Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

OK - it was not violated. Now, you tell me which innocent detainees (first paragraph - persons taking no active part) were humiliated and degraded.

Wait, those records aren’t public. So we don’t know who they are doing what to. I’m not okay with that.[/quote]

There are international bodies with representatives who routinely examine all aspects of the detainees treatment and regularly interview the detainees.

62

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As for POWs if you are indeed considering them that, read the convention?

?Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. ?

?No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.?
As for discipline and punishment a trial is required:
?A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.
In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized, and, in particular, the procedure of which does not afford the accused the rights and means of defense provided for in Article 105. ?
?The disciplinary punishments applicable to prisoners of war are the following:

  1. A fine which shall not exceed 50 per cent of the advances of pay and working pay which the prisoner of war would otherwise receive under the provisions of Articles 60 and 62 during a period of not more than thirty days.
  2. Discontinuance of privileges granted over and above the treatment provided for by the present Convention.
  3. Fatigue duties not exceeding two hours daily.
  4. Confinement. ?

?No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.
No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defense and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel. ?

It’s fine if you don’t agree with the convention, but don’t pretend like we are obeying it.

Will you make up your mind - are we considering them innocent kidnapped victims, civilian detainees of a signatory party, prisoners of war representing the armed forces of a signatory party or what? You keep jumping all over the place with all sorts of tangential arguments.

I completely agree with the Geneva conventions and hold that we have not violated any applicable article. You need to decide which articles you believe apply and what status you would actually confer upon the detainees.[/quote]

You are the one that called them POWs.

If they are being held as POWs, you cannot do these things. If they are being held as criminals, you have to try them.

63

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I did not introduce an analogy - i made a correlation.

yes, you made an analogy and now want to play semantics about it rather than admit it was flawed logic.[/quote]

NO - you need to understand the difference.

A correlation

If you would do A to prevent D, and you would do B to prevent D, then why would you not do C to prevent D

An analogy

Doing A to prevent D is like doing 8 to prevent 4

class dismissed

64

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

You are the one that called them POWs.

If they are being held as POWs, you cannot do these things. If they are being held as criminals, you have to try them.[/quote]

The classic - either/or argument which oversimplifies a complex situation.

I called them POW’s in a follow on discussion where you equated their treatment with the treatment of US POW’s tortured by Japan and in the generic sense of being enemy combatants detained during combat operations.

The POW status dealt with in specifically in the Geneva Convention deals with soldiers captured during a conflict between two signatory parties of the Geneva conventions as a definable legal status. If you are equating the Gitmo detainees with GC POW’s, you are on shaky ground as they are not lawful combatants of a signatory party as defined within the articles of the Geneva convention.

They are mercernaries in the language of the GC and the GC specifically states that the articles do not pertain to them.

Thus the special Presidential directives and the Supreme Court decisions.

But now we are far afield of whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques actually constitute torture. What other rabbit trails shall we pursue now?

65

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

I did not introduce an analogy - i made a correlation.

yes, you made an analogy and now want to play semantics about it rather than admit it was flawed logic.

NO - you need to understand the difference.

A correlation

If you would do A to prevent D, and you would do B to prevent D, then why would you not do C to prevent D

An analogy

Doing A to prevent D is like doing 8 to prevent 4

class dismissed[/quote]

Actually first, all 3 of those Ds were different so no that logic didn’t work. As I have pointed out. Individual self defense against a person is not the same and torturing someone to defend one organization from another. organizations don’t have rights.

Second, the analogy you used that I was retorting was this one:

“Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.”

Which was a direct parallel to my feces analogy, sorry If that wasn’t blatantly clear enough.

66

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

You are the one that called them POWs.

If they are being held as POWs, you cannot do these things. If they are being held as criminals, you have to try them.

The classic - either/or argument which oversimplifies a complex situation.

I called them POW’s in a follow on discussion where you equated their treatment with the treatment of US POW’s tortured by Japan and in the generic sense of being enemy combatants detained during combat operations.

The POW status dealt with in specifically in the Geneva Convention deals with soldiers captured during a conflict between two signatory parties of the Geneva conventions as a definable legal status. If you are equating the Gitmo detainees with GC POW’s, you are on shaky ground as they are not lawful combatants of a signatory party as defined within the articles of the Geneva convention.

They are mercernaries in the language of the GC and the GC specifically states that the articles do not pertain to them.

Thus the special Presidential directives and the Supreme Court decisions.

But now we are far afield of whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques actually constitute torture. What other rabbit trails shall we pursue now?[/quote]

I equated them to japanese torture? No you said they were held as POWs plain and simple.

It’s funny then that the supreme court ruled that they had to be treated in accordance with the statutes of the GC then… Why oh why would they do that? But your right, we should trust an administration and the opinion of some lawyers of the pesky supreme court.

You go back and forth from: It’s not that bad, to they deserve it, to it’s legal, to it’s not as bad as what they do, to ends justify means, to they are in accordance with the GC, to the GC doesn’t apply. you do realize many of your arguments contradict one another.

67

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually first, all 3 of those Ds were different so no that logic didn’t work. As I have pointed out. Individual self defense against a person is not the same and torturing someone to defend one organization from another. organizations don’t have rights.

Second, the analogy you used that I was retorting was this one:

“Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.”

Which was a direct parallel to my feces analogy, sorry If that wasn’t blatantly clear enough.[/quote]

All of the D’s were the same - death

The questions were - would you kill to stop from being killed, would you kill to stop others from being killed, would you deprive someone of sleep to stop others from being killed.

Organizations had nothing to do with the simple outline.

I did not use an analogy, I answered your question which was - would I want to be waterboarded - my answer yes, if my choice was being beheaded or waterboarded. Would I want to waterboarded for kicks - probably not. It’s an answer using a choice between alternatives, not an analogy. I wasn’t comparing waterboarding and beheading to anything else.

You introduced the analogy by COMPARING my answer (waterboard or behead) to the choice between eating feces and being shot in the face.

68

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually first, all 3 of those Ds were different so no that logic didn’t work. As I have pointed out. Individual self defense against a person is not the same and torturing someone to defend one organization from another. organizations don’t have rights.

Second, the analogy you used that I was retorting was this one:

“Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.”

Which was a direct parallel to my feces analogy, sorry If that wasn’t blatantly clear enough.

All of the D’s were the same - death

The questions were - would you kill to stop from being killed, would you kill to stop others from being killed, would you deprive someone of sleep to stop others from being killed.

Organizations had nothing to do with the simple outline.

I did not use an analogy, I answered your question which was - would I want to be waterboarded - my answer yes, if my choice was being beheaded or waterboarded. Would I want to waterboarded for kicks - probably not. It’s an answer using a choice between alternatives, not an analogy. I wasn’t comparing waterboarding and beheading to anything else.

You introduced the analogy by COMPARING my answer (waterboard or behead) to the choice between eating feces and being shot in the face. [/quote]

Irish,

Allow me to help. Ask the Anti-Americans/liberal weiners this question: Would you waterboard a terrorist if it saved the life of your mother/brother/son/daughter?

If the answer is yes (and of course it is), then you can’t be against waterboarding to protect someone else’s family.

JeffR

69

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
<<< Does the end justify the means? It’s a good question. I’m not even sure I can answer it. >>>[/quote]

Then I will. The answer is yes. I support whatever contributes to the accomplishment of a mission or a victory on the battlefield. When at war nice guys really do finish last.

I do not believe in brutalizing or terrorizing people out of vengeance, rage or caprice, but any party unwilling to do whatever is necessary to win would do better by staying home. The people we are fighting do not give a shit about the Geneva Convention or what anybody in the world thinks of what they do which is why they’ll ultimately win if we do not wise up.

The standard as far as I’m concerned is… does it promote our goals? If yes, then I don’t care what it is. If no, then there’s no reason to do it anyway.

If I thought putting somebody’s testicles in a pair of vice grips one at a time would save my families lives, I wouldn’t enjoy it, but I would do it.

I really do wonder what planet people think were living on anymore. We have cable so now it’s somehow more civilized? There are and always will be people in this world who understand nothing but merciless overwhelming force. We deal with them any other way at our own peril.

70

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually first, all 3 of those Ds were different so no that logic didn’t work. As I have pointed out. Individual self defense against a person is not the same and torturing someone to defend one organization from another. organizations don’t have rights.

Second, the analogy you used that I was retorting was this one:

“Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.”

Which was a direct parallel to my feces analogy, sorry If that wasn’t blatantly clear enough.

All of the D’s were the same - death

The questions were - would you kill to stop from being killed, would you kill to stop others from being killed, would you deprive someone of sleep to stop others from being killed.

Organizations had nothing to do with the simple outline.

I did not use an analogy, I answered your question which was - would I want to be waterboarded - my answer yes, if my choice was being beheaded or waterboarded. Would I want to waterboarded for kicks - probably not. It’s an answer using a choice between alternatives, not an analogy. I wasn’t comparing waterboarding and beheading to anything else.

You introduced the analogy by COMPARING my answer (waterboard or behead) to the choice between eating feces and being shot in the face.

Irish,

Allow me to help. Ask the Anti-Americans/liberal weiners this question: Would you waterboard a terrorist if it saved the life of your mother/brother/son/daughter?

If the answer is yes (and of course it is), then you can’t be against waterboarding to protect someone else’s family.

JeffR

[/quote]

hah. how is breaking the law pro-american?

would you feel it’s ok for a cop to waterboard you for speeding? after all you could be speeding becuase your trafficking drugs.

71

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
<<< hah. how is breaking the law pro-american?

would you feel it’s ok for a cop to waterboard you for speeding? after all you could be speeding becuase your trafficking drugs.[/quote]

I can’t believe some of the mindless bullshit that people expect to be taken serious for.

2 things.

If you cannot discern the difference between a foreign enemy combatant/POW in a time of war and a traffic violation, it’s a mystery how you get your own socks on.

  1. Measures taken in the acquisition of intelligence should be commensurate and proportionate to the potential and probability of both the threat and the quality of the information.

No sane person supports the torturing anybody except where national security is at stake and the subject represents a high probability of actionable intelligence.

In war the only rule is winning. It is not a %@#$%#$ hockey game. I don’t want fair and civilized. I want victory. Decisive, unambiguous, “we dare anybody else to try that” victory. Meet Little Boy. I sure wish the world wasn’t like that, but as long as it is that is the only way to survive. Again, I wonder planet some people think they’re living on and or if they’ve been paying attention in the least.

72

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In war the only rule is winning. It is not a %@#$%#$ hockey game. I don’t want fair and civilized. I want victory. Decisive, unambiguous, “we dare anybody else to try that” victory. Meet Little Boy. I sure wish the world wasn’t like that, but as long as it is that is the only way to survive. Again, I wonder planet some people think they’re living on and or if they’ve been paying attention in the least.[/quote]

Luckily, the large majority of Americans say that torture is never acceptable. And all presidential candidates caught the message.

Democracy’s bitch, ey?

73

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Allow me to help. Ask the Anti-Americans/liberal weiners this question: Would you waterboard a terrorist if it saved the life of your mother/brother/son/daughter?
[/quote]

Drop the anti-american bullshit. America is her people, and their will is the law. Torture is against the law, and thus torture is anti-American. Regardless of their intentions, torturers are anti-American.

Try again. I would shoot someone in the face to save the life of my mother/brother/son/daughter, but I am against torture. These are different situations. Torture is not the only (or arguably even an effective way) of procuring intelligence.

This has nothing to do with any concern about the well being of terrorists or Abu Zubaydah, it has to do with the fact that we live in a nation predicated on justice. We are better than torture. I don’t care if the terrorists hang, but if they are going to, it needs to be justly; for our sake more than theirs.

74

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually first, all 3 of those Ds were different so no that logic didn’t work. As I have pointed out. Individual self defense against a person is not the same and torturing someone to defend one organization from another. organizations don’t have rights.

Second, the analogy you used that I was retorting was this one:

“Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.”

Which was a direct parallel to my feces analogy, sorry If that wasn’t blatantly clear enough.

All of the D’s were the same - death

The questions were - would you kill to stop from being killed, would you kill to stop others from being killed, would you deprive someone of sleep to stop others from being killed.

Organizations had nothing to do with the simple outline.

I did not use an analogy, I answered your question which was - would I want to be waterboarded - my answer yes, if my choice was being beheaded or waterboarded. Would I want to waterboarded for kicks - probably not. It’s an answer using a choice between alternatives, not an analogy. I wasn’t comparing waterboarding and beheading to anything else.

You introduced the analogy by COMPARING my answer (waterboard or behead) to the choice between eating feces and being shot in the face.

Irish,

Allow me to help. Ask the Anti-Americans/liberal weiners this question: Would you waterboard a terrorist if it saved the life of your mother/brother/son/daughter?

If the answer is yes (and of course it is), then you can’t be against waterboarding to protect someone else’s family.

JeffR

hah. how is breaking the law pro-american?

would you feel it’s ok for a cop to waterboard you for speeding? after all you could be speeding becuase your trafficking drugs.[/quote]

If I was, I’d deserve it.

By the way, terrible retort.

75

[quote]borrek wrote:
Try again. I would shoot someone in the face to save the life of my mother/brother/son/daughter, but I am against torture. These are different situations. Torture is not the only (or arguably even an effective way) of procuring intelligence.[/quote]

Yawn. Maybe, you should take a peek at the LA terrorist attack that was averted primarily due to these techniques.

Oh, 100% guaranteed, if you lived in LA and it was coming, you’d be all for doing whatever it takes.

[quote]This has nothing to do with any concern about the well being of terrorists or Abu Zubaydah, it has to do with the fact that we live in a nation predicated on justice. We are better than torture. I don’t care if the terrorists hang, but if they are going to, it needs to be justly; for our sake more than theirs.

[/quote]

That’s nice. Again, you are going to see that it lead to actionable intelligence that averted at least one large attack. You can’t be for waterboarding to avoid the deaths of your family without applying the same criteria to other American families.

Think about that within your context of “justice.”

If torture/saying “NI” 10000000 times, or showing nude pictures of hillary clinton procures the intelligence needed to save American lives, that’s what you do.

You do everything you can THINK OF to get that intelligence.

Period.

Most of the people who are objecting to this are either the usual Anti-American cabal, or people who cannot (or won’t) imagine their families in harm’s way.

It’s the same old story.

Jeffr

76

[quote]lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
In war the only rule is winning. It is not a %@#$%#$ hockey game. I don’t want fair and civilized. I want victory. Decisive, unambiguous, “we dare anybody else to try that” victory. Meet Little Boy. I sure wish the world wasn’t like that, but as long as it is that is the only way to survive. Again, I wonder planet some people think they’re living on and or if they’ve been paying attention in the least.

Luckily, the large majority of Americans say that torture is never acceptable. And all presidential candidates caught the message.

Democracy’s bitch, ey?[/quote]

Don’t you count on it. Certainly, don’t count on our continuing down the obama soft foreign policy.

Oh, if attacked, you watch how fast obama’s grovelling and snivelling will come to a crashing halt.

JeffR

77

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually first, all 3 of those Ds were different so no that logic didn’t work. As I have pointed out. Individual self defense against a person is not the same and torturing someone to defend one organization from another. organizations don’t have rights.

Second, the analogy you used that I was retorting was this one:

“Then you go for the personal touch - would I want to be water-boarded? if my choice was between being beheaded (the norm for the other side) and being water-boarded (our worst interrogation method)- hell, yeah, I would go for water-boarding every time. And yes, I have been water-boarded, no it was not enjoyable - but I was not harmed or injured in any way.”

Which was a direct parallel to my feces analogy, sorry If that wasn’t blatantly clear enough.

All of the D’s were the same - death

The questions were - would you kill to stop from being killed, would you kill to stop others from being killed, would you deprive someone of sleep to stop others from being killed.

Organizations had nothing to do with the simple outline.

I did not use an analogy, I answered your question which was - would I want to be waterboarded - my answer yes, if my choice was being beheaded or waterboarded. Would I want to waterboarded for kicks - probably not. It’s an answer using a choice between alternatives, not an analogy. I wasn’t comparing waterboarding and beheading to anything else.

You introduced the analogy by COMPARING my answer (waterboard or behead) to the choice between eating feces and being shot in the face. [/quote]

And you accuse me of oversimplifying. If you can’t see the deference in killing someone attacking your person in self defense and torturing someone that is a direct threat to no one to possibly get questionable intelligence that might save someone else I’m not going to be able to beat it in. The Ds are not the same.

And yes I introduced it because they are logically equivalent and equally stupid.

You cannot justify the morality of an action by stating that things someone else does are worse.

You sound like a child complaining to his parents about the little boy down the street getting to do something you can’t. Good moral responsible parents don’t care what the kid down the street does because it doesn’t change whats best or whats right and good.

78

[quote]borrek wrote:
Try again. I would shoot someone in the face to save the life of my mother/brother/son/daughter, but I am against torture.
[/quote]

One more thing, I do believe shooting someone in the face is against the law. One could even say it’s a tad more harsh than waterboarding.

Does that make you Anti-American?

Oh, maybe one of the waterboarders had family in LA.

Think it through.

JeffR

79

The most vocal advocates of torture are themselves cowards. They assume that those techniques will work on others, because they know absolutely that they would work on them.

The Dick of course being the prime example. Probably include Hannity and minor ass-clowns like jeffro.

80

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
<<< hah. how is breaking the law pro-american?

would you feel it’s ok for a cop to waterboard you for speeding? after all you could be speeding becuase your trafficking drugs.

I can’t believe some of the mindless bullshit that people expect to be taken serious for.

2 things.

If you cannot discern the difference between a foreign enemy combatant/POW in a time of war and a traffic violation, it’s a mystery how you get your own socks on.

  1. Measures taken in the acquisition of intelligence should be commensurate and proportionate to the potential and probability of both the threat and the quality of the information.

No sane person supports the torturing anybody except where national security is at stake and the subject represents a high probability of actionable intelligence.

In war the only rule is winning. It is not a %@#$%#$ hockey game. I don’t want fair and civilized. I want victory. Decisive, unambiguous, “we dare anybody else to try that” victory. Meet Little Boy. I sure wish the world wasn’t like that, but as long as it is that is the only way to survive. Again, I wonder planet some people think they’re living on and or if they’ve been paying attention in the least.[/quote]

I’m sorry man I can’t disagree more. What you are stating now is the exact opposite of what I see you normally stand up for.

This country is supposed to stand for something. We are supposed to be about freedom, justice, individual rights, and liberty. Torture is the opposite of that. Period.

These people, even the guilty ones, can’t hurt anyone anymore.

These interrogation techniques are the opposite of the American ideal we’re fighting for. This isn’t the solution to America being slowly torn down, it’s part of it. This is just another chip off of what we stand for.