[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
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.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be Christ’s teachings? If you had to resume it in 50 words or less, what would you say?
[/quote]
I would say that if you want to know about my faith in 50 words or less - PM me.
You might consider this folly - I don’t. And I will trust you to respect that.
[quote]doogie wrote:
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.
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]
I don’t think I have better sources than Brian Ross. I think that anyone who believes they are getting the full story on detained captives’ torture treatments from ABC news is a little loopy. I asked you why you think you are getting 100% of the story when there are things we are finding out about our own government’s actions 50+ years later when documents are finally released that were not known before. Again, what makes you believe this is going to be available to the average citizen watching cable while doing the dishes?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.
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 adsurdity.
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]
If you truly believe that I don’t care about our own men losing their lives over there, there is a serious problem with your understanding. that is why I want this ‘war’ over and done with…so we can get our men out of situations like that. I could flip that and ask why you are ok with keeping our men over there putting them at risk.
[quote]Headhunter 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?
Yep, Jesus certainly knew about the value of trials.
LMAO!!
[/quote]
That’s was a weak dodge…even for you.
What am I saying…it isn’t like I expected more.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Show me where I have ever advocated physical harm. You won’t find it in this thread.
[/quote]
rainjack, I think that where people on here believe that you advocate physical harm on this thread is when you make statements like this earlier in the thread:
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I am not trying to “be like” anyone. I think we should use every tool in the tool box to get information we need about our enemy.[/quote]
When you say “use every tool in the tool box” in some people’s minds some of those tools involve physical harm.
I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing it out to you so you will understand why people would say that about you.
From
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215101,00.html
[quote]People call it torture. As Ross described it, waterboarding sounds unpleasant, and since no one could stand it for longer than a couple minutes, I might say very unpleasant. But I hardly think it is torture.
[/quote]
I am confused at why there is such a play on words here. I am all for stopping terrorists. I am not all for calling “very unpleasant” tactics used to get that info from possibly innocent people anything but “torture”. What else would you call it?
From the same site:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175349,00.html
[quote]“We’re not talking about frat party hijinks here. We’re talking about torture, and in some cases, we’re talking about murder,” Veterans For Common Sense Executive Director Charles Sheehan-Miles said during a press conference Friday.
“These aren’t acts that are being carried out by Saddam Hussein’s regime. These aren’t acts that are being carried out by Cuba or the KGB. … These are acts that are being carried out in the name of the United States of America. … Torture puts our own troops at risk,” said Sheehan-Miles, who is also a Gulf War veteran.
[/quote]
How is it VETERANS’ opinions are overlooked and the info they provide disregarded to believe Brian Ross and his downplay of what is potentially going on? Does anyone truly believe “waterboarding” is not torture or that it is the ONLY or the worst technique used on these captives?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Texas justice is true justice. Why should some scum who rapes and murders get to live for 10 years or more, maybe ‘fall in love’ with a cell mate, while the victims’ family has to live with nightmares?
God Bless Texas! We need a dozen more states just like it!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you truly believe that I don’t care about our own men losing their lives over there, there is a serious problem with your understanding. that is why I want this ‘war’ over and done with…so we can get our men out of situations like that. I could flip that and ask why you are ok with keeping our men over there putting them at risk.[/quote]
I don’t want them over there one second longer thasn need be. But I don’t want to pull them out early, either. Regardless of what the headlines read - we are making progress in Iraq. Iraq is taking control of their own country one province at a time, and gaining control of their own country.
Sure there are many many bad things going on in Iraq - but that is war.
I have yet to hear you come out against the insurgent treatment of those they capture. You blame the US for every military death, and you accuse the US of torturing captured insurgents.
Have you ever blamed the insurgeny for anything? I can’t find it if you have.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Show me where I have ever advocated physical harm. You won’t find it in this thread.
rainjack, I think that where people on here believe that you advocate physical harm on this thread is when you make statements like this earlier in the thread:
rainjack wrote:
I am not trying to “be like” anyone. I think we should use every tool in the tool box to get information we need about our enemy.
When you say “use every tool in the tool box” in some people’s minds some of those tools involve physical harm.
I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing it out to you so you will understand why people would say that about you.
[/quote]
I can see that, now. But - to be clear - the “tool box” I refer to does not have a skull and crossbones on it, nor are their any body bags in it.
You being nice to me is very off-putting 
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter 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?
Yep, Jesus certainly knew about the value of trials.
LMAO!!
That’s was a weak dodge…even for you.
What am I saying…it isn’t like I expected more.[/quote]
Still laughing, Prof! You guys have this image of Jesus that he’d let others shit all over him, smile and nod, and profess his love. I suggest you broaden your reading outside the four synoptic gospels.
I suspect that Jesus will be pissed when he returns.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You signed on to the Jaws of Satan thread. Why would you care at all about Jesus’ teachings?
[/quote]
First of all, the question wasn’t adressed to you; but it’d be interesting to hear your answer too.
I don’t call myself a Christian, I don’t claim to try and live my life in accordance to Christ’s teachings. You do. Why is it that hard for a Christian to explain the teachings of Jesus in a couple of paragraphs? Does the hypocrisy it reveals make you uncomfortable? No? Let’s have those teachings then.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Texas justice is true justice. Why should some scum who rapes and murders get to live for 10 years or more, maybe ‘fall in love’ with a cell mate, while the victims’ family has to live with nightmares?[/quote]
Especially since the system is infallible, never convicting an innocent man nor letting a guilty one go! Affording the poorest of the poor the same quality defense than the richest of the rich. Yes, indeed, such an infallible system can kill off convicted criminals in good conscience, certain that true justice is always being done. I’m sure God is a bit envious at such perfect justice being realized by mere mortal men. Good thing it’s in America, his favored land!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter 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?
Yep, Jesus certainly knew about the value of trials.
LMAO!!
That’s was a weak dodge…even for you.
What am I saying…it isn’t like I expected more.
Still laughing, Prof! You guys have this image of Jesus that he’d let others shit all over him, smile and nod, and profess his love. I suggest you broaden your reading outside the four synoptic gospels.
I suspect that Jesus will be pissed when he returns.
[/quote]
…and if you think he will be upset only at the other guys, you have your head up your ass.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Texas justice is true justice. Why should some scum who rapes and murders get to live for 10 years or more, maybe ‘fall in love’ with a cell mate, while the victims’ family has to live with nightmares?
Especially since the system is infallible, never convicting an innocent man nor letting a guilty one go! Affording the poorest of the poor the same quality defense than the richest of the rich. Yes, indeed, such an infallible system can kill off convicted criminals in good conscience, certain that true justice is always being done. I’m sure God is a bit envious at such perfect justice being realized by mere mortal men. Good thing it’s in America, his favored land!
[/quote]
Did you read what Rainjack wrote? To convict, you have to have 3 credible witnesses see someone commit a heinous crime. If you need more than that, what WOULD you need to fry some scumbag? If some human animal raped your 12 year old daughter and 3 nuns saw him do it, would you fry his ass ASAP?
Menachem Begin, former Israeli Prime Minister, on sleep deprivation:
FYI, it looks as if the lawmakers are going to address the issue, at least partially:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWY0NTJhOGVjMGRkNTBkZGY1NTZkYTg4MGViY2I1ZTE=
EXCERPT:
[i] During a conference call after the senators announced the deal on Capitol Hill, Hadley said the proposed legislation satisfied President Bush’s number-one concern. “The president said that his sole standard with respect to Common Article III [of the Geneva Conventions] was going to be whether the CIA would be able to go forward with a program for questioning terrorists,” Hadley said. That program has “saved lives, both here at home, and saved lives on the battlefield.”
During the negotiations, Bush had issued a forceful threat to end the program if Congress did not give him what he wanted. Now, Hadley said, that won’t be an issue. “The program will go forward,” he explained, “and the men and women who are asked to carry out that program will have clarity as to the legal standard, will have clear congressional support, and will have legal protections as we ask them to do this difficult work.”
How did that come about, giving the president what he wanted while still addressing McCain/Graham/Warner’s concerns? The key to the deal was the decision to have Congress define, in U.S. law, what are called “grave breaches” of the Geneva Convention. “We recognized that the president has the authority to interpret treaties,” says the source aligned with McCain/Graham/Warner, “but Congress now has the authority to define ‘grave breaches.’” In doing so, the negotiators enumerated nine offenses that everyone agreed constituted a grave breach of the treaty: torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape, causing serious bodily injury, and sexual assault or abuse, and taking hostages.
Some are quite clear. Rape is rape, and murder is murder. But what does “cruel or inhuman” treatment mean? There was a lot ? a lot ? of negotiation about that. For example, the two sides haggled over the meaning of “severe mental pain” versus “serious mental pain.” The senators maintained that “serious” was the more serious term, and they won. What that will mean in practice is not entirely clear, which is probably what both sides intended.
But what is clear is that, after defining grave breaches, Congress gave the administration significant leeway to define non-grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. “Grave breaches are crimes,” the source says. “Non-grave breaches are something else?.We are going to spell out grave breaches, and then it is up to the administration to come up with sanctions for violations that are less than grave breaches.”
That could include many, if not most, of the techniques that the administration has used in the CIA interrogation program. For example, both sides appear to believe that the agreement permits the CIA to continue to use sleep deprivation, cold rooms, and other such techniques. On the other hand, the status of the most notorious of those techniques, waterboarding, is not quite clear. When a reporter asked Hadley whether waterboarding constituted a grave breach under the new agreement, he answered, “We are not going to get into discussions of particular techniques.” A few seconds later, he added, “for purposes of complying with our international obligations under international law, that’s something that the president will clarify by executive order.”
For their part, however, members of the McCain/Graham/Warner camp believe that the use of waterboarding will stop. “We have a high degree of confidence that those things, going forward, will not occur,” the source says.
Whatever happens, the public will likely know about it. According to the proposed legislation, the president will define those non-grave breaches in a series of executive orders. Those orders would then be published in the Federal Register, meaning the policy would be public and subject to public scrutiny ? and debate.
Affirming the president’s authority to define non-grave breaches also appears to answer White House concerns about Americans being prosecuted for actions that might constitute offenses to various world courts and human-rights bodies. The McCain/Graham/Warner side early on recognized that the White House had a powerful point when it raised the possibility, in one participant’s words, that “a liberal jurist would say that a female interrogator of a Muslim male is a grave breach.” By writing the president’s authority to define those situations into law, that possibility seems to have gone away.
So, too, has the possibility that any person will be able to use accusations of violations of the Geneva Conventions as a basis for a court action against, say, a CIA employee or the U.S. government. “There is no private right of action,” the source said. “No person may invoke the Geneva Convention or any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action against the United States.”[/i]\
Of course, it will be extremely important to analyze the text of the legislation closely once it’s passed, and to understand the relevant case law (relating, for example, to Congress’ power to limit judicial review). The relevant parties have many different motivations to make claims about this compromise, in one way or another.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.[/quote]
So you don’t have a problem with secret detention centers and detaining people without having to justify it in any way, except that you wish to detain them? Have you even looked at the links I provided? Innocent citizens are shipped off to Syria to be tortured and eventually released when it turns out that they really know nothing and were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time…
Yeah, that’s the easy out, isn’t it? Anything we’re doing is, by definition “not torture.” If the enemy does it, it’s torture, but when we do it, it’s “agressive interrogation.”
You confusing execution with interrogation again. Is it really that hard to follow a topic?
It’s not a childish side argument. It’s applying your logic to another situation in which pain and anguish are applied to a victim and where the victim can walk away with no visible marks. You’re claiming that since the people who get interrogated during waterboarding get to walk away with no visible scars, they have no right to complain about torture. For some reason, you seem to think that physical scarring is the only symptom of torture and that someone who shows none can’t claim to having been tortured.
Again, you’re confusing the issues. Killing the enemy in war is entirely another thing than torturing prisoners to extract information; especially when those prisoners can be people who have never seen combat; and furthermore have no recourse to proclaim their innocence. Due process, you might have heard of it? Even in Texas.
Keep up the dumb, retreaded ad hominems; as weak as they are, they still eclipse all your other arguments. Why don’t you address the points instead of making boring remarks about piss and ADD?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Show me where I have ever advocated physical harm. You won’t find it in this thread.
rainjack, I think that where people on here believe that you advocate physical harm on this thread is when you make statements like this earlier in the thread:
rainjack wrote:
I am not trying to “be like” anyone. I think we should use every tool in the tool box to get information we need about our enemy.
When you say “use every tool in the tool box” in some people’s minds some of those tools involve physical harm.
I’m not taking sides. I’m just pointing it out to you so you will understand why people would say that about you.
I can see that, now. But - to be clear - the “tool box” I refer to does not have a skull and crossbones on it, nor are their any body bags in it.
You being nice to me is very off-putting [/quote]
Well, you haven’t said anything lately that I can get really worked up about. Some of the stuff I can actually agree with and some of the other stuff you said that I don’t agree with really didn’t bother me enough to comment.
Don’t worry though. Like I told JeffR, the closer to the midterms, the more fun we can have.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
FYI, it looks as if the lawmakers are going to address the issue, at least partially:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWY0NTJhOGVjMGRkNTBkZGY1NTZkYTg4MGViY2I1ZTE=
[/quote]
So…just to make sure I’m understanding this:
Putting an illegal combatant in serious mental pain would be a grave breach of the Geneva Convention, and therefore a crime, while putting him in severe mental pain would be a nongrave breach, and therefore a noncrime.
But waterboarding is a nonissue because the President, who is authorized to interpret treaties, will define the breaches by Executive Order, and the public will likely know about it.
Clearly this is a doubleplusgood development, crimethinkwise.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I suggest you broaden your reading outside the four synoptic gospels.[/quote]
I believe there are only three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
John is not generally considered a synoptic gospel, because its style and content diverges significantly from the other three.
[quote]
I suspect that Jesus will be pissed when he returns.[/quote]
Probably. I know I would be.