Senator McCain, your comment please?

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Thos that disagree with this really needs to get their head checked out. It's as true now as it was back in Franklins day. You think any of those freedoms that you lost in the wake of 9/11 will return? HA! Once the establishment gets a taste of power it will chomp down a refuse to let go, so you gotta get a shotty and put those that would accumulate power out of our misery.

First detention indefinately without access to a lawyer now trying to legitimize torture. How long until such "pressure" techniques will be allowed to be used on US citizens...

[edit on 14-11-2005 by sardion2000]

deltaboy:

u can compare all u want because u know u trying to put me on the defensive but dat aint gonna work. i remember a lot of people compare American to Nazi Germany. which one is it? Stalin or Hitler. lots of comparisons but aint gonna hold. Apples and Oranges.

I'm done arguing with you. Your world is all black and white, apples and oranges.

I live in the real world where nothing is as simple as Good vs Evil, the righteous vs the profane, or any other simplistic viewpoints.

Based on your spelling (it's THINK not DINK, it's THAT not DAT), you're also either less than 10 years old or trying to be funny or mentally handicapped, so I would feel bad about arguing with 2 out of the 3, so I'm out.


jako




[edit on 14-11-2005 by Jakomo]

Oh yeah, John McCain was on The Daily SHow and was asked about that by Jon Stewart.

"So you were a POW, you were tortured, so how does it feel to have the President and Vice President support torture?"

Also, weren't there reports of American troops raping the wives of prsioners in front of them, or just killing their kids in front of them? I guess that's not torture right? They didn't touch the prisoner just raped and killed his family.

Or the other tactic they use is take a few prisoners up in a helicopter and ask one a question, if he refuses to answer they kick them out of the helicopter to fall to his death then ask the next prisoner the same question. Once they answer they are then kicked out of the helicopter to fall to their deaths. See? They didn't torture, just killed them.

Originally posted by Jakomo

I'm done arguing with you. Your world is all black and white, apples and oranges.

I live in the real world where nothing is as simple as Good vs Evil, the righteous vs the profane, or any other simplistic viewpoints.

Based on your spelling (it's THINK not DINK, it's THAT not DAT), you're also either less than 10 years old or trying to be funny or mentally handicapped, so I would feel bad about arguing with 2 out of the 3, so I'm out.

based on my spelling? dats the way u assume im ten years old right? i expect better of u to assume such things. i type the way i like to type. if dats the best way u can argue with me and decided to insult me as the last means by suggesting my age then u lost.

deltaboy:

based on my spelling? dats the way u assume im ten years old right? i expect better of u to assume such things. i type the way i like to type. if dats the best way u can argue with me and decided to insult me as the last means by suggesting my age then u lost.

Sure, whatever. Actually it's mostly based on your lack of ability to argue.

o yeah Jakomo, planes crashing into building sounds like it belongs to 24 right? remember Tom Clancy and his book the Debt of Honor. pretty interesting book. made in 1994 or 95 i believe.

? I didn't say anything about 9-11. I am talking about torturing people. You say that "Oh but what if" and I prove your "what if" to be an imaginary, ludicrously improbability and you respond with some Clancy stuff? You are not agreeing nor disagreeing, just spouting nonsense, but if you wanna see this as a win, then haha, you win!

en.wikipedia.org...

Art 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Art 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines who is a prisoner of war and, therefor, a protected person under GCIII. Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (although this is not required under Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

en.wikipedia.org...

In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms — or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.

unless u count masks as a badge. these people are not entitiled to the prisoner of war which means they are not protected by the Geneva convention for they do not follow the rules of war, like beheading or executing civilians.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by Jakomo

Sure, whatever. Actually it's mostly based on your lack of ability to argue.

no, yer ability to argue in yer view is to insult sombody wen u have nothing else to add.

o yeah Jakomo, planes crashing into building sounds like it belongs to 24 right? remember Tom Clancy and his book the Debt of Honor. pretty interesting book. made in 1994 or 95 i believe.

? I didn't say anything about 9-11. I am talking about torturing people. You say that "Oh but what if" and I prove your "what if" to be an imaginary, ludicrously improbability and you respond with some Clancy stuff? You are not agreeing nor disagreeing, just spouting nonsense, but if you wanna see this as a win, then haha, you win!

u dont have to mention about 9/11. but if i was to tell u dat planes could be hijacked and crash into buildings in a few years, u dink im crazy with an imagination dat nobody else is imagining except u, right?

Originally posted by Jakomo
Are you serious?

Yes, I am. And, no, I don't agree that it is torture. Uncomfortable, yes. Torture, no. And, while I recognize what you are saying in a figurative sense ("that recent N'Sync album was torture"), I don't agree that those things amount to much more than what I called them, aggressive interrogation.

Have you ever been forced to stay awake under bright lights and loud noises for 72 hours? Go try it and see how fun it is.

Yeah, it's called college.

Originally posted by Jakomo
It's a question of degrees. If you are willing to sexually molest your prisoners to get them to talk, how many steps is it to actually cut off their penises?

Precisely, it is a question of degrees. And the same way you can make the strong man argument, so can I by going to the opposite extreme of a caricature of your argument, just as you've done with mine. That said, since we agree it is a question of degrees, by straw man argument would go:

Since you are not willing to deprive a prisoner of sleep, how many steps is it to actually refusing to deprive a prisoner of anything. Like freedom, for instance. How many steps until you dismantle the notion of "prison" entirely?

That's stupid, and we both know it. It doesn't make me less moral to say, "I don't consider X to be torture." And I didn't advocate cutting off penises or any of those other things you suggested. I advocated against them. Yes, I know this is a slippery slope, dude, but I think it's possible to stand on a slippery slope without sliding down.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Would you like to see it done to your mom? Hmm?

This is not relevant. My mom is not a topic of discussion here, and why are you bringing up my mom anyway? This aggression will not stand, man.

Also, who appointed you king of arbitrary moral judgments, such as whether or not I am "light" on morals? What makes you an expert?

Originally posted by Jakomo
Torture is torture. If you say it's okay to torture someone who has not been accused of a crime, you are promoting torture. It's simple. No degrees of torture, it's simply torture of a potentially innocent person.

Straw man. Again. It's a fallacious argument in that I didn't advocate the torture of anyone. In fact, I said I was against torture; nor did I even discuss someone's criminal status. You're winning an argument I didn't make. Good for you.

What I did say was that I don’t think those two things I noted were torture. You can do your best to try to dissuade me of that notion, but don’t try to put words in my mouth. This is not Nam, Jakomo. This is ATS. There are rules.

And you should be aware that you contradict yourself. You first agree that there are degrees, then disagree. Establish a position, please. Degrees or not degrees? That is the question.

Originally posted by Jakomo
LMAO! The US invaded Iraq to overthrow a leader who they claimed was a horrible horrible man, and to install their own puppet government under the guise of "promoting freedom". How is that NOT the ultimate in moral high-ground arrogance?

Uhh…
A) He was.
B) What has that to do with morality, and thus, the so-called moral high ground?

Originally posted by Jakomo
How about a good Bush quote: ""We fight, not to impose our will, but to defend ourselves and extend the blessings of freedom.”

Again, where does someone say, “we are right, you are wrong, you are bad people, WE ARE GOOD PEOPLE”? I’d say his quote was just fine. We’ll see one day whether it’s true. (I’m not as eager as some to jump all over and soundbyte or scrap of information and take as a sign of impending doom and catastrophic failure. I’ll leave that to Chicken Little, and be patient instead.).

I think we should separate doing something for what one believes is right from “taking the moral high ground,” which—and this should be clear to most anyone—has some, perhaps undeserved, negative connotations. One is just doing something because it is right, the other is doing the former and saying you’re better than everyone else for it. Your Bush quote lacks that essential element.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Does the desire to bring freedom to people automatically allow you to smash cities with giant bombs, knowing full well that it will cause civilian casualties? llow you to torture and kill with impunity?

As to the first, not to be crass, but obviously it does. Turn on the news. It’s done. It’s happened. Your questions, though are both irrelevant, and furthermore, your second question is actually begging the question. And, I’m sorry, but I am not ready to accept you premise that these alleged incidents are torture.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Wasn't John McCain held and tortured as a PoW for some time? Wouldn't you lend more credence to his point of view since HE HAS BEEN TORTURED? So when he says it is ineffectual, he knows what he's talking about.

First, that clearly isn’t my point. I said we shouldn’t take the word of people who don’t know anything (like the previous “source” from the SacBee). On that note, yes, I’ll lend credence to McCain’s point of view, but not ultimate trust. Quite frankly, I’d rather ask the torturers. They’d know better than anyone. Here’s a thought, let’s ask Saadam!

Originally posted by UfoofU
Also, weren't there reports of American troops raping the wives of prsioners in front of them, or just killing their kids in front of them...

...Or the other tactic they use is take a few prisoners up in a helicopter and ask one a question, if he refuses to answer they kick them out of the helicopter to fall to his death then ask the next prisoner the same question...

Hmm...

I'm guessing these are unsubstantiated reports? Did you just make them up, or did you pull them of a 16-year-old's blog somewhere?

Oh, I know, you found it in the Weekly World News, right next to the story about Mrs. X, the Honeymoon Murderer, and the Amazing Bat Boy who just married the worlds fattest baby!

To the best of my knowledge, imaginary torture is not actual torture.

I can't even believe I responded to this basura. My brain feels dirty now...

Weekly WOrld News? never heard of it. Wait, is that the one with Bat boy?

Also, just because Fox doesn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did Fox report your birth? No? Sorry you don't exist because Fox News didn't report it. Oh well maybe next time they will report it.

Originally posted by UfoofU
Weekly WOrld News? never heard of it. Wait, is that the one with Bat boy?

Also, just because Fox doesn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did Fox report your birth? No? Sorry you don't exist because Fox News didn't report it. Oh well maybe next time they will report it.

Okay then, my smart friend, who did report it? Where? When? If not in the Weekly World News, perhaps it was in the Enquirer? Or how about Pravda? Maybe you could provide a link. I'm guessing www.baseless-allegations.com. Or maybe you just came up with it through a chance game of Mad-Libs.

And by the way, I have this little piece of paper. It's called a birth certificate, they fill it out when you're born here. It's documentation. Proof of live birth. Proof being the operative word.

Where's yours?

Originally posted by deltaboy
the question dat if u had Osama bin laden in yer hands and he knows where the nuke is in America and it would detonate in a few hours wat do u do?

Are you serious?

Are you trying to compare/justify torturing people suspected (with no trial or even nescessarily any proof) who may, or may not be, "terrorists"; because if you had Osama (who is self admitted and has taken credit publically for attacks) you would torture him?

Apples and oranges, not even close to a logical comparison.

Originally posted by deltaboy
i understand many peoples feelings about torture and dat we may have the wrong guy but its war and terrorists dont wear the uniform.

Right, so it's ok to torture them because they wear no uniform?

I seem to recall you adamently defending the two allied troops caught in arab garb, but they were out of uniform and suspected of "terrorist" like acts (shooting at police officers in public) so by your logic it's perfectly fine to torture them too.

If not then we are no better than the "terrorists".

You can't have it both ways, which is it?


[edit on 11/14/05 by redmage]

Hamburglar:

As to the first, not to be crass, but obviously it does. Turn on the news. It’s done. It’s happened. Your questions, though are both irrelevant, and furthermore, your second question is actually begging the question. And, I’m sorry, but I am not ready to accept you premise that these alleged incidents are torture.

So then if it's okay for the US Army to rain death and destruction on the lives of innocent Iraqis because they are promoting their specific brand of "freedom", then it is also acceptable for a few guys to hijack airplanes and kill 3000 innocent people in order to promote their specific agenda of an Islamic world, right? I mean, innocent is innocent. Or is it only the US that is allowed to kill foreign civilians without any backlash?

And, as to not thinking sleep deprivation is torture, hey, whatever. Being forced to stay awake for days at a time is torture. Pure and simple. Your college jokes aside. Ditto for being forced to stay in one position for days at a time. It's inflicting pain, which is torture.

No “coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever”, according to the Geneva Convention.

So next time an American GI tries to just pull "rank and serial number", maybe he ought to expect to be tortured instead, since the US is flouting the Geneva Convention already, so what's good for the goose....


As to you not believing that Bush and his Administration and much of America is seen by the rest of the world as arrogant and "holier than thou", well, I am not going to dig up the hundreds of Bush quotes that prove it, because I don't expect to make you understand since you're American and your access to the opinions of the rest of the world are not really too available to you if you don't look.

Arrogance is saying that everyone else needs to follow the rules except you. Arrogance is saying no to the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Conventions, the UN then whining and complaining when others decide to make their own rules too.

I'm not taking sides on this because frankly I don't know where I stand. Do I think "torture" is right? No.. but I do agree with the need to gain information.. I'm just not sure to what degree I would be comfortable with. I know its kind of a cop-out but I've been thinking about this for a while since reading. I just wanted to address some comments I've read.

First, the Geneva Convention is not explicit to POW's. It also covers what is termed "enemy civilians". Then you have the UNCAT, the UDHR and just general ETHICS. All these things are supposed to protect people in general, not just Prisoners of War.

The topic is really broad because I have to agree that it really comes down to degrees of torture (or interogation). Some could argue that just holding someone against their will is a form of torture couldnt they? I would consider it torture to have to sleep on a cold concreet slab instead of my nice warm bed... see where im going here?

No i dont agree with "slicing", or electrocuting someones genitals in order to get information because as someone else said, I highly doubt it would lead to anything relevant. If you knew nothing at all about what was being asked of you and someone was shocking your testicles with a car battery.. would you "stand your ground" or would you just admit whatever the hell it was they were asking of you??

Of course there is such a rediculous range of torture that you have to draw the line somewhere.. the problem is... where? Electrocution? Water torture? Rape / Sodomy? Having a guard throw your infant child against a concrete wall untill his head explodes? (yes this actually happened in Iraq BY Iraqi Guards pre war).

I am most certainly not in a position to say what is right and what is wrong. Morally I can't even answer that question. Is the life of one worth the life of many? Who knows... The world we live in today.. these questions are becoming harder and harder to answer. It would be so easy to just say "all torture / interogation is WRONG". But I don't think that the world is that simple now days. There is no black and white. No good guys / bad guys...

Derek

Originally posted by Seekerof
The poll speaks for itself.

Really glad to see you suddenly reverse your oft stated dismissal of all polls as meaningless. Should make future poll discussions more interesting.

Or is just this one valid?

pro-torture, pro-not trying whatever it might take to protect americans at home and abroad (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...tough choice, pass the thumbscrews, please)
Seriously, tough interrogation does not neccisarily include what we shall euphamistically call torture, tough questioning is just that, tough questioning. Can it decend into torture, certainly; howsomeever, what I call torture, and what you call torture are not nessisarily the same cat of nine tails (sorry I couldn't resist). Being gentle is not going to get us the information that we need (would that it could), I am sorry to say sometimes more drastic measures are needed, with out resorting to what I would define as torture. One needs to have a workable defination of what torture is before accusing one of condoning or even using it.

Originally posted by Seekerof
To further indicate how out-of-tune some humanitarian types are, a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that nearly 55 percent of those surveyed support the current policy that allows tough interrogation tactics, while just 30 percent say that techniques now being employed by U.S. intelligence go too far.

So this is how evil starts.
Torture is wrong and it is really that black and white.
Advocating and justifying it is just plain ignorance of that fact.

Yes! Torture more people in the name of freedom, security and democracy!

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Dunno about being 'out of tune', it just looks like most Americans lack any humanitarian vision or to put it nicely, 30 percent understand more than what they are told.

What else is new? America is out of beat but thinks it's leader of the band.

Laughable! The majority of Americans lack humanitarian vision???? Please tell me that you are NOT serious here!? WE ARE the epitome of humanitarian. I am sick and tired of undereducated liberal trash bashing on America. We should pull out of the UN and END ALL AID worldwide. Then these stupid pieces of trash would finally understand EXACTLY how generous this nation is!

Every government that has ever existed, past, present, and future has a dark, even in some cases malevolent side to it that surfaces all too frequently when its security is percieved to be in jeopardy. A gpvernments primary function is to provide security by whatever means are available. This, unfortunately, can and probably does include the torture of captive combatants. This is the reality of the world in which we live in, I am sorry to say. Is torture of captured combatants official government policy? I think that's unlikely. Is it used? Without a doubt. Reality check, folks, this war is unlike any this nation has ever engaged in, and we are still learning the rules (if any exist). Unfortunately, these new rules may include unsavory tactics that require the good guys (and make NO mistake about this, we are the good guys, inspite of loud noises to the contrary) to act like bad guys.
There is an old saying that I'm sure is much older than William T. Sherman who said it best, "War is Hell". He was, and is, right. And no amount of sugar coating it, or so called rules, can or will change that. War requires very unsavory tactics. Screaming otherwise does not change that.

Every government that has ever existed, past, present, and future has a dark, even in some cases malevolent side to it that surfaces all too frequently when its security is percieved to be in jeopardy. A gpvernments primary function is to provide security by whatever means are available. This, unfortunately, can and probably does include the torture of captive combatants. This is the reality of the world in which we live in, I am sorry to say. Is torture of captured combatants official government policy? I think that's unlikely. Is it used? Without a doubt. Reality check, folks, this war is unlike any this nation has ever engaged in, and we are still learning the rules (if any exist). Unfortunately, these new rules may include unsavory tactics that require the good guys (and make NO mistake about this, we are the good guys, inspite of loud noises to the contrary) to act like bad guys.
There is an old saying that I'm sure is much older than William T. Sherman who said it best, "War is Hell". He was, and is, right. And no amount of sugar coating it, or so called rules, can or will change that. War requires very unsavory tactics. Screaming otherwise does not change that.