[quote]makkun wrote:
What dreadful arguments come up; even to consider torture in the pursuit of a “higher” purpose is already a failure regarding values of humanity. IMO it’s a moral, not a legal argument.
I think the discussion of what constitutes torture is and has always been a disgrace: Any purposefully induced physical or psychological suffering in a prisoner or detainee (who is at your mercy) is at least abuse.
And any state or organisation which sanctions or fosters this abuse is responsible for its worst consequences, regardless of who (proven terrorist, framed Afghan shepherder, or kidnapped innocent EU citizen) is subjected to it.
And for the case of Gitmo, it also always has to be said that the lack of due process makes the above distinction, if someone is actually innocent or guilty, mute.
Ceterum censeo: Secret prisons, unbalanced trials with secret evidence, and a sleazy attempt to justify abuse of detainees cannot be morally justified and is unamerican.
Makkun[/quote]
Agree with every word. It is amazing what some “conservative Christians” will justify. I wonder if Jesus was FOR torturing people without a trial regardless of if they were actually innocent or not. How is that justified on Sunday morning?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
makkun wrote:
What dreadful arguments come up; even to consider torture in the pursuit of a “higher” purpose is already a failure regarding values of humanity. IMO it’s a moral, not a legal argument.
I think the discussion of what constitutes torture is and has always been a disgrace: Any purposefully induced physical or psychological suffering in a prisoner or detainee (who is at your mercy) is at least abuse.
And any state or organisation which sanctions or fosters this abuse is responsible for its worst consequences, regardless of who (proven terrorist, framed Afghan shepherder, or kidnapped innocent EU citizen) is subjected to it.
And for the case of Gitmo, it also always has to be said that the lack of due process makes the above distinction, if someone is actually innocent or guilty, mute.
Ceterum censeo: Secret prisons, unbalanced trials with secret evidence, and a sleazy attempt to justify abuse of detainees cannot be morally justified and is unamerican.
Makkun
Agree with every word. It is amazing what some “conservative Christians” will justify. I wonder if Jesus was FOR torturing people without a trial regardless of if they were actually innocent or not. How is that justified on Sunday morning?[/quote]
I think its safe to assume most of these people are as manipulated in their religion as they are in their politics.
It would be giving them way to much credit to think they know anything about the Bible. They’ve been told what God thinks, not read what he says.
I don’t have much of a conscience (sp?) and don’t mind putting the boot in. It’s been known to happen. But …
How can we say ‘it’s not torture in comparison to what they do’? It’s nto like a sliding scale of discomfort. And since when did we start measuring the high ideals of America against those of some scum sucking terrorist zealot to justify America’s actions? The -ing RPG toting assholes do it, so why don’t we? Because we are fighting to free the world from RPG toting assholes, not replace them with AT4 toting assholes.
Now. The Army (because I know a bit about it) swears allegiance to defend the US against threats foregin & domestic. In prosecuting the current War on Terrorism, the ROE states anyone positively identified as carrying a weapon in opposition to US or allied personnel or property (military & civilian under the perview of US forces)becomes a combatant and thus is subject to engagement and treatment under Geneva Conventions (why? because we signed it).
If we are prosecuting these terrorists under military tribuneral, they must be combatants & a threat to US personnel /property. So they should be treated under Geneva conventions? No?
At what point and who decides who should get the exemption and special treatment? And how does Joe Snuffy know when the CinC is going to back him up or not?
[quote]fos121 wrote:
I don’t have much of a conscience (sp?) and don’t mind putting the boot in. It’s been known to happen. But …
How can we say ‘it’s not torture in comparison to what they do’? It’s nto like a sliding scale of discomfort. And since when did we start measuring the high ideals of America against those of some scum sucking terrorist zealot to justify America’s actions? The -ing RPG toting assholes do it, so why don’t we? Because we are fighting to free the world from RPG toting assholes, not replace them with AT4 toting assholes.
Now. The Army (because I know a bit about it) swears allegiance to defend the US against threats foregin & domestic. In prosecuting the current War on Terrorism, the ROE states anyone positively identified as carrying a weapon in opposition to US or allied personnel or property (military & civilian under the perview of US forces)becomes a combatant and thus is subject to engagement and treatment under Geneva Conventions (why? because we signed it).
If we are prosecuting these terrorists under military tribuneral, they must be combatants & a threat to US personnel /property. So they should be treated under Geneva conventions? No?
At what point and who decides who should get the exemption and special treatment? And how does Joe Snuffy know when the CinC is going to back him up or not?[/quote]
I’ll ask another one…how is it any of these guys are acting like they know the extent of treatment in an off site prison containment with regards to torture and have thusly judged it to be acceptable?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
They want to tie your black ass to the bumper of their landcruiser and drag it throug the streets.
So it’s OK for us to tie their brown asses to our humvees and drag them through the dunes 'til they talk?
See, my concern is not in giving aid or comfort to the enemy; it’s with not being evil barbaric fucks who have no regard for human life as long as their interests are served.
You seem to think that the best way to fight terrorists is to become just like them. I don’t. Having principles and respect for human dignity is more work, yes, but I think our children and grand kids will have more admiration for us if we’re distinguishable in some way from the nazi, Idi Amin, Saddam and Pol Pot. They kill, maim, murder and torture; we don’t. Or shouldn’t. Abu Graib is a disgrace, not a good start.
[/quote]
You quote what I say that they want to do to us and assume that I am talking about tit for tat.
You could not be more wrong. You draw qa paralell where there is none. You call it torture when none has been suggested.
The problem is exactly as BB lays it out: There is a fundamental difference in what constitutes torture. The daisy sniffers think that if we do anything beyond ask them politely we are barbaric sadists.
Show me where I have ever advocated physical harm. You won’t find it in this thread.
We are better than the murderous thugs we are facing. Using established non-lethal means of collecting intel from them does not lower us to their level no matter how badly you lift my quotes out of context.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Agree with every word. It is amazing what some “conservative Christians” will justify. I wonder if Jesus was FOR torturing people without a trial regardless of if they were actually innocent or not. How is that justified on Sunday morning?[/quote]
I am not in favor of this war because it is the “christian thing to do”. I don;t know where you get off making assumptions about me that there is no way in hell you can back up.
If youare going to throw Jesus into this - would he join the military to get a medical degree? Would he go back to grad school to get an MBA?
I don’ throw Jesus’ name around as a support for against anything I do, and to insinuate otherwise is just bullshit.
But - I can sit in my pew on Sunday, and not have a twinge of guilt for the stand I have taken in this thread.
[quote]100meters wrote:
I think its safe to assume most of these people are as manipulated in their religion as they are in their politics.
It would be giving them way to much credit to think they know anything about the Bible. They’ve been told what God thinks, not read what he says.[/quote]
I think it is also safe to assume that you prejudge many you know nothing about in order to fit them in the box you need them to be in.
I wouldn’t begin to give you way to much credit - you haven’t earned any yet.
If mercs are not protected under the Geneva Convention WHY THE HELL are terrorists? I don’t believe in torturing people for any reason but the GC definitely could have been worded better.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Agree with every word. It is amazing what some “conservative Christians” will justify. I wonder if Jesus was FOR torturing people without a trial regardless of if they were actually innocent or not. How is that justified on Sunday morning?
I am not in favor of this war because it is the “christian thing to do”. I don;t know where you get off making assumptions about me that there is no way in hell you can back up.
If youare going to throw Jesus into this - would he join the military to get a medical degree? Would he go back to grad school to get an MBA?
I don’ throw Jesus’ name around as a support for against anything I do, and to insinuate otherwise is just bullshit.
But - I can sit in my pew on Sunday, and not have a twinge of guilt for the stand I have taken in this thread. [/quote]
I wasn’t even directing that post at you but at Headhunters half and half personality. We are discussing MORALS with this issue. Only political spin has turned this into “the strong” vs “the weak” as if anyone who speaks against torture is now helping the enemy. Now, you are one of those who did state something along those lines so as far as eating every steaming pile of shit offered by whatever political news source you get your info from, you would seem to be first in line.
Therefore, if we are discussing morals…and it seems that “conservative Christians” are FOR torturing people who have not been found guilty by any court of law, bringing forward what JESUS would have recommended makes all of the sense in the world.
As far as the crap you wrote about my education, I was a doctor when I came in. I had my degree and my license. Therefore, I didn’t join the military for a degree. There were deeper reasons than that, moreso than you will ever know about on this forum. So, how about you stay on the topic now.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Watch Brian Ross’s discussion on U.S. “torture” here:
The longest “torture” lasted 2.5 minutes of waterboarding. Most quit within 25 to 30 seconds. Big fucking deal.
[/quote]
Why do you think what really has gone on with regards to torture would be public knowledge? Do you realize there are undercover ops going on all over the world right now, some possibly in your city, that you will NEVER know about? With that in mind, you think you are being told 100% of what goes on to get info from possible terrorists on the nightly news? I am very interested in if you are quite that gullible…from O’Reilly of all sources.
Agree with every word. It is amazing what some “conservative Christians” will justify. I wonder if Jesus was FOR torturing people without a trial regardless of if they were actually innocent or not. How is that justified on Sunday morning?[/quote]
You mean the carpenter that was lashed, had to put on a crown of thornes, had to drag a cross up a hill and was then nailed to it for three days?
The same one who thought that his father had forsaken him while hanging on the cross and still asked him to forgive hi torturers because “they did not know what they where doing”.
What makes you think that this should be relevant for someone who calls himself a Christian?
?Manfred Nowak, the UN’s special investigator, said torture was “totally out of hand” and might even be worse now than under Saddam Hussein. “You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed,” he told reporters at the UN’s Geneva headquarters. ?
“Bodies found at the Medico-legal Institute often bear signs of severe torture, including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails.”
Guardian 22 SEPT 06.
This is what is happening to Iraqi civilians today. Is this at the other end of the thin end of the wedge? Is this what we should compare our actions to? -ing POWRE DRILLS!
Even when used in training execises, where the “victim” knows he won’t be killed and can stop it at anytime, the average time your “tough guy” agents can stand it is 14 seconds. Must be pretty mild that it requires a whole 14 seconds to break a US operative. Or are your guys a bunch of pussies?
The daisy smokers don’t mind if “aggressive interrogation” is used on unconvicted, uncharged persons. Makes them feel safe, I guess. What happens when there’s an internal terrorist threat and those techniques start being used on “persons of interests” that are full citizens?
Because if something leaves no lasting physical injuries, then there’s no problem. Maybe we should also tell rape victims who don’t show enough bruising around the genitals that they’re “daisy sniffers” who are making mountains out of molehills. Care to tell battered wives who have no physical scars to “go home and stop whining?”
Just saying it isn’t enough. I’m sure they tell themselves they’re swell guys too. The world judges you by your actions, not by your claims.
“Non-lethal means” simply says you don’t kill them in the process. That’s a pretty wide latitude you’re condoning here. But I guess you’ll come back to put a little “context” around your words and make it all better?
Agree with every word. It is amazing what some “conservative Christians” will justify. I wonder if Jesus was FOR torturing people without a trial regardless of if they were actually innocent or not. How is that justified on Sunday morning?[/quote]
Yep, Jesus certainly knew about the value of trials.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Watch Brian Ross’s discussion on U.S. “torture” here:
The longest “torture” lasted 2.5 minutes of waterboarding. Most quit within 25 to 30 seconds. Big fucking deal.
Professor X wrote:
Why do you think what really has gone on with regards to torture would be public knowledge? Do you realize there are undercover ops going on all over the world right now, some possibly in your city, that you will NEVER know about? With that in mind, you think you are being told 100% of what goes on to get info from possible terrorists on the nightly news? I am very interested in if you are quite that gullible…from O’Reilly of all sources.[/quote]
First, since you are usually so confused, I’ll explain to you that Brian Ross works for ABC and it was a report for ABC that he put together. The website linked to was an ABC website. O’Reilly isn’t a “source” for any of the information in the report.
Second, the real question is who are your sources? Why do you think you have better information on what really happens than Brian Rosss? Ross has CIA sources and ex-CIA sources (some who are actually AGAINST the forms of “torture” he described in his report). Tell us, Prof. Where do you get your FIRSTHAND information from? I know where Ross gets his.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as the crap you wrote about my education, I was a doctor when I came in. I had my degree and my license. Therefore, I didn’t join the military for a degree. There were deeper reasons than that, moreso than you will ever know about on this forum. So, how about you stay on the topic now.[/quote]
I was just using examples. Nothing personal. I don’t care what reasons you had for being commissioned.
My point still is that you like to throw Jesus into things when you think it will reveal hypocrisy on the other side. I merely point out the absurdity.
Like I said earlier - your definition of torture is not mine. I have no guilt - no feelings of hypocrisy with what I think we should be doing as far as interrogation methods.
Where is the outrage at how our guys are treated? I don’t see any of the peacenik gang decrying public beheadings, murder, or dragging dead bodies through the streets. You guys are way too concerned with whether or not the islamo-fascist murderers we have in custody have a ficking hangnail.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You quote what I say that they want to do to us and assume that I am talking about tit for tat.
You’re ok with torture because they also use torure. That’s tit for tat, no matter how much semantic skating you try to do around the fact.
[/quote]
No pookie. You just don’t get it. You have a liberal “don’t scar their delicate psyche” view of of interrogation. You seem to think that if one is spken to too sharply that it is a viloation of the GC’s and heads should roll.
Just because you say it is torture does not mean it is. You don’t default to the judge’s chair for deciding the definition.
And just because you need for me to be tit-for-tat doens’t make it true. Were I truly that way, I would advocate public hangings, physical beatings, and dragging dead murderers through the street.
Bringing in rape victims is just a childish side argument that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But if you want to play that game: In the great state of Texas, of you are found guilty of a capital offense, and can be identified as being at the scene by three credible witnesses, you get fast tracked to the electric chair. Yes - in the State of Texas we now have an “express lane” to kill you faster.
But if we talk about killing the enemy - you piss down your leg like a scared old woman.
Try your argument again. Take your ADD medicine and stay focused this time.