|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
klinton said:
At this point, Wonder fuck...with people like you in the world...I'm starting to feel inclined to suppress 'religious freedom'. If it's your tool to attempt to restrict the freedoms of others, then fuck yeah...I want to see it taken away.
Asshole.
Your lack of civility speaks for itself.
This topic is not a gay issues topic. I've said all I have to say on the issue in the...
Canada Allows Same Sex Marriage topic
HERE
and the
Generic Gay thread topic
HERE
And as I just said above in my previous post, I disagree with the gay lifestyle, but believe that is their choice.
Quote:
Wonder Boy said (one post above) :
Do I still have friends, co-workers and family members who are gay, who I still associate with and treat no differently despite their views I disagree with ?
Yes, I continue to interact with them, and therefore am not a "homophobe".
So long as gays don't try to stomp on the freedom of others in the pursuit of their lifestyle.
As for the Jesus stance on going to war, I answered that months ago. As I (and the sources I quoted) said, it is not spelled out. But there are multiple verses that indicate military service was not condemned by Christ. Matthew 8 in particular, and Romans 13.
Islam, a religion of peace? topic
HERE
But again, that's another topic.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
actually public hangings left people very uncomfortable. hangmen were often pariahs (which has always meant unliked) and people wanted a more humane form of execution.
Wait a minute here!
How is the Guillotine inhumane? It's prolly one of the most painless forms of execution to date.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Yeah...sorry about that, Wonder Boy. I just hate you...a lot. I find it hard to be rational when talking to you, which is why I don't do it often.
But alas, my comments were not called for in here...I was just in a foul mood today. And for them, I do appologize.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
Quote:
Don't attack Sammitch with name calling and assumptions about his person or judgement. Instead make a factual counter-argument to disprove what he said (if you can).
I plead guilty, your Honour.
But using the words "pretentious" and "pseudo-moral" renders you equally guilty of ad hominem attack. ("Pretentious" I generally accept, although in this context it makes no sense and I gather it was just you shooting without aiming : "pseudo-moral" probably means that I maintain a morality which is not yours.)
I at least attacked Sammitch on the basis of being both narrow-minded (admittedly ad hominem) and using casuistry (that a passport would define the difference in someone's worth). Lucid, and to the point, I had thought. Never mind.
Damn, Dave, we can discuss a shitload of issues peaceably 90 percent of the time, but I make the point that the alleged torture victims don't have the same rights as people who hold citizenship in my country and you bitch at me for being narrow-minded?  You know me better than that. With all the issues we've respectfully disagreed on, I wouldn't think you'd come out swinging on this one. I never attack you personally, and prior to this you've never really attacked me personally. I dunno what the deal is, but it's kinda disappointing, given that you always struck me as a reasonable guy. 
Edit - long day at work... Casuistry - I got that one right on my GRE vocab exam, but it's one of those words that you just don't get to pull out in conversation that often. For one, I never attempted to define someone's worth by their citizenship. I probably could've worded things better, but honestly my only point was that people in this thread were so concerned about the detainees' 'rights' that they started extending them privileges constitutionally reserved for U.S. citizens. These are war criminals awaiting trial for war crimes, and as such Geneva is prevalent here. You could argue forever whether the interrogation techniques in question constituted 'torture', but I'll save you the trouble - at no point was a single one of the detainees in immediate danger of permanent physical harm or mental duress. How the hell do you expect to get information out of people if you're not gonna lean on 'em a little? 
Quote:
"Talk, damn you!"
"But it hurts!"
"Ohhhhh, all right, loosen it up a bit..."
Massive props to anyone who ID's that quote.
Last edited by Captain Sammitch; 2005-11-21 5:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
DTWB said: Quote:
Pseudo-moral means you posture with outrage imposing your intolerant liberal beliefs of morality. While you spurn and reject true morality, as it is defined by Judao-Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and various other cultures throughout all of human history.
For any morality or mode of ethics to be true (in an absolute sense), it must be accepted by everyone, and much more than a simple majority. Every Western religion and ethnicity you've cited has experienced lapses throughout their respective histories. This is generally due to differences in interpretation of holy text, where a secular code of ethics can be relied upon for a more consistent rendering of a given societies' ethics. For example, those priests who claim to be gay and use scriptural interpretation to prove its allowance present a schism in church dogma.
If the disapproval in the above quote lies in the tenets of liberalism, you must be able to show that your position lacks these qualities. But the Religious Right in America--if you side with them or not, I don't know--has shown a sustained history of hatred, intolerance and bigotry. As mentioned before, Western religions have a long history of the same regretable practices. Intolerance is a common human trait and not limited to liberalism.
Additionally:
Sammitch said:
Quote:
And once again, the alleged 'victims' of alleged 'torture' are not citizens of the U.S. or of its close allies, thus I am still mystified as to why we should care.
I thought this was an interesting assertion by Sammitch. Because the terrorists are neither citizens of a country we can punish or influence, that they shouldn't have rights. Should democracy be another weapon we wield against the world? If we intend to continue exporting democracy, other countries will continue to note the difference. You can't tell someone not to do something you yourself do, even if it isn't very often. We tell countries not to support terrorism, yet terrorism often lies in the eye of the beholder.
Sammitch's comment seemed to apply to different definitions/methods of torture. If that's the case, how far can we (as the government represents the people) push someone with non-lethal methods of extracting information before it crosses the line of the ideals of democracy? Can we torture whomever we want at any frequency and still be the leaders of the free world? r3x's comment of "
how do we get to claim to be a bastion of freedom and then torture people?" is something that deserves serious consideration.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Once again, I think you've got your work cut out for you trying to get everyone to agree on whether or not the incidents mentioned fall under the heading of torture - even trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of torture period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Agreed.
My central point was actually to get TyphoiDave and DTWB back on track, more or less. It's bad enough that G-Man and r3x reenact their favorite version of New Jack City, or G-Man bringing some stupid shit he has going with rex into this forum, without anymore drama. Makes it boring and counterproductive to post here, as well as limiting any new ideas.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
does anyone else ever type up some really long point and then stop to realize that no one really cares. that everyone has whatever view they have and we're really all just bickering to kill time?
I'm reading these threads and seeing how much of my life i've spent arguing against people like pariah. and it honestly makes me feel sad about what i could've been doing with that time.
Anyway. Fuck Bush. He's a greedy and evil little man. And I bet in 50 years when all the Limbaughs and Roves are dead and he has no more living supporters, that he'll be seen for what he truly has been.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
real funny.
Quote:
Wikipedia
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".
Wasn't Bush's whole point about people goig shopping for Christmas in 2001 because if the economy suffered "the terrorists win"?
Does that only apply to the economy or does it apply to us pissing on the constitutional Bill of Rights while we're fighting "terror" (which, like the "War on Drugs" seems to be winding down  )?
G-man, don't you see that these prison abuses and the fact that we're even arguing over torture is destroying the way the world sees us? How long before we push it too far and we're declared terrorists? How long before there's nothing left of the constitution?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Wikipedia
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".
G-man, don't you see that these prison abuses and the fact that we're even arguing over torture is destroying the way the world sees us? How long before we push it too far and we're declared terrorists? How long before there's nothing left of the constitution?
HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING???
The Bill of Rights sets forth the freedoms and privileges extended to American citizens. The individuals in question are not American citizens, therefore they are not guaranteed the same rights and privileges. Once again, the question of whether or not their treatment is excessive cannot and should not be determined in the context of the Bill of Rights. While this may not justify everything that's been done, it should at least clarify which set of rules under which the alleged torturers should be judged. Let's at least try to keep up, Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
True, Sammitch.
But also consider that in our attempts to export democracy, one should ask how far democracy extends. If you continue to state that they don't deserve protection under our laws as they are now subject to them, it creates a dangerous divide between what is practiced and preached. This divide is what terrorists will continue to exploit in Iraq and Afghanistan to recruit terrorists and demonize the West.
I don't think its a coincidence that the level of insurgent violence in Iraq is much higher than Afghanistan. Whereas the latter was born from binding international agreements, the former is a largely unilateral action condemned by many world governments. While I don't disagree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the timing could've been better.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Wikipedia
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".
G-man, don't you see that these prison abuses and the fact that we're even arguing over torture is destroying the way the world sees us? How long before we push it too far and we're declared terrorists? How long before there's nothing left of the constitution?
HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING???
The Bill of Rights sets forth the freedoms and privileges extended to American citizens. The individuals in question are not American citizens, therefore they are not guaranteed the same rights and privileges. Once again, the question of whether or not their treatment is excessive cannot and should not be determined in the context of the Bill of Rights. While this may not justify everything that's been done, it should at least clarify which set of rules under which the alleged torturers should be judged. Let's at least try to keep up, Ray.
The 8th amendment doesn't apply. A key word here is punishment. People are punished after they've been tried and convicted. No due process has occured in the case of alleged torture victims. If the alleged terrorists are bonafied combatants they would be subject to the rules of war and Geneva Conventions which do not make allowances for torture.
An US Military base, like an embassy, is considered US soil for legal purposes. Aliens are afforded the same rights as US citizens in the criminal justice system within the USA. The only exception is immigration proceedures . Even if you want to claim that combatants are subject UCMJ, none of the aforementioned bodies of law make allowance for torture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
klinton said:
Yeah...sorry about that, Wonder Boy. I just hate you...a lot. I find it hard to be rational when talking to you, which is why I don't do it often.
But alas, my comments were not called for in here...I was just in a foul mood today. And for them, I do appologize.
Why would you apologize to that reationary, fag bashing piece of shit for anything?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
True, Sammitch.
But also consider that in our attempts to export democracy, one should ask how far democracy extends. If you continue to state that they don't deserve protection under our laws as they are now subject to them, it creates a dangerous divide between what is practiced and preached. This divide is what terrorists will continue to exploit in Iraq and Afghanistan to recruit terrorists and demonize the West.
I don't think its a coincidence that the level of insurgent violence in Iraq is much higher than Afghanistan. Whereas the latter was born from binding international agreements, the former is a largely unilateral action condemned by many world governments. While I don't disagree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the timing could've been better.
I'm not going to dispute whether or not protection should be offered to the individuals in question. I'm simply pointing out that it currently isn't. We could debate what should change all day, but if we're discussing prosecution of individuals involved in past incidents, it's not the proper context. If you want things to change going forward, that's all well and good. But we can't accurately discuss what's already happened by thinking that same legal protection was offered to the detainees at the time. That's all I'm saying, really.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
klinton said:
Yeah...sorry about that, Wonder Boy. I just hate you...a lot. I find it hard to be rational when talking to you, which is why I don't do it often.
But alas, my comments were not called for in here...I was just in a foul mood today. And for them, I do appologize.
Why would you apologize to that reationary, fag bashing piece of shit for anything?
 The true motive behind all that bitterness? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
True, Sammitch.
But also consider that in our attempts to export democracy, one should ask how far democracy extends. If you continue to state that they don't deserve protection under our laws as they are now subject to them, it creates a dangerous divide between what is practiced and preached. This divide is what terrorists will continue to exploit in Iraq and Afghanistan to recruit terrorists and demonize the West.
I don't think its a coincidence that the level of insurgent violence in Iraq is much higher than Afghanistan. Whereas the latter was born from binding international agreements, the former is a largely unilateral action condemned by many world governments. While I don't disagree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq, the timing could've been better.
I'm not going to dispute whether or not protection should be offered to the individuals in question. I'm simply pointing out that it currently isn't. We could debate what should change all day, but if we're discussing prosecution of individuals involved in past incidents, it's not the proper context. If you want things to change going forward, that's all well and good. But we can't accurately discuss what's already happened by thinking that same legal protection was offered to the detainees at the time. That's all I'm saying, really.
That's kinda the point. None of the terrorists--and they are terrorists--have been charged with anything yet, so there's no context to speak of. They're essentially in the same position they were when they arrived at Camp X-Ray. So I believe it to be relevent. And since their status has been essentially static, we can affect change if we so choose.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Why would you apologize to that reationary, fag bashing piece of shit for anything?
I don't think he's that bad....Just a little out of touch with reality, is all. And yes, he deserved an appology.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Wikipedia
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".
G-man, don't you see that these prison abuses and the fact that we're even arguing over torture is destroying the way the world sees us? How long before we push it too far and we're declared terrorists? How long before there's nothing left of the constitution?
HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING???
The Bill of Rights sets forth the freedoms and privileges extended to American citizens. The individuals in question are not American citizens, therefore they are not guaranteed the same rights and privileges. Once again, the question of whether or not their treatment is excessive cannot and should not be determined in the context of the Bill of Rights. While this may not justify everything that's been done, it should at least clarify which set of rules under which the alleged torturers should be judged. Let's at least try to keep up, Ray.
Point out where it says in the constitution "American Citizens." Everything I've read from it states along the lines of "All men are created equal."
And if only American Citizens should have those rights then why would we be bothering to overthrow Saddam? He had no WMD, his people aren't good enough (in your view) for "American" freedoms."
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
"Break a detainee"? "Exposure to heat and cold"? Efforts to convince someone they are drowning? This is all acceptable to a government?
Today's Wall St. Journal points out that our soldiers
are subjected to "efforts to convince someone they are drowning" as part of the their training:
It turns out to be "waterboarding," a rare interrogation technique reportedly used against the hardest al Qaeda detainees. The method involves immobilizing a detainee and inducing a feeling of suffocation. The Post says it should be banned both as torture and contrary to the U.S. Constitution. That's certainly worth debating, though the Post may get an argument from U.S. servicemen who've endured the waterboard as part of training to resist interrogation--proof that, if practiced properly, it does no lasting physical harm.
There's also last week's ABC News report that 11 of 12 captured al Qaeda kingpins who have talked only did so after being waterboarded. This would appear to contradict so many glib suggestions, such as those in an open letter yesterday from Congressmen calling themselves the New Democrat Coalition, that such techniques "just plain don't work." The truth is that sometimes they do work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Wikipedia
The Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion".
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society".
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary".
G-man, don't you see that these prison abuses and the fact that we're even arguing over torture is destroying the way the world sees us? How long before we push it too far and we're declared terrorists? How long before there's nothing left of the constitution?
HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING???
The Bill of Rights sets forth the freedoms and privileges extended to American citizens. The individuals in question are not American citizens, therefore they are not guaranteed the same rights and privileges. Once again, the question of whether or not their treatment is excessive cannot and should not be determined in the context of the Bill of Rights. While this may not justify everything that's been done, it should at least clarify which set of rules under which the alleged torturers should be judged. Let's at least try to keep up, Ray.
Point out where it says in the constitution "American Citizens." Everything I've read from it states along the lines of "All men are created equal."
And if only American Citizens should have those rights then why would we be bothering to overthrow Saddam? He had no WMD, his people aren't good enough (in your view) for "American" freedoms."
So you approve of the liberation of Iraq on constitutional grounds now? Should we grant constitutional protection to all citecenz of teh world and if they aren't getting thier constitutional rights like abortions on demand, all they need to do is appeal to teh United States and we'll fight on thier behalf. Infact why fight, why not just grant citicenship to anyone who requests it. After all not to do so would be denying them thier constitutional rights.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
He's just being Ray-Gay™.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
He's just being Ray-Gay™.
Where the hell did that come from?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Probably in reference to some argument you made. Read earlier posts to find out.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
He's just being Ray-Gay™.
Where the hell did that come from?
"You can call me Ray! Or you can call me Jay! You can call me Ray-Gay...."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_o...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--Quote:
Bush Accepts McCain's Ban on Torture
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain's proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats.
Bowing to pressure from the Republican-run Congress and abroad, the White House signed off on the proposal after a fight that pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at
Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Bush said the ban and accompanying interrogation standards will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
After months of fierce negotiations, McCain declared "a done deal" that he said shows that the United States "upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are."
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," the Arizona Republican said while appearing alongside the president in the Oval Office to announce the agreement.
The agreement still needs to be approved by Congress, whose GOP leaders hope to adjourn for the year in a few days.
The deal keeps McCain's original proposal, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate and endorsed by the House. One of the final stumbling blocks in negotiations was removed when language was added allowing CIA interrogators the same legal protections as those afforded to military interrogators.
Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order. The government also would provide counsel for accused interrogators.
That language was McCain's own counterproposal to the White House's early calls, pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, for an exemption for CIA interrogators. The administration had also sought some protection from prosecution for such agents accused of violating the standards.
Also added, officials said, was a statement explicitly rejecting immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits for those who violate the standards.
After the deal was announced, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would block completion of one of the two defense bills that includes the ban unless he got White House assurances that "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering" would be achieved if the agreement became law.
But Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., Hunter's counterpart in the Senate, was on board and appeared with Bush and McCain in the Oval Office.
"We're going to get there," Warner predicted.
House and Senate officials said the McCain provisions were likely to remain in the must-pass $453 billion defense spending bill that provides $50 billion for the Iraq war and that Congress planned to approve before adjourning for the year.
The agreement was reached a day after the House — in bipartisan fashion — endorsed McCain's proposal. That vote put both GOP-controlled chambers behind McCain by veto-proof majorities, putting pressure on the White House to reach an agreement.
It came as the president finds himself defending his wartime policies daily amid declining public support for the Iraq war and his own low standing in opinion polls. The United States also is feeling pressure and facing questions from its European allies over its treatment of detainees held abroad.
The Bush administration had long said a ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading practices did not legally apply to suspects held overseas. During a trip to Europe last week, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was pressed repeatedly on the topic, finally saying that "as a matter of U.S. policy," such treatment was banned for U.S. personnel wherever they are.
The agreement reached Thursday would put the prohibition into law.
The White House initially sought to kill the proposal altogether, arguing that the ban and interrogation limits could tie the president's hands during wartime. The administration later switched gears and Cheney made a rare personal appeal to all GOP senators for a CIA exemption. Later, the administration sought some protection from prosecution for accused interrogators.
Congressional sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of the ban, and McCain, a former Navy pilot who was held and tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam, adopted the issue.
The legislation would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners in Defense Department facilities.
The provision that was added was modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says military personnel accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. Those rights — and the right to legal counsel — would be extended to CIA interrogators under the agreement.
Bush said the agreement ensures "protections for those who are the front line of fighting the terrorists."
McCain said there were "legitimate concerns raised by the administration concerning the rights of interrogators," leading to the additional language.
The Senate had included McCain's provisions in two defense bills but the House omitted them from their versions. Both bills have since been stalled.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,993 |
Kudos to Bush, even if he did have to be forced into it.
Reveling in the knowledge that Sammitch will never interrupt my nookie ever again.
112,000 RACK Points!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
He's just being Ray-Gay™.
Where the hell did that come from?
Considering the ™ immediately thereafter, the odds are better than even that it's 100% original Philsy. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Killconey said:
Kudos to Bush, even if he did have to be forced into it.
Kudos to McCain you mean.
www.economist.com
Quote:
Bush arm-twisted into a torture ban
Dec 16th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
After overwhelming votes in both houses of Congress, President Bush has backed down and agreed to Senator John McCain’s proposed ban on the torture of terrorism detainees by American government personnel. The move shows Mr Bush’s weakening grip on his party and on power
AP
"Ouch, John, you're hurting my arm”
WHO says torture isn’t effective? In recent weeks, senior members of the Bush administration have twisted and writhed, as news reports have revealed painful fact after painful fact about American treatment of detainees. They added up to a clear picture: that American personnel were practising what many considered torture.
Advertisement
Finally, on Thursday December 15th, after resisting for months, the White House accepted the “McCain amendment”, proposed by John McCain, an Republican senator from Arizona. The amendment, backed overwhelmingly by votes in both houses of Congress, will ban cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees by any American, civilian or military, anywhere in the world.
Though there had been a steady stream of news and commentary on detainee abuse since Abu Ghraib, the story has flared up particularly brightly in the past six weeks. On November 2nd the Washington Post revealed that the CIA had been running secret prisons—“black sites”—in Europe and Asia, where the highest-value targets in the war on terror were kept and harshly interrogated. George Bush insisted that “we do not torture” soon after. But a follow-up scoop by ABC News found that “waterboarding”, or pouring water over a strapped-down and gagged prisoner to produce a terror of drowning, was one of the CIA’s authorised techniques.
The question of torture dogged most of the administration’s top figures personally. Many (including The Economist) called on Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, to resign after Abu Ghraib. Alberto Gonzales, formerly the White House’s lawyer, was grilled about it when confirmed to his current job as attorney-general. Dick Cheney led the resistance to the McCain amendment, hoping to at least carve out an exception for the CIA. This only reinforced the vice-president’s status as the administration’s top hate-figure for the left, and his approval ratings have been sharply negative, partly as a result.
Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is far more popular. Before a recent trip to Europe, she gave a speech on detainee practices that seemed to signal a policy shift on abuse—but it was quickly derided as being filled with lawyerly loopholes and questions about abuse nagged her throughout the subsequent trip. Even Scott McClellan, the president’s press secretary, who is usually considered mild-mannered, has been drawn into angry, voice-raising exchanges with journalists over torture.
Throughout it all, Mr McCain calmly refused to bend to the administration’s attempts to weaken his amendment. There would be no exception for the CIA. Nor would there be a blanket amnesty for any past abuses. But in the end he took one step that gave Mr Bush the final push he needed. Personnel accused of abusing prisoners will be able to defend themselves with the argument that a “reasonable” person would have believed he or she was acting legally. On Thursday, he met Mr Bush in the White House and the two announced the deal. Naturally, Mr McCain announced it as a victory and a ringing message to the world; Mr Bush just as naturally spun it as a useful clarification of policy.
Mr Bush likes to portray himself as a man of principle who does not bend to polls or political pressure. But Mr McCain’s hand was strengthened by Congress’s overwhelming support. The Senate passed an earlier version of his amendment by 90 votes to 9. And on Wednesday, the House of Representatives backed it by 308 to 122. Both majorities were considerably over the two-thirds threshold that make an act of Congress veto-proof. Mr Bush, whether by design or not, capitulated on the same day that Iraqis voted to choose a new government, ensuring that the story would not get top billing.
What will the effects of the bill be? In American politics, Mr McCain, who was defeated by Mr Bush in a bitter Republican presidential primary in 2000, has been strengthened. He is often talked about as a potential candidate again in 2008, though he will be 72. Though torture is a serious business, he could be forgiven a little personal glee at handing his old rival such a prominent defeat. Mr McCain is often called a Republican maverick who cannot win the conservative base necessary to get the Republican nomination. But the big majorities he won in Congress for his amendment show that Mr Bush and his administration no longer have the lock on the party they once did.
By defending torture the Bush administration was undermining the very values it says America stands forWhat about intelligence-gathering? Duncan Hunter, the Republican who runs the House Armed Services Committee and often serves as the Pentagon’s man in Congress, said he would block McCain’s proposal unless given a letter that assured him intelligence-gathering would not be harmed. The director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, promptly sent just such a letter.
Critics of torture say that it is not only immoral and degrades the torturers as well as the tortured, but produces false confessions and bad intelligence, as the victim will say anything to end his suffering. But the Bush administration’s behaviour showed that it clearly behaved otherwise. And after all, only a few know what secrets Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the planner of the September 11th attacks, and other top terrorists might have coughed up in the secret prisons in which they have been held, waterboarded and interrogated.
Those who defend careful and selective use of torture use the “ticking time-bomb hypothetical”: surely, they say, it would be ethical to torture one terrorist to stop a nuclear bomb from exploding in Manhattan? The McCain amendment’s victory reflects a different logic: that such a hypothetical case is highly unlikely; and that legalising torture makes it likely it will be used too often, not just in extreme circumstances. Just as bad, by defending torture the Bush administration was undermining the very values it says America stands for.
What the fuck was Cheney thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Well, Chneey was thinking that if you couldn't torture no one would talk, but isn't torture against or within the Geneva convention????
if most people are willing to commit suicide I think they'd take some pain...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I am so pissed about this.
I fucking hate McCain more than I ever have before. I'm also pissed at Bush for giving in.
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
What the fuck was Cheney thinking?
That's my exact setiments towards your thoughts on the subject Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
First Amongst Daves said:
What the fuck was Cheney thinking?
I don't see anything that is too outrageously "WTF" in what Cheney advocated.
9 of 100 Senators voted against it, aligned with Cheney.
122 of 435 members of Congress also voted against it, also holding the same view as Cheney.
This is the only sentence of the Economist article you quoted that even mentions Cheney's part in this:
Quote:
from the Economist article:
Dick Cheney led the resistance to the McCain amendment, hoping to at least carve out an exception for the CIA. This only reinforced the vice-president's status as the administration's top hate-figure for the left, and his approval ratings have been sharply negative, partly as a result.
Cheney simply advocated not disclosing every last interrogation method the U.S. uses, and advocated the U.S. not doing so in a book source that Al Qaida or other enemies of the U.S. could obtain to prepare themselves for even the severest interrogation permitted by law.
As my post at the top of page 4 of this topic makes clear, the U.S. adheres to Geneva Convention standards of prisoner interrogation.
There have been a few incidents (Abu Ghraib), in opposition to U.S. military standards of the Geneva Convention for prisoners.
And those who have broken that standard have been court-martialed by the U.S. military, and are now in prison. Or in the case of more loosely connected superior officers, discharged from the military.
It can fairly be said that : Bush administration/military policy was ambiguous enough to allow these isolated Abu Ghraib incidents to happen.
But it is a deliberate smear by anti-Bush members of the media to say that Bush or his administration advocates torture ( i.e., a deliberate smear that the Bush administration advocates anything that exceeds the Geneva Convention for prisoners).
Again, read the Senator's explanation of the details and misrepresentations of U.S. policy, and the true details of the McCain bill, in my post at the top of page 4 of the topic.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
This is stupid. For one, regardless of what you've heard, "torture" does work. We got alot of valuble information from teh #2 Al-Queda guy after a mere 2 minutes of watter boarding. I'm glad to see you all are so conncerned that the bastards who blow up children who are coming to get candy from troops won't have to stand in uncomfotable positions or be yelled at or made fun of or anything else that the average working man in America has to go through. I'll sure be sleeping well tonight knowing that some of our troops and even civilians may be at greater risk, but the terrorists will be comfy tonight.... Oh, I'll also be happy to know that the same information wall that prevented Mohamed Atta from being apprehended prior to 9-11 will be resurected come December 31st. Thank you from teh bottom of my heart.
I'll bet half the morons who are glad we won't be "tortureing" terrorists didn't even realise that having loud music played in thier cells was concidered "torture" and will now be banned. I'll bet most of them didn't know that we've gotten pertinent information that has SAVED THE LIVES OF OUR TROOPS from 2 minutes of watter boarding teh #2 Al_queda lead. Oh well, what does it really matter as long as the cable doesn't go out.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,853 Likes: 3
Son of Anarchist 15000+ posts
|
|
Son of Anarchist 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,853 Likes: 3 |
if torture is outlawed only outlaws will torture!
part 2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.
In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.
Case In Point:
...others question whether the U.S. government will have enough leeway to get the information that they need. It is still uncertain if the deal would limit measures such as stress techniques even in interrogations of high-value terrorists who may know about coming attacks.
Some analysts add that limiting "degrading" treatment could mean almost anything. For instance, a female interrogator questioning a Muslim prisoner could be perceived as degrading to the prisoner.
"If you apply it literally, it prohibits detention as such because it is absolutely degrading to be sitting, instead of running around and applying your trade of killing Americans, it is degrading to be sitting in a cell," said David Rivkin, an international law attorney and former Justice Department official.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
The U.K. Guardian has obtained a list of seven interrogation techniques that the CIA would like to use to interrogate al Qaeda terror suspects. They are: - induced hypothermia
- forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
- sleep deprivation
- a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized
- the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage
- the "belly slap"
- sound and light manipulation
Color me unimpressed. Throw in copious amounts of alcohol and some co-eds, and this sounds more like my college years than torture. Inducted hypothermia
Hundreds of thousands of people expose themselves to this voluntarily every Saturday for three to five hours at a time, once tailgating is included. It's called going to a college football game.  Torture. Forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods
In college, this period is called "registration."  Torture. sleep deprivation
This is called "final exams," where sleepless nights are commonplace and stress levels stay very high for days at a time.  Torture. a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized We called this "going to bars." Sometimes the grabbing was wanted (where we called this horrific act "flirting"), was innocuous (grabbing a friend by the shirt to drag them to the next bar), or was not wanted (grabbing someone to eject them from a bar). I've done all three as a student and short-term bar manager, and at least at my college, you saw a lot of all three on Halloween, where the holiday was one of the biggest celebrations of the year.  Torture. the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage We have another term for this: male bonding. It was observed pretty consistently throughout college, and it is also called "horsing around." Fraternities--groups people voluntarily joined of their own free will--generally did things that were a lot worse and often lot more disgusting. I'd rather go through a chest slap than get the "wear a raw egg on your head under a hat all day" treatment one fraternity made their pledges go through when I was in school, and the stuff they did in earlier times to pledges would certainly be a war crime in today's climate.  Torture. the "belly slap" See above. Not uncommon where testosterone and alcohol intermingle. Annoying? Check. Torture? If so this blogger (certainly an odd duck by any measure) is the Marquis de Sade reincarnated. sound and light manipulation
Here in the United States, we don't call that torture, we call it "going to bars and concerts." Again, tens of thousands of college students pay good money for this kind of treatment every night of the week.  Torture. Admittedly, the environment provided by the CIA to carry out interrogations will not be festive and those being interrogated are not there of their own free will, but that hardly constitutes torture. Some normal prison conditions in the United States expose prisoners to far worse treatment, and most of that comes from other inmates. Some prisons such as the Cook County Jail in Dick "Gulag" Durbin's home district are worse than the conditions of Abu Ghraib. I don't feel outraged if terrorists are slapped around a little bit, or made cold, or tired, or uncomfortable. Run-of-the-mill prisoners in American jails face the same treatment as those terrorists we've captured, and many face far worse. Many of the techniques described here are no more violent or degrading than what I've seen fraternity pledges exposed to, and to the best of my knowledge, no members of al Qaeda have been forced to serenade a sorority with "You lost that Lovin' Feelin'" wearing nothing but their "tighty whiteys" and a smile on a cold winter morning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
The U.K. Guardian has obtained a list of seven interrogation techniques that the CIA would like to use to interrogate al Qaeda terror suspects.
They are:
some very pretty pictures to undermine the seriousness of the issue.
there's a big, and legal difference, between doing something voluntarily/for fun and being forced to do it. Or should I wait for the thread where you say a rape victim is whining because millions of people do the same thing for fun all the time?
Or that murder and suicide are the same thing because the end result is identical?
Gee, even without going to law school i can tell the difference.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
<p>The U.K. Guardian has <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1874823,00.html">obtained a list</a> of seven interrogation techniques that the CIA would like to use to interrogate al Qaeda terror suspects.</p>
<p>They are:</p>
<ul>induced hypothermiaforcing suspects to stand for prolonged periodssleep deprivationa technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seizedthe "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damagethe "belly slap" sound and light manipulation[/LIST]
<p>Color me unimpressed. Throw in copious amounts of alcohol and some co-eds, and this sounds more like my college years than torture.</p>
some very pretty pictures to undermine the seriousness of the issue.
there's a big, and legal difference, between doing something voluntarily/for fun and being forced to do it. Or should I wait for the thread where you say a rape victim is whining because millions of people do the same thing for fun all the time?
Or that murder and suicide are the same thing because the end result is identical?
Gee, even without going to law school i can tell the difference.
So, Ray, you think it's serious and WRONG to slap a poor widdle terrorist who may know when and where an attack is planned to kill our troops or US citicens? This is what Sen. Whatshisname (I'm sure someone here remembers) Meant when he said Democrats were more interested in protecting Terrorists than in protecting Americans.
I'm sure G-Mans point wasn;t to deny the difference between volentry and involentary actions, but rather to demonstrate how mild these techniques are when you consider they're being done to terrorists caught on the battle field.
Last edited by wannabuyamonkey; 2006-09-20 4:14 PM.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
<p>The U.K. Guardian has <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1874823,00.html">obtained a list</a> of seven interrogation techniques that the CIA would like to use to interrogate al Qaeda terror suspects.</p>
<p>They are:</p>
<ul>induced hypothermiaforcing suspects to stand for prolonged periodssleep deprivationa technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seizedthe "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damagethe "belly slap" sound and light manipulation[/LIST]
<p>Color me unimpressed. Throw in copious amounts of alcohol and some co-eds, and this sounds more like my college years than torture.</p>
some very pretty pictures to undermine the seriousness of the issue.
there's a big, and legal difference, between doing something voluntarily/for fun and being forced to do it. Or should I wait for the thread where you say a rape victim is whining because millions of people do the same thing for fun all the time?
Or that murder and suicide are the same thing because the end result is identical?
Gee, even without going to law school i can tell the difference.
So, Ray, you think it's serious and WRONG to slap a poor widdle terrorist who may know when and where an attack is planned to kill our troops or US citicens?
I believe Colin Powell and John Mccain (a man who has been tortured) say it doesn't work.
In facts soldiers are traditionally trained to withstand physical pain. So I don't think it has any real benefit.
That's why governments worldwide have studied psychological warfare and tactics for decades.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I believe Colin Powell and John Mccain (a man who has been tortured) say it doesn't work.
In facts soldiers are traditionally trained to withstand physical pain. So I don't think it has any real benefit.
That's why governments worldwide have studied psychological warfare and tactics for decades.
And I dissagree w/ them. Why would soldiers be trained to whithstand phisical pain if phisical pain didn't help to extract information.
You're right though, governments DO study the effects of psychological and governments and iterregators, not John McCain, have concluded that torture works. It's even a cliche among POWs that "everyone breaks". Yes John McCain was a POW, but he's also a politition and you have to factor both of those in decifering what he says.
Were you aware that our Marines are subjected to watter boarding? And that thier instructions are thet when enduring this form of torture they will break but the goal is to withhod as much information as they can? Are you aware that the average detainee can withstand watterboarding for about 30 seconds before breaking? Were you aware that when someone is held by the enemy who is known to have critical information that they will try as much as possible to change thier plans assuming the enemy will have extracted at least some crucial information. Why do you suppose that is? It's because as you mentioned governments have studied these things and to reiterate what governments concluded is that torture works. McCain can offer us anecdotal evidence from a political perspective, that is all.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
