stupid amendment)
- presidents serve 2 terms only
reminds me of the soviet dissident literature i read, particularly solzhenytsin (gulag archipelago, first circle, day in the life of ivan denisovitch), harry wu (bitter winds, laogai, troublemaker), brezhneva (the world i left behind), and many others.
of course, ideologues don't like to read books. these are the type of people who scream about defending the constitution and democracy but cannot name half of the bill of rights and do not know who their senator is.
where are all the anti-soviet right-wing spittle spewing loudmouths who cried about the evils of the soviet system? now they are quiet? now torture is ok?
my senators:
jim inhofe: supports torture of POWs and oppression of gays. made fun of
dead workers after the OKC bombing.
tom coburn: says abortion doctors deserve the death penalty.
the constitution, off the top of my head:
- freedom of speech, religion, press
- right to bear arms
- no illegal search and seizure
- dont have to quarter soldiers
- right to speedy and fair trial in a jury of your peers
- do not have to incriminate yourself
- powers of federal government not mentioned are delegated to the states
- slavery is illegal
- voting rights cannot be restricted on basis of gender, creed, race, religion, etc
- alcohol is illegal.. wait, no, its legal again (what a stupid amendment)
- presidents serve 2 terms only
Perhaps you might want to consider drawing a distinction between(1) a sentence of imprisonment with torture as part of the punishment and (2) a relatively cushy imprisonment sentence as the sole punishment, with torture and other unpleasant coercive approaches used as necessary to obtain information.
Unlike a trip the the gulag, our current guests (they're not POWs, since they are not members of a sovereign state with which we are at war--as such, they have none of the rights accorded by POW status) would not be tortured if they were kind enough to divulge the information sought.
If they don't wish to do that, then I'm unlikely to be sympathetic when someone drags them away from their nice prison cell and starts ripping off parts that they'll miss.
Unlike a trip the the gulag, our current guests (they're not POWs, since they are not members of a sovereign state with which we are at war--as such, they have none of the rights accorded by POW status) would not be tortured if they were kind enough to divulge the information sought.
If they don't wish to do that, then I'm unlikely to be sympathetic when someone drags them away from their nice prison cell and starts ripping off parts that they'll miss.
Torture as such is not a legitimate way to procure information. Or else the spanish inquisition (who expects that, anyway?) would have been right to do so, too.
Please, could this thread be locked? It won't make anyone change her or his mind, and neither will it bring about a compromise that matters.
Please, could this thread be locked? It won't make anyone change her or his mind, and neither will it bring about a compromise that matters.
If the Spanish Inquisition had been torturing an apprehended member of a group that was engaged in violent attacks against the citizens of Spain (assuming the Inquisition was a state sanctioned body for the moment), in order to obtain information and not for retributive purposes, then yes, it would have been right to do so.
Conversely, torturing someone suspected of witchcraft until they confessed and incriminated themselves, paving the way to a 'legitimate' execution... would be wrong.
There is no such thing as an illegitimate way to procure information, merely more and less efficient means. How's this? We can torture prisoners (not POWs, mind you, just violent foreign nationals not affiliated with any military force of a state), but information obtained cannot be used in any trial of the individual from which the information was obtained (no self-incrimination via torture). Happy now?
Conversely, torturing someone suspected of witchcraft until they confessed and incriminated themselves, paving the way to a 'legitimate' execution... would be wrong.
There is no such thing as an illegitimate way to procure information, merely more and less efficient means. How's this? We can torture prisoners (not POWs, mind you, just violent foreign nationals not affiliated with any military force of a state), but information obtained cannot be used in any trial of the individual from which the information was obtained (no self-incrimination via torture). Happy now?
As long as I get my cheap gas for my SUV, I'm happy. Can we torture ananzi for a couple of pennies off the price of a gallon?
I'd pay a couple of pennies a gallon to do ananzi grievous physical harm...
Unlike a trip the the gulag, our current guests (they're not POWs, since they are not members of a sovereign state with which we are at war--as such, they have none of the rights accorded by POW status) would not be tortured if they were kind enough to divulge the information sought.
Two major problems with this line of argument:
1. The only reason that the US is free to choose who gets the precious title of POW is because the US has been careful to not declare war against a sovereign state. The "War on Terror" is a war on a concept (as I'm sure you all have gathered). The number one problem with your reasoning, and with the Bush administration's recent actions, is that it makes it unclear then why the other side should treat captured US soldiers according to the Geneva convention. How can you (and by this I mean American's) claim that they should, when you don't? And if you don't, then how can you expect the rest of the world to sympathize when they don't? (Don't get me wrong, I feel sympathize with anybody who gets captured by any side in war, be it American Soldiers getting their head cut off with a rusty bread knife or Iranian fighters having their testicles zapped by George Bush on his monthly visit to that little jail cell in Uzbekistan.)
2. Torture as an effective means of extracting information? Give me a break. While it's obvious that someone hiding information will divulge that information when tortured (save for Indiana Jones), torture also results in people divulging information they didn't know, or not divulging information they didn't know, you know?
Anyway, I'll leave you to it though, you sound ecstatic about the recent turn of events.
Two major problems with this line of argument:
1. The only reason that the US is free to choose who gets the precious title of POW is because the US has been careful to not declare war against a sovereign state. The "War on Terror" is a war on a concept (as I'm sure you all have gathered). The number one problem with your reasoning, and with the Bush administration's recent actions, is that it makes it unclear then why the other side should treat captured US soldiers according to the Geneva convention. How can you (and by this I mean American's) claim that they should, when you don't? And if you don't, then how can you expect the rest of the world to sympathize when they don't? (Don't get me wrong, I feel sympathize with anybody who gets captured by any side in war, be it American Soldiers getting their head cut off with a rusty bread knife or Iranian fighters having their testicles zapped by George Bush on his monthly visit to that little jail cell in Uzbekistan.)
2. Torture as an effective means of extracting information? Give me a break. While it's obvious that someone hiding information will divulge that information when tortured (save for Indiana Jones), torture also results in people divulging information they didn't know, or not divulging information they didn't know, you know?
Anyway, I'll leave you to it though, you sound ecstatic about the recent turn of events.
(1) Not only has the U.S. not declared war on a sovereign state, you will notice that no sovereign state has declared war on the U.S. (the DPRK being a possible exception, but we'll leave that loony bin alone for the moment). Hence, any captured foreign hostile is not a POW, and more than I would be a POW if I and a group of U.S. citizens cashed in our Halliburton stock, used it to finance a string of mass killings in Saudi Arabia and were subsequently captured. Killing your fellow man while under orders as part of a recognized army has international legal benefits. End of story.
(2) There are two main problems with your psudo-objection to our torturing captured terrorists for information. First, American soldiers captured by another state's military during conflict would have no reason to torture POWs--America doesn't. This isn't about sympathy, it's about when you can and cannot use torture on captured hostiles. I suggest you look carefully at the definition of 'reciprocity'.
Second, no non-state sanctioned military is going to pause for two seconds about torturing and/or executing American Soldiers they have captured. Hell, they don't even pause about engaging in such behavior towards civilian contractors. See, e.g., the numerous Islamic Sunday Morning Cartoons featuring dull knives, severed throat noises and laughing black-hooded young males. Coming soon to a server near you. The only effective deterrent to that is mass retaliation (i.e. executing half the civilian population of Fallujah for their first insurgent attack, and making it clear that the other half is next if they fail to behave)--sadly or gladly, we're too civil to do such a thing. So, barbaric treatment our Americans by hostiles is a foregone conclusion.
(3) Yes, they'll tell you what they know. Yes, they'll tell you lies. Yes, that is true of all interrogations. Yes, that's what the point of an intelligence service is, to sort the accurate information from the bullshit.
(2) There are two main problems with your psudo-objection to our torturing captured terrorists for information. First, American soldiers captured by another state's military during conflict would have no reason to torture POWs--America doesn't. This isn't about sympathy, it's about when you can and cannot use torture on captured hostiles. I suggest you look carefully at the definition of 'reciprocity'.
Second, no non-state sanctioned military is going to pause for two seconds about torturing and/or executing American Soldiers they have captured. Hell, they don't even pause about engaging in such behavior towards civilian contractors. See, e.g., the numerous Islamic Sunday Morning Cartoons featuring dull knives, severed throat noises and laughing black-hooded young males. Coming soon to a server near you. The only effective deterrent to that is mass retaliation (i.e. executing half the civilian population of Fallujah for their first insurgent attack, and making it clear that the other half is next if they fail to behave)--sadly or gladly, we're too civil to do such a thing. So, barbaric treatment our Americans by hostiles is a foregone conclusion.
(3) Yes, they'll tell you what they know. Yes, they'll tell you lies. Yes, that is true of all interrogations. Yes, that's what the point of an intelligence service is, to sort the accurate information from the bullshit.
Killing your fellow man while under orders as part of a recognized army has international legal benefits.
One might add:...as part of a recognized army involved in an internationally recognized legal war. The reasons presented for invading Iraq have been proven to be false, you and I both know that. My 10 year old cousin knows that.
Anyway, I'm not trying to point out why US soldiers should be subject to torture, so don't try and put those words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that if one side of a war, especially the side that is supposed to be the prime example of western civilization (self proclaimed), is going to engage in this kind of behaviour, regardless of the Geneva Convention's categorization of their enemy, I don't understand how they can expect some perverted form of moral allegiance from the international community. Its a.... "curiosity" that the US would be so shortsighted as to support this kind of intelligence gathering.
First, American soldiers captured by another state's military during conflict would have no reason to torture POWs--America doesn't.
This doesn't make much sense, I'm not sure what you are getting at. American soldiers would have no reason to torture another State's soldiers?
This isn't about sympathy, it's about when you can and cannot use torture on captured hostiles. I suggest you look carefully at the definition of 'reciprocity'.
Your use of the term reciprocity here is tantamount to regression in civilized warfare, if such a thing exists; I personally don't believe so. Regardless, simply saying: they're doing it to us, so dammit! We're can do it to them!... is not only regressive, but immature.
The only effective deterrent to that is mass retaliation (i.e. executing half the civilian population of Fallujah for their first insurgent attack, and making it clear that the other half is next if they fail to behave)--sadly or gladly, we're too civil to do such a thing.
Are you for real? I guess I agree. Bombing the shit out of Baghdad, and killing over 600,000 civilians definitely has had a similar effect, because as we all know, all the residents and civilians of Iraq are terrorists. Even their babies. It's like Catholicism, born into it man! Man am I glad you guys stopped the flow of terrorists and made the world a safer place.
... you don't really believe this would have any effect do you? Aside for short term effects of course.
One might add:...as part of a recognized army involved in an internationally recognized legal war. The reasons presented for invading Iraq have been proven to be false, you and I both know that. My 10 year old cousin knows that.
Anyway, I'm not trying to point out why US soldiers should be subject to torture, so don't try and put those words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that if one side of a war, especially the side that is supposed to be the prime example of western civilization (self proclaimed), is going to engage in this kind of behaviour, regardless of the Geneva Convention's categorization of their enemy, I don't understand how they can expect some perverted form of moral allegiance from the international community. Its a.... "curiosity" that the US would be so shortsighted as to support this kind of intelligence gathering.
First, American soldiers captured by another state's military during conflict would have no reason to torture POWs--America doesn't.
This doesn't make much sense, I'm not sure what you are getting at. American soldiers would have no reason to torture another State's soldiers?
This isn't about sympathy, it's about when you can and cannot use torture on captured hostiles. I suggest you look carefully at the definition of 'reciprocity'.
Your use of the term reciprocity here is tantamount to regression in civilized warfare, if such a thing exists; I personally don't believe so. Regardless, simply saying: they're doing it to us, so dammit! We're can do it to them!... is not only regressive, but immature.
The only effective deterrent to that is mass retaliation (i.e. executing half the civilian population of Fallujah for their first insurgent attack, and making it clear that the other half is next if they fail to behave)--sadly or gladly, we're too civil to do such a thing.
Are you for real? I guess I agree. Bombing the shit out of Baghdad, and killing over 600,000 civilians definitely has had a similar effect, because as we all know, all the residents and civilians of Iraq are terrorists. Even their babies. It's like Catholicism, born into it man! Man am I glad you guys stopped the flow of terrorists and made the world a safer place.
... you don't really believe this would have any effect do you? Aside for short term effects of course.
about torture for information...
The extraction of information that someone does not wish to reveal can be achieved in neumerous ways, torture being one of them, however the line of what is and is not torture seems to be getting more and more blurry.
the laws against torture were implimented in a high minded effort to minimize human suffering, always a good goal, however some people take them much too far and try to apply them to things they were not intended for.
as an example: IMO using a moderate amount of physical discomfort (such as making the room too cold/hot and leaving the subject in it for a few hours, sleep deprivation for a day or two, denying them hot water for bathing, things along those lines) to make someone more receptive to answering questions is NOT torture. Some people would consider otherwise, and i have no doubt that things have gone beyond the above type of activity in some cases.
(A) Given the fact that the people being subjected to this stronger treatment have been taken into custody while actively trying to figure out ways to kill americans and the people who agree with us if not actively attempting to do the killing, my sympathy is somewhat less for them than it might be.
(B) Those are my personal feelings on the matter, the problem is that i also strongly hold the opinion that the most important liberty we have as americans (and indeed as human beings everywhere) is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. As such until a disinterested third party (such as a jury of peers that has no personal ties to either side) has decided on guilt any mistreatment based on the assumption of guilt is a crime.
(yes i am completely aware that a and b are compeltely contradictory, no one ever said humans were logical all the time)
My honest opinion is that the whole war on terror has been horribly bungled from the start, not just by dubbya but by pretty much the entire government for the past few decades or so.
Of course given the fact that we have a representative democracy where the voting public is apparently more worried about jim and john shacking up than they are about people dying and we let politicians and ratings hungry news media steer us around by the nose daily might just bring the blame squarely back on the american people.
incidentally Ananzi my congressman is Bob (the felon) Ney and apparently he stands for lining his pocket and then claiming it was an alcohol problem when he gets caught, and my senators are so unremarkable that i dont even bother to worry about them.
EDIT
gavan: where did you get the number of 600,000 civilians killed in bombing baghdad, can you reference your source?
The extraction of information that someone does not wish to reveal can be achieved in neumerous ways, torture being one of them, however the line of what is and is not torture seems to be getting more and more blurry.
the laws against torture were implimented in a high minded effort to minimize human suffering, always a good goal, however some people take them much too far and try to apply them to things they were not intended for.
as an example: IMO using a moderate amount of physical discomfort (such as making the room too cold/hot and leaving the subject in it for a few hours, sleep deprivation for a day or two, denying them hot water for bathing, things along those lines) to make someone more receptive to answering questions is NOT torture. Some people would consider otherwise, and i have no doubt that things have gone beyond the above type of activity in some cases.
(A) Given the fact that the people being subjected to this stronger treatment have been taken into custody while actively trying to figure out ways to kill americans and the people who agree with us if not actively attempting to do the killing, my sympathy is somewhat less for them than it might be.
(B) Those are my personal feelings on the matter, the problem is that i also strongly hold the opinion that the most important liberty we have as americans (and indeed as human beings everywhere) is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. As such until a disinterested third party (such as a jury of peers that has no personal ties to either side) has decided on guilt any mistreatment based on the assumption of guilt is a crime.
(yes i am completely aware that a and b are compeltely contradictory, no one ever said humans were logical all the time)
My honest opinion is that the whole war on terror has been horribly bungled from the start, not just by dubbya but by pretty much the entire government for the past few decades or so.
Of course given the fact that we have a representative democracy where the voting public is apparently more worried about jim and john shacking up than they are about people dying and we let politicians and ratings hungry news media steer us around by the nose daily might just bring the blame squarely back on the american people.
incidentally Ananzi my congressman is Bob (the felon) Ney and apparently he stands for lining his pocket and then claiming it was an alcohol problem when he gets caught, and my senators are so unremarkable that i dont even bother to worry about them.
EDIT
gavan: where did you get the number of 600,000 civilians killed in bombing baghdad, can you reference your source?
Spellcast, that last bit is just unreasonable.
I think a man can get banned for linking goatse...
I think a man can get banned for linking goatse...
One might add:...as part of a recognized army involved in an internationally recognized legal war. The reasons presented for invading Iraq have been proven to be false, you and I both know that. My 10 year old cousin knows that.
Perhaps so, perhaps not. The wonderful thing about nation states is that they aren't like people. There's no such thing as an international code on how one can and cannot engage in a legal war (quite different from what one can and cannot do in the course of that war)--which is for the best, as we've had enough trouble compassing the permissible and impermissible behavior of individuals with words. Try reading a model penal code sometime, it's a trip. Either way, American soldiers in Iraq were engaged in a war that falls within the scope of the Geneva and other conventions. One does not require UN approval to engage in a legal war: read the Charter sometime.
If captured by a signatory nation's forces, American soldiers are entitled to POW treatment. The same goes for that nation's forces when captured by U.S. soldiers. I'm not disputing that. This simple point goes a long way towards getting at a blurring you're engaging in: regardless of the Geneva Convention's categorization of their enemy. See, we write treaties down so that we know what they do and do not mean. Words have meaning. When the Geneva Convention entitles a hostile individual to its protections, the U.S. affords them those protections. We expect the same from other signatory nations who capture our forces. Simple--get it?
Regardless, simply saying: they're doing it to us, so dammit! We're can do it to them!... is not only regressive, but immature. Now, there's that blurring again: a generalized use of an over-broad and undefined pronoun, "they". When terrorists, not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, are captured... we are allowed to extract information however our domestic law sees fit to proscribe (unconstrained by the Eighth Amendment, in case you were unclear). When Gen. Con. signatories have soldiers captured by the U.S., we're bound to respect their rights and not torture them, no matter how many U.S. lives that course might save. They are required to do likewise. Again, reciprocity. This isn't about an eye for an eye, it's about what's legal.
Now, if you'd like to debate the morality of torture under the circumstances in which I advocate its use? Or, maybe the international and diplomatic policy implications of treating other human beings in such a manner, no matter the societal benefits of the information or the crimes of those being interrogated? Because you're trying to conflate all of those together with the legality, which I won't let you do.
Finally, the issue of my point about deterrence. Yes, I am absolutely "for real" there; but no, Baghdad is not even close to being an example of what I mean. After all, it's still a functioning city, with a functioning insurgency. Carthage after the Third Punic War? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Dresden? Rome's destruction of the Second Temple and its execution/scattering of the Jewish inhabitants of those lands (incidentally, the root of our current Middle East issue... they just had to resettle the ancestors of the Palestinians there to ensure pacification of the area. Ugh)? Yes, those would be better examples.
No, the infants aren't terrorists, and I won't try to make an argument out of the fact that they will more than likely grow up to be them. No, not all of the women and children are terrorists, though many are and more are complicit in any number of activities I would consider worthy of killing someone for (watch the Kim Sun Il or Jack Hensley videos again, in case you needed your memory refreshed). Such horrific reprisals are not about justice for crimes--that's not what armies are for (which, @Spellcast, is something you should try to grasp about courts: they don't exist for these issues. For starters, the lack of an unbiased trier of fact. These matters fall within the realm of national interests and security). They ensure that the acts that precipitated them will not be repeated.
Perhaps so, perhaps not. The wonderful thing about nation states is that they aren't like people. There's no such thing as an international code on how one can and cannot engage in a legal war (quite different from what one can and cannot do in the course of that war)--which is for the best, as we've had enough trouble compassing the permissible and impermissible behavior of individuals with words. Try reading a model penal code sometime, it's a trip. Either way, American soldiers in Iraq were engaged in a war that falls within the scope of the Geneva and other conventions. One does not require UN approval to engage in a legal war: read the Charter sometime.
If captured by a signatory nation's forces, American soldiers are entitled to POW treatment. The same goes for that nation's forces when captured by U.S. soldiers. I'm not disputing that. This simple point goes a long way towards getting at a blurring you're engaging in: regardless of the Geneva Convention's categorization of their enemy. See, we write treaties down so that we know what they do and do not mean. Words have meaning. When the Geneva Convention entitles a hostile individual to its protections, the U.S. affords them those protections. We expect the same from other signatory nations who capture our forces. Simple--get it?
Regardless, simply saying: they're doing it to us, so dammit! We're can do it to them!... is not only regressive, but immature. Now, there's that blurring again: a generalized use of an over-broad and undefined pronoun, "they". When terrorists, not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, are captured... we are allowed to extract information however our domestic law sees fit to proscribe (unconstrained by the Eighth Amendment, in case you were unclear). When Gen. Con. signatories have soldiers captured by the U.S., we're bound to respect their rights and not torture them, no matter how many U.S. lives that course might save. They are required to do likewise. Again, reciprocity. This isn't about an eye for an eye, it's about what's legal.
Now, if you'd like to debate the morality of torture under the circumstances in which I advocate its use? Or, maybe the international and diplomatic policy implications of treating other human beings in such a manner, no matter the societal benefits of the information or the crimes of those being interrogated? Because you're trying to conflate all of those together with the legality, which I won't let you do.
Finally, the issue of my point about deterrence. Yes, I am absolutely "for real" there; but no, Baghdad is not even close to being an example of what I mean. After all, it's still a functioning city, with a functioning insurgency. Carthage after the Third Punic War? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Dresden? Rome's destruction of the Second Temple and its execution/scattering of the Jewish inhabitants of those lands (incidentally, the root of our current Middle East issue... they just had to resettle the ancestors of the Palestinians there to ensure pacification of the area. Ugh)? Yes, those would be better examples.
No, the infants aren't terrorists, and I won't try to make an argument out of the fact that they will more than likely grow up to be them. No, not all of the women and children are terrorists, though many are and more are complicit in any number of activities I would consider worthy of killing someone for (watch the Kim Sun Il or Jack Hensley videos again, in case you needed your memory refreshed). Such horrific reprisals are not about justice for crimes--that's not what armies are for (which, @Spellcast, is something you should try to grasp about courts: they don't exist for these issues. For starters, the lack of an unbiased trier of fact. These matters fall within the realm of national interests and security). They ensure that the acts that precipitated them will not be repeated.
Spellcast: I'm referring to a the recent Lancet Report, I wasn't referring to deaths directly related to Baghdad; probably shouldn't have in hindsight anyway, it's not a number that is directly related to action of the US Army. Incredulousness has that effect.
We expect the same from other signatory nations who capture our forces. Simple--get it?
Oh I get it just fine. We both agree that neither side is bound by the Geneva Convention. The only difference is that I'm arguing that nations such as the US, given their position as one of the most representative western civilizations) should voluntarily adopt the same practices if they are going to be so brash as to wage war upon an undefined and extremely transferable concept such as terror, and terrorist (and no, I don't actually believe they ever would). In fact, by the very act of claiming that it is a war against terror, then one could almost argue that the US has gone and categorized terrorists as enemy combatants.
Now, there's that blurring again: a generalized use of an over-broad and undefined pronoun
When terrorists, not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, are captured
One could say the same thing about your desire to label all enemy combatants captured in Iraq as Terrorists.
And as far as combining the morality involved in institutionalized torture and the legality of such "intelligence" methods, for me they are one and the same. The legal system of any country is (or should be) the benchmark of said civilization's morality and humanity. If you simply want to argue over specific wording of this document and that charter, then I'm not interested (especially with your politician-like desire to take what I'm saying and bend it to fit into your chosen form of argument).
Therefore! I am going to abandon this thread to whomever else may choose to take up this futile battle against.... against.....
*sigh*
We expect the same from other signatory nations who capture our forces. Simple--get it?
Oh I get it just fine. We both agree that neither side is bound by the Geneva Convention. The only difference is that I'm arguing that nations such as the US, given their position as one of the most representative western civilizations) should voluntarily adopt the same practices if they are going to be so brash as to wage war upon an undefined and extremely transferable concept such as terror, and terrorist (and no, I don't actually believe they ever would). In fact, by the very act of claiming that it is a war against terror, then one could almost argue that the US has gone and categorized terrorists as enemy combatants.
Now, there's that blurring again: a generalized use of an over-broad and undefined pronoun
When terrorists, not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, are captured
One could say the same thing about your desire to label all enemy combatants captured in Iraq as Terrorists.
And as far as combining the morality involved in institutionalized torture and the legality of such "intelligence" methods, for me they are one and the same. The legal system of any country is (or should be) the benchmark of said civilization's morality and humanity. If you simply want to argue over specific wording of this document and that charter, then I'm not interested (especially with your politician-like desire to take what I'm saying and bend it to fit into your chosen form of argument).
Therefore! I am going to abandon this thread to whomever else may choose to take up this futile battle against.... against.....
*sigh*
The legal system of any country is (or should be) the benchmark of said civilization's morality and humanity. If you simply want to argue over specific wording of this document and that charter, then I'm not interested
So, to translate Gavan into clear language:
[TRANSLATION] (1) If a nation grants legal rights to its citizens in time of peace, all said rights shall automatically be applicable to whomever, where-ever, whenever and under any circumstances whatever. Because it's just the right thing to do, you know, man?
(2) Words have a firm meaning, and that meaning doesn't jibe with my favored position, so I'm going to ignore them and talk about what's right and stuff, even though I'd never be able to offer a coherent defense of why it's right...and stuff.
(3) Crap, I'm getting dissected! And it turns out there's not much inside! I'm gonna run away now, and claim that your explanation of what I'm actually saying isn't fair and accurate...though I won't point out where or how, exactly, you mischaracterized my amorphous position.[/TRANSLATION]
[EDIT] Gav, I'm glad you added the irrelevant ad hominem into your otherwise non-responsive post. It's good to see you at least take a parting shot before you run.[/EDIT]
So, to translate Gavan into clear language:
[TRANSLATION] (1) If a nation grants legal rights to its citizens in time of peace, all said rights shall automatically be applicable to whomever, where-ever, whenever and under any circumstances whatever. Because it's just the right thing to do, you know, man?
(2) Words have a firm meaning, and that meaning doesn't jibe with my favored position, so I'm going to ignore them and talk about what's right and stuff, even though I'd never be able to offer a coherent defense of why it's right...and stuff.
(3) Crap, I'm getting dissected! And it turns out there's not much inside! I'm gonna run away now, and claim that your explanation of what I'm actually saying isn't fair and accurate...though I won't point out where or how, exactly, you mischaracterized my amorphous position.[/TRANSLATION]
[EDIT] Gav, I'm glad you added the irrelevant ad hominem into your otherwise non-responsive post. It's good to see you at least take a parting shot before you run.[/EDIT]
So, to translate Gavan into clear language
No, so to do exactly what I accused you of. Now you're simply adding a pleasant touch of immaturity to it. It's charming, as always.
So...
Like I said....
*sigh*
No, so to do exactly what I accused you of. Now you're simply adding a pleasant touch of immaturity to it. It's charming, as always.
So...
Like I said....
*sigh*
You mean our boys aren't goin in like Jack Bauer, shooting the prisoners in the gut first and then screaming 'WHERE ARE THE CANISTERS?" Over and over until they break?
Man, what are we PAYING these folks for? I want Osama and I want him NOW! That's IT. I'm making a phone call...
*LeberMac calls the White House*
*ring, ring*
White House Operator: Hello, White House...
LeberMac: Put junior on.
Operator: One moment please...
President George W. Bush: Howdy?
LeberMac: Hey. Find Osama yet?
Bush: Well, no, it's a heckuva thing, finding a man surrounded by zealots in a cold, forbidding, alien mountainous landscape. It's "hard."
LeberMac: Did you use truth serum?
Bush: 'scuse me?
LeberMac: Truth Serum you dolt. Did you jam giant needles of chemical truth serum into the necks of the prisoners in gitmo? Then ask them where Osama is?
Bush: ummmmm... (*looks at Cheney, who ignores Bush and continues to eat his dinner of human foetus*) No?
LeberMac: OK, how about hot pokers?
Bush: I don't even play.
LeberMac: Not the GAME you simpleton, Hot Pokers, Man! Heat 'em up and stick the detainees with 'em!
Bush: Wow that's a good idea. You mean, we act like we're a-gonna hurt 'em, and, then they might tell us secrets? To avoid being hurt and stuff?
LeberMac: Yes. Torture.
Bush: Torture?
LeberMac: Torture.
Bush: But that Nancy Pelosi lady says torture is bad...
LeberMac: Fuck Nancy Pelosi. Look, do you want to find Bin Laden or not?
Bush: Well, sure!
LeberMac: Then quit dancing around the rules. If yer gonna break 'em, break 'em. If not, then let Cheney be president, and go back to clearing brush and being not smart.
Bush: Alright then. I'm a fixin' to do it.
LeberMac: Good. Cause if you don't do it in the next 18 months then Hilary's gonna be president.
Bush: (*choking sounds in the background as the last comment is head by Cheney*) Aw, HELL no...
LeberMac: Get to it. I can't stand buying toothpaste in airports.
*click*
Man, what are we PAYING these folks for? I want Osama and I want him NOW! That's IT. I'm making a phone call...
*LeberMac calls the White House*
*ring, ring*
White House Operator: Hello, White House...
LeberMac: Put junior on.
Operator: One moment please...
President George W. Bush: Howdy?
LeberMac: Hey. Find Osama yet?
Bush: Well, no, it's a heckuva thing, finding a man surrounded by zealots in a cold, forbidding, alien mountainous landscape. It's "hard."
LeberMac: Did you use truth serum?
Bush: 'scuse me?
LeberMac: Truth Serum you dolt. Did you jam giant needles of chemical truth serum into the necks of the prisoners in gitmo? Then ask them where Osama is?
Bush: ummmmm... (*looks at Cheney, who ignores Bush and continues to eat his dinner of human foetus*) No?
LeberMac: OK, how about hot pokers?
Bush: I don't even play.
LeberMac: Not the GAME you simpleton, Hot Pokers, Man! Heat 'em up and stick the detainees with 'em!
Bush: Wow that's a good idea. You mean, we act like we're a-gonna hurt 'em, and, then they might tell us secrets? To avoid being hurt and stuff?
LeberMac: Yes. Torture.
Bush: Torture?
LeberMac: Torture.
Bush: But that Nancy Pelosi lady says torture is bad...
LeberMac: Fuck Nancy Pelosi. Look, do you want to find Bin Laden or not?
Bush: Well, sure!
LeberMac: Then quit dancing around the rules. If yer gonna break 'em, break 'em. If not, then let Cheney be president, and go back to clearing brush and being not smart.
Bush: Alright then. I'm a fixin' to do it.
LeberMac: Good. Cause if you don't do it in the next 18 months then Hilary's gonna be president.
Bush: (*choking sounds in the background as the last comment is head by Cheney*) Aw, HELL no...
LeberMac: Get to it. I can't stand buying toothpaste in airports.
*click*
Jack Bauer FTW!
PLEASE could this thread be locked? Now?
Shaddup, Tosh. There's nothing wrong with this thread.
*choking sounds in the background as the last comment is head by Cheney*
Another sex scandal?! You folks are doomed!
Another sex scandal?! You folks are doomed!