Log in

View Full Version : Bush vetoes anti-torture bill?



Pages : 1 [2] 3

jester214
03-10-2008, 11:58 AM
No I was not being deceptive. Not in the least. :banghead: I already explained that to you. Twice as a matter of fact. Once here and once in reply to your unwelcome private message. For the third and final effn time- I quoted that part BECAUSE IT WAS THE PART TO WHICH I WAS RESPONDING.

For now anyway I've lost the required patience needed in dealing with you. I'll let someone else take your hand and slowly walk you through the answers to the rest of you post questions.

Jesus... Let me spell it out for you.

This what my post

Which just brings up the debate of "unlawful enemy combatants" and the idea that terrorists are not enemy combatants. Since terrorism is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

You cut out the beggining of my first sentence "Which just brings up the debate of "unlawful enemy combatants" and the idea that".

You tried to make it sound like I said "terrorists are not enemy combatants" and that I said that as a statement. That was not what I said at all! Look at words like "debate" and "idea". You tried to manipulate what I said so that you could call me wrong. You got called on it, and now you're ignorign what you did it.

And you call me uneducated.

Eric Stoner
03-10-2008, 01:05 PM
Actually, the Geneva Conventions leave "terrorists" outside its protections. They are not "lawful combatants" because they do not wear uniforms and comply with other "rules of war". OUR Constitution bans "cruel and unusual PUNISHMENTS ".It doesn't explicitly say ANYTHING about torturing prisoners

They are NOT POW's or Criminal Defendants under OUR Constitution. They're more like Outlaws or Pirates who are NOT granted any rights under our Constitution. THIS is the problem in a nutshell- WHAT are they ? "Unlawful combatants" i.e. "terrorists" have NO RIGHTS under Geneva. NONE. Nada. Zip. Zero. We could have shot them out of hand if we wanted to.

Is waterboarding "torture" ? We prosecuted Japanese soldiers and German S.S. for inter alia waterboarding after W.W. II.

Personally, I think we should do it in rare, exigent circumstances when we don't have the time for more effective but time consuming techniques. But we should keep our mouths shut. To date, we have waterboarded exactly 3 people; all of whom cracked and all of whom gave up HIGHLY valuable information.

LadyLuck
03-10-2008, 01:17 PM
Actually, the Geneva Conventions leave "terrorists" outside its protections. They are not "lawful combatants"

As I already explained once The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5/3 ruling establishing that enemy combatants are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Also as I already noted here is that an enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

Please see the links in my original posts explaining all this for the source material.

Eric Stoner
03-10-2008, 01:20 PM
Jesus... Let me spell it out for you.

This what my post

Which just brings up the debate of "unlawful enemy combatants" and the idea that terrorists are not enemy combatants. Since terrorism is prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

You cut out the beggining of my first sentence "Which just brings up the debate of "unlawful enemy combatants" and the idea that".

You tried to make it sound like I said "terrorists are not enemy combatants" and that I said that as a statement. That was not what I said at all! Look at words like "debate" and "idea". You tried to manipulate what I said so that you could call me wrong. You got called on it, and now you're ignorign what you did it.

And you call me uneducated.


STOP personalizing ! Let her do that if she wants to . And, you guys are arguing
over semantics more than the merits. There are good arguments on both sides.
Do we err on the side of safeguarding ourselves ? or on being humane ?

jester214
03-10-2008, 01:28 PM
If the supreme court case being cited is Hamden V. Rumsfeld then what the court actually said is that Bush used an illegal tribunal to declare Hamden a illegal combatant and NOT a POW.

Which means that a person is protected by the Geneva convention until a competent Tribunal declares them to not be a POW.

So an enemy combatant is only protected by Geneva if he is considered a POW or until he is judged to NOT be a POW.

Sh0t
03-10-2008, 04:56 PM
We don't need torture nor do we need intelligence services. They have universally just gotten us in more trouble than they were ever worth.

Mind our own, and woe to any that would attack us when they would no longer have any moral excuse.

I love how somebody can be in military holding, yet still not be considered a POW yet.

This shit will come back to haunt us when other people treat American service people the same way.

sxybrat07
03-10-2008, 05:34 PM
We don't need torture nor do we need intelligence services. They have universally just gotten us in more trouble than they were ever worth.

Mind our own, and woe to any that would attack us when they would no longer have any moral excuse.

I love how somebody can be in military holding, yet still not be considered a POW yet.

This shit will come back to haunt us when other people treat American service people the same way.

QFT.

Wow, go figure, I agree with sh0t on something. Fuck, the world is ending.

jester214
03-10-2008, 05:58 PM
We don't need torture nor do we need intelligence services. They have universally just gotten us in more trouble than they were ever worth.

Mind our own, and woe to any that would attack us when they would no longer have any moral excuse.

I love how somebody can be in military holding, yet still not be considered a POW yet.

This shit will come back to haunt us when other people treat American service people the same way.

Isolationism just doesn't work in the society we have built.

Who exactly is going to treat Americans this way that wouldn't have done that in the first place?

Sh0t
03-10-2008, 07:33 PM
Who said anything about isolationism?

I'm talking about non-interventionism. we should have friendly commerce with all nations.

And yes, it does work. Every time we do otherwise, we suffer. The people who are peddling this idea of "isolationism doesn't work" are fucking shit heads.

Isolationism is a smear term of course, used to try and silence any opposition to our EMPIRE BUILDING. Let's just call it what it is. Empire building, period.

Most of the people in the world that reject the US today weren't our enemies a few decades ago. We can even go back to some place like Vietnam. Vietnam wanted to become a US commonwealth, like how Puerto Rico is. But we rejected that in order to get in the empire game and bail out france, taking over their mess.

The Vietnamese quoted OUR declaration of independence in their own, and looked to us for guidance. instead, we got involved in an unnecessary war that killed 60,000 Americans, untold numbers of Vietnamese, and wasted billions.

Same for Iraq, other muslims regarding our military in Saudi Arabia, and we are getting ready to have some other areas blow up in our faces soon. We will soon reap what we have sown in Latin American and Indonesia in the near future.

Oh Smedley, I'm trying sir. as best I can.

jester214
03-10-2008, 07:47 PM
Who said anything about isolationism?

I'm talking about non-interventionism. we should have friendly commerce with all nations.

And yes, it does work. Every time we do otherwise, we suffer. The people who are peddling this idea of "isolationism doesn't work" are fucking shit heads.

Isolationism is a smear term of course, used to try and silence any opposition to our EMPIRE BUILDING. Let's just call it what it is. Empire building, period.

Most of the people in the world that reject the US today weren't our enemies a few decades ago. We can even go back to some place like Vietnam. Vietnam wanted to become a US commonwealth, like how Puerto Rico is. But we rejected that in order to get in the empire game and bail out france, taking over their mess.

The Vietnamese quoted OUR declaration of independence in their own, and looked to us for guidance. instead, we got involved in an unnecessary war that killed 60,000 Americans, untold numbers of Vietnamese, and wasted billions.

Same for Iraq, other muslims regarding our military in Saudi Arabia, and we are getting ready to have some other areas blow up in our faces soon. We will soon reap what we have sown in Latin American and Indonesia in the near future.

Oh Smedley, I'm trying sir. as best I can.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Note I said "in the society we have built".

Perhaps it would have worked if we kept with it through WW2, but if we had stayed out of WW2 I still maintain the world, and us, would be in a much worse place. But I think we already had that argument.

hockeybobby
03-10-2008, 07:47 PM
Well said ShOt.
And I'll say it again: Don't be a country that they want to come and "get".

LadyLuck
03-10-2008, 08:01 PM
Who said anything about isolationism?

I'm talking about non-interventionism. we should have friendly commerce with all nations.

And yes, it does work. Every time we do otherwise, we suffer. The people who are peddling this idea of "isolationism doesn't work" are fucking shit heads.

Isolationism is a smear term of course, used to try and silence any opposition to our EMPIRE BUILDING. Let's just call it what it is. Empire building, period.

Most of the people in the world that reject the US today weren't our enemies a few decades ago. We can even go back to some place like Vietnam. Vietnam wanted to become a US commonwealth, like how Puerto Rico is. But we rejected that in order to get in the empire game and bail out france, taking over their mess.

The Vietnamese quoted OUR declaration of independence in their own, and looked to us for guidance. instead, we got involved in an unnecessary war that killed 60,000 Americans, untold numbers of Vietnamese, and wasted billions.

Same for Iraq, other muslims regarding our military in Saudi Arabia, and we are getting ready to have some other areas blow up in our faces soon. We will soon reap what we have sown in Latin American and Indonesia in the near future.

Oh Smedley, I'm trying sir. as best I can.


YES!!! Hey Shot if you haven't already you should check out the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

jester214
03-10-2008, 08:14 PM
Yeah, I'm sure if we just sit out of other countries affairs completly, things will suddenly become perfect for us.

Not. The international community would just ask us why we weren't helping out all the people who can't help themselves.

Lunarobverse
03-10-2008, 08:21 PM
Since my grasp of history isn't quite as good as djoser's, maybe you could help enlighten me. In the last 5,000 years of human history, what inhabited land areas has no-one else wanted to come and get? For the most part, it seems the choices were to be a "getter" or a "gettee".

Why should we limit ourselves by what happened in the past?

Leaders lead. They create new ideas and promote them. Our founding fathers weren't limited in their vision for what could be. Let's build on that.

I mean, if we're gonna dream, why not dream big?

I think, and have thought for a while, that the world needs a New Enlightenment. I'm working towards it. How about you?

Casual Observer
03-10-2008, 08:30 PM
And I'll say it again: Don't be a country that they want to come and "get".

Not possible. International relations and the global balance of power is a zero-sum game; if you're not gaining power or position, you're losing power or position. That's just how it is. Americans are spoiled and ignorant of the benefits of American hegemony in their everyday lives; life as they know it would cease to exist if not for our constant efforts at preserving our hegemonic status. This is not unique to the US; all nations seek to maximize their own interest and position in the world.


If we catch a terrorist tommorow who has information on an attack that is going to hurt you or your loved ones, should we put him in a cell with his lawyer and hope everything works out??

What is this, some lame-ass B-movie script? Let's deal in reality, for just a moment.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm all for a powerful and proactive intelligence community, engaged in covert operations with SOCOM units in a concerted, protracted and quiet effort to capture and/or kill terror suspects wherever they live, in support of American foreign policy goals and that of our allies and would-be allies--and with extreme prejudice. I'll also submit that interrogations need not be necessarily pleasant or comfortable--I have no problem with temperature differentials, sleep/caffeine/nicotine deprivation, stress positions or solitary confinement--but when we can extract information via rapport, persuasion and subterfuge, we should do so as the quality of the information will invariably be of higher quality.

That said, torturing people immediately places the value of information extracted into a dubious category, both legally and strategically. Moreover, we lose the moral high ground which, in a battle of ideologies--which is exactly what we're experiencing--is essential to our long-term goals with regard to Islamist fanaticism. Surrendering our humanity and civility, even in matters as grave and dirty as conduct in covert wars, renders us equal to the reviled people to whom we are ostensibly superior.

jester214
03-10-2008, 08:34 PM
What is this, some lame-ass B-movie script? Let's deal in reality, for just a moment.


No, it was a response to him asking if I would let them use waterboarding on me or my loved ones. How exactly is that reality?

And I honestly don't beleive that YOU can't see beyond the question to the point.

Lunarobverse
03-10-2008, 08:59 PM
No, it was a response to him asking if I would let them use waterboarding on me or my loved ones. How exactly is that reality?

Then you misunderstood me. I didn't ask if some vague "they" could waterboard you or your loved ones. I wanted to know if you'd let me and my friends waterboard you or your loved ones. It wasn't theoretical. I've read how its done. I can do it. I just need someone to practice it on. I figured the best person to practice on would be the next person who tried to claim the "pro torture" side in this argument. You gonna volunteer? Your family, your children (if they're over 18, of course. I'm not a monster). Let's not deal in theories, here. I'm feeling... experimental.

Of course, since you seem to be arguing it ain't torture, no problem, right? Won't take very long to solve this and move on. I think it is, but I'm willing to be open-minded.

jester214
03-10-2008, 09:06 PM
Then you misunderstood me. I didn't ask if some vague "they" could waterboard you or your loved ones. I wanted to know if you'd let me and my friends waterboard you or your loved ones. It wasn't theoretical. I've read how its done. I can do it. I just need someone to practice it on. I figured the best person to practice on would be the next person who tried to claim the "pro torture" side in this argument. You gonna volunteer? Your family, your children (if they're over 18, of course. I'm not a monster). Let's not deal in theories, here. I'm feeling... experimental.

Of course, since you seem to be arguing it ain't torture, no problem, right? Won't take very long to solve this and move on. I think it is, but I'm willing to be open-minded.

Well I can't speak for my family, it would be up to them. But yeah, I'd let you waterboard me. I've always been curious about what it actually feels like.

Lunarobverse
03-10-2008, 09:12 PM
Well I can't speak for my family, it would be up to them. But yeah, I'd let you waterboard me. I've always been curious about what it actually feels like.

Cool. When ya coming to Portland? I'll buy you some lapdances afterward!

jester214
03-10-2008, 09:16 PM
Cool. When ya coming to Portland? I'll buy you some lapdances afterward!

Hmm maybe I should look for some clients out there... ;D

Eric Stoner
03-11-2008, 09:51 AM
Cool. When ya coming to Portland? I'll buy you some lapdances afterward!

What a weird "play-date".

Eric Stoner
03-11-2008, 12:33 PM
As I already explained once The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5/3 ruling establishing that enemy combatants are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Also as I already noted here is that an enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

Please see the links in my original posts explaining all this for the source material.

That is NOT what the Supreme Court said. They said that Bush did not have unbridled , unreviewable authority to determine all by himself who was and who was not an "unlawful combatant". Under OUR Constitution; NOT the Geneva Conventions, the detainees were entitled to a basic hearing process for them to challenge their status as "unlawful combatants".

LadyLuck
03-11-2008, 02:59 PM
:rolls eyes: I guess you have never heard of legal precendence.

Not to mention I cited two cases. One case says that enemy combatants are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. The other defines who is an enemy combatant.

Also as UN members the USA is required to honor those agreements.

Besides torture being a violation of Geneva it is also a violation of the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN
OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.

Here are a few selection from that UN agreement which apply perfectly to this discussion. For those defending the act of torture please take special note of article 2.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.


Article 2

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.



I don't give a rats ass how much you pro torture people try to spin it but you are just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on every effn level. It's not legal, it's not moral and it's not even effective.

LadyLuck
03-11-2008, 03:18 PM
Forgot to add that in addition to the Supeme Court rulings the 1958 analysis of Geneva asserted that under international law, ALL detainees are either POWs, civilians, or medical personnel- regardless of whether a particular leader or country chooses to apply a particular term to them are covered by the Geneva. It says:

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.

(Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 1958)

So whichever way one attempts to look at the situation the answer is torture is a violation of Geneva and the UN agreement. There are no exceptions. Period.

Melonie
03-11-2008, 04:04 PM
Americans are spoiled and ignorant of the benefits of American hegemony in their everyday lives; life as they know it would cease to exist if not for our constant efforts at preserving our hegemonic status.

All too true ! IMHO it will ultimately require the loss of American Hegemony ... which is slipping away by the day already ... to drive home the point to many Americans the ultimate consequences of 'playing nice'. And unlike the loss of British Hegemon status in the first half of the 20th century, there won't be any other country that is willing or able to step up and spend their own blood and gold to cover America's ass after it happens.

jester214
03-11-2008, 04:31 PM
The Geneva discusses when it itself is applicable, and talks about "High Contracting Parties" Terrorist groups are not "High Contracting Parties" therefore they are not allowed anything under the Geneva Convention.

As to the UN Convention against Torture... You're wrong again, when the US ratified this convention they also declared that the convention meant nothing due to certain Constitutional law. Basically they ratified it, but at the same time said it meant nothing.

On top of those two points, the world has changed... Terrorism and the way it is practiced has become something new which the Geneva, among other things, isn't equipped to handle.

jester214
03-11-2008, 04:36 PM
To answer your first question.

He is just sick!

See things like this make i more presmisble to live in other countries

Amnesty Internation estimates at least 75% of countries practice torture.

Eric Stoner
03-12-2008, 11:09 AM
:rolls eyes: I guess you have never heard of legal precendence.

Not to mention I cited two cases. One case says that enemy combatants are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. The other defines who is an enemy combatant.

Also as UN members the USA is required to honor those agreements.

Besides torture being a violation of Geneva it is also a violation of the United Nations CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN
OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.

Here are a few selection from that UN agreement which apply perfectly to this discussion. For those defending the act of torture please take special note of article 2.

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.


Article 2

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/pdf/07e.pdf

I don't give a rats ass how much you pro torture people try to spin it but you are just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on every effn level. It's not legal, it's not moral and it's not even effective.

I think you mean "P R E C E D E N T " which refers to PRIOR Supreme Court cases which in turn are entitled to deference and respect and are only overruled in rare cases. The U.N and Geneva conventions do NOT have the force of law unless they were specifically ratified and adopted by the U.S. Senate.

Lawful combatants are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. Iraqi Army prisoners were given full Geneva protections as they clearly were POW's.
Civilian non combatants are entitled to protections. More on this below.
"Suspected" terrorists ( where U.S. personnel did NOT personally witness their alleged activity i.e. we detained them based on what informants said) are arguably entitled to minimal Due Process rights and protection. Under OUR Constitution; NOT Geneva; NOT the U.N. They are "ARMED CIVILIANS ACTIVELY FIGHTING " who are now in our custody. Unarmed civilian NON COMBATANTS are entitled to protections NOT under OUR Constitution ( not citizens or persons on U.S. soil) but under the Geneva Conventions. ARMED civilians are NOT !

WHO do you claim are the "unarmed civilian non combatants" in our custody ?
Khalid Sheikh Muhammed who admitted planning 9/11 ?
The very Geneva Convention you cite CLEARLY defines who is and who is NOT an enemy combatant and NONE of our detainess meet any of the criteria.

All that being said, our hands are NOT as clean as I would prefer. We have knowingly used renditions to send certain detainees to other countries where we knew or should known they would be tortured. Abu Gharib was a horror show but that involved National Guard and Reserve amateurs who were NOT properly supervised. There are arguably some detainees at Gitmo who are there based solely on unconfirmed hearsay or who were turned over to us by tribal rivals in Afghanistan or under other shaky circumstances.

The Bush Administration argued that detainees at Guantanamo were not entitled to Constitutional protection because they were not on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Bush also argued that as C in C he had the authority to declare anyone an "unlawful combatant". That was rejected. Jose Padilla was eventually treated like a criminal defendant BUT he was a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S.

I actually agree with you in large part on the morality and effectiveness of using torture. However, there are LEGAL aspects that are not as cut and dried as you claim. It is not clear that waterboarding is "torture" as strictly defined. It doesn't involve pain and doesn't leave permanent injury although it's hardly a pleasant or benign experience. Afaik, based on the facts as known, we've used it three times on three high level Al Queda detainees who resisted all other techniques and it worked.

There are some International Conventions that provide MINIMAL humanitarian protection for "rebels" ; insurgents and the like. We have NEVER signed or ratified them. Neither has any other major country with International involvement and responsibilities. Even under these conventions, the Al Queda detainees do NOT qualify as they are NOT INDIGENOUS to a signatory country, fighting against the government
of that country, OPENLY, under an organized command, IN UNIFORM, and ARE THEMSELVES OBSERVING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

hockeybobby
03-12-2008, 12:02 PM
Since my grasp of history isn't quite as good as djoser's, maybe you could help enlighten me. In the last 5,000 years of human history, what inhabited land areas has no-one else wanted to come and get? For the most part, it seems the choices were to be a "getter" or a "gettee".

I'm talking about the "I hate you fuckers so I'm gonna blow up your kids" type of "get". The kind of hatred that is fomented when inter alia your country sanctions torture.
hb

jester214
03-12-2008, 12:04 PM
^^Very well put Eric.

LadyLuck
03-12-2008, 12:26 PM
Eric,

You and the other pro-torture people are just plain wrong and I have proven it too.

The Supreme Court says your wrong.

The UN says your wrong.

The Geneva says your wrong.

The Red Cross and all the other humanitarian and human rights groups say your wrong.

Those are the facts no matter how much or how often you try to spin it otherwise.

You are defending the indefensible and quite honestly it's REVOLTING.

I'm out of this now.

Eric Stoner
03-12-2008, 12:56 PM
Eric,

You and the other pro-torture people are just plain wrong and I have proven it too.

The Supreme Court says your wrong.

The UN says your wrong.

The Geneva says your wrong.

The Red Cross and all the other humanitarian and human rights groups say your wrong.

Those are the facts no matter how much or how often you try to spin it otherwise.

You are defending the indefensible and quite honestly it's REVOLTING.

I'm out of this now.


I appreciate your passion and, as I've said, I partially agree with you on the moral and effectiveness aspects of torture. BUT there's no getting around the reality that you've garbled the facts on both the Geneva Conventions and recent Supreme Court cases. And when I , or Jester, or others who are versed in this area, challenge your apparent factual delinquency, you do not engage in discussion but instead personally attack us and, at least in my case, deliberately misunderstand me so that you can launch an emotional attack.

Frankly, I think it's either your own insecurity OR embarrassment in being caught writing without proper factual support. You literally DEMAND that we adopt your misreading of both the Geneva Conventions and recent Supreme Court cases even though it's been clearly demonstrated that you have misinterpreted and misapplied both. When we refuse to do so and show that you are mistaken, all you can do is try to label us.

I have NOT defended torture. I have NOT defended willful, wholesale disregard of the Geneva Conventions. I have consistently opposed most of the Bush Administration's position on his authority as C in C ; on judicial review; on renditions and on some of their misinterpretations of the Geneva Conventions.

Until you can deal with the difference between LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL combatants as Geneva does; between ARMED and UNARMED civilians and until you actually sit down and READ the Majority decisions in those Supreme Court decisions you cite ; then maybe you ought to take a "time out" until you are better informed.

jester214
03-12-2008, 02:59 PM
I appreciate your passion and, as I've said, I partially agree with you on the moral and effectiveness aspects of torture. BUT there's no getting around the reality that you've garbled the facts on both the Geneva Conventions and recent Supreme Court cases. And when I , or Jester, or others who are versed in this area, challenge your apparent factual delinquency, you do not engage in discussion but instead personally attack us and, at least in my case, deliberately misunderstand me so that you can launch an emotional attack.

Frankly, I think it's either your own insecurity OR embarrassment in being caught writing without proper factual support. You literally DEMAND that we adopt your misreading of both the Geneva Conventions and recent Supreme Court cases even though it's been clearly demonstrated that you have misinterpreted and misapplied both. When we refuse to do so and show that you are mistaken, all you can do is try to label us.

I have NOT defended torture. I have NOT defended willful, wholesale disregard of the Geneva Conventions. I have consistently opposed most of the Bush Administration's position on his authority as C in C ; on judicial review; on renditions and on some of their misinterpretations of the Geneva Conventions.

Until you can deal with the difference between LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL combatants as Geneva does; between ARMED and UNARMED civilians and until you actually sit down and READ the Majority decisions in those Supreme Court decisions you cite ; then maybe you ought to take a "time out" until you are better informed.

Quit trying Eric, whatever news source ladyluck uses have told her she is right... And like the sheep she is, she can't see past that.

Eric Stoner
03-13-2008, 09:40 AM
Quit trying Eric, whatever news source ladyluck uses have told her she is right... And like the sheep she is, she can't see past that.

Well ,maybe one of these days she'll learn to separate feelings from facts.
It's certainly not unique to her. Too many people confuse gut reactions with actual realities on both sides of the political spectrum. When one of her pet ideas is shown to be incorrect she reacts as though we ran over her dog or smacked her child's face. Hopefully, she'll try to be more tolerant of different ideas and learn to better document her positions.

Btw, it wouldn't hurt if YOU tried NOT to personalize and keep the discussion on a higher plane.

Paris
03-13-2008, 10:43 AM
^^^ arguably, it has been precisely because the CIA has been able to use 'enhanced interrogation techniques' in counter-terrorism efforts, that the US has been able to gather sufficient intel to thwart subsequent terrorist attacks on US (and western European) soil since 9/11. Had this bill been signed into law as-is, it would have placed the supposed 'rights' of foreign terrorists above the right of average Americans to be reasonably secure against terrorist attacks on US soil. It would also have created a potentially impossible liability issue for American intelligence service personnel ... where in exchange for preventing a terrorist attack they would be exposed not only to public disclosure of their identities via civil lawsuits by thwarted terrorists, but also possibly personally liable for paying cash settlements to the thwarted terrorists !

No matter how you argue it, two wrongs do not make a right. Torture is wrong. Anyone who wishes to call themselves a human rights advocate (like the US, maybe?) cannot condone torture.

Torture doesn't work anyway. People will admit to anything under torture, even if they have no actual knowledge of what they are admitting to.

Eric Stoner
03-13-2008, 12:01 PM
No matter how you argue it, two wrongs do not make a right. Torture is wrong. Anyone who wishes to call themselves a human rights advocate (like the US, maybe?) cannot condone torture.

Torture doesn't work anyway. People will admit to anything under torture, even if they have no actual knowledge of what they are admitting to.

Torture DOES work sometimes BUT it is NOT reliable. The U.S. should NOT be torturing anybody. We're better than that. We're signatories to the Geneva Conventions. It's immoral and we've prosecuted Germans and Japanese for torturing our prisoners.

The problem is there is a fine line between "torture" and coercive interrogation techniques. Afaic waterboarding is torture even though it does not precisely fit the textbook definition.
What about sleep deprivation ? Use of very small cells where the prisoner can't stand upright ? Use of very cold or very hot rooms ?
All very effective and none are universally recognized as "torture" per se.

hockeybobby
03-13-2008, 12:06 PM
The way things usually work is this: Citizens may do anything except that which is expressly forbidden by law. Governments may do only that which is expressly permitted by law. Keeps things simple.

Paris
03-13-2008, 01:13 PM
Torture DOES work sometimes BUT it is NOT reliable. The U.S. should NOT be torturing anybody. We're better than that. We're signatories to the Geneva Conventions. It's immoral and we've prosecuted Germans and Japanese for torturing our prisoners.

The problem is there is a fine line between "torture" and coercive interrogation techniques. Afaic waterboarding is torture even though it does not precisely fit the textbook definition.
What about sleep deprivation ? Use of very small cells where the prisoner can't stand upright ? Use of very cold or very hot rooms ?
All very effective and none are universally recognized as "torture" per se.

It just seems to go against logic that to make a person very uncomfortable that any information gained would be suspect at best. If a person feels safe and comfortable, the information gained from that individual is much more creditable than any info gained using coercion techniques.

What torture does accomplish is the implantation of false memories. This works the same way PTSD does on the brain. When information or ideas are given while a person is under stress, the ideas take hold as being an original thought or memory. It is possible to implant false memories in humans and have those same people swear that the memory is absolutely real.

Stated testimony is the least accurate of any evidence. Stated testimony without corroborating evidence or other similar (uncoerced) witness statements is all but useless. Our minds and our memories are amazing, but are also frequently wrong. We fabricate much of what we remember in our everyday lives.

Place a person under stress and tell him over and over and over what it is that he was supposed to have done, and he will add in his own details (from his own imagination). This is a really lousy way to gain intelligence to use in a war time situation. What is the point if you really don't know what is real and what is implanted memories?

Might as well treat our POWs well, and get information from implanted co-conspirators. Cops have used this method to bust mobsters for decades. The information and evidence gained is solid.

I have always assumed that people that condone torture as an interrogation technique gain sadistic pleasure from the administration of said torture. Otherwise, torture conducted by a person that is loathe to harm others would never happen. Most people find it repulsive to harm a defenseless person.

Eric Stoner
03-13-2008, 01:37 PM
Famous psychological experiments have established how EASY it is to get otherwise decent people to inflict pain on others or more accurately THINK that's what they're doing. In the experiment, the subject read questions to an unseenm person. They were instructed to push a button every time an incorrect answer was given and were told that it administered an electric shock to the "test-taker".
They were also told that the voltage increased with every incorrect answer.
As the voltage "increased" and they could hear a gasp become an "ouch" and turn into a painful scream they were instructed to continue; even when the screaming stopped and the test-taker had presumably fainted. Most continued with the experiment. Some voiced objections but very few stood up and refused to continue when they 'knew" they were hurting someone else.

In a similar experiment ,they could see the "test-taker"' strapped down in a chair with wires attached and could see their painful reactions ( they were acting ) and most still followed orders and continued rather than stand up and refuse.

Implanted co-conspirators with terrorists is basically impossible. These groups are very hard to infiltrate and members are required to kill; to make bombs etc.

All that being said , I agree that torture generally produces unreliable information.

jester214
03-13-2008, 02:04 PM
It just seems to go against logic that to make a person very uncomfortable that any information gained would be suspect at best. If a person feels safe and comfortable, the information gained from that individual is much more creditable than any info gained using coercion techniques.

What torture does accomplish is the implantation of false memories. This works the same way PTSD does on the brain. When information or ideas are given while a person is under stress, the ideas take hold as being an original thought or memory. It is possible to implant false memories in humans and have those same people swear that the memory is absolutely real.

Stated testimony is the least accurate of any evidence. Stated testimony without corroborating evidence or other similar (uncoerced) witness statements is all but useless. Our minds and our memories are amazing, but are also frequently wrong. We fabricate much of what we remember in our everyday lives.

Place a person under stress and tell him over and over and over what it is that he was supposed to have done, and he will add in his own details (from his own imagination). This is a really lousy way to gain intelligence to use in a war time situation. What is the point if you really don't know what is real and what is implanted memories?

Might as well treat our POWs well, and get information from implanted co-conspirators. Cops have used this method to bust mobsters for decades. The information and evidence gained is solid.

I have always assumed that people that condone torture as an interrogation technique gain sadistic pleasure from the administration of said torture. Otherwise, torture conducted by a person that is loathe to harm others would never happen. Most people find it repulsive to harm a defenseless person.

So what do you suggest we do? If we find someone who probably has information about terrorism should we just arrest them and leave them alone? Or maybe we should have them over for tea and they'll decide to be nice guys and tell us everything.

I personally think it's better to get some false information with the right information than get none at all.

jester214
03-13-2008, 02:06 PM
Btw, it wouldn't hurt if YOU tried NOT to personalize and keep the discussion on a higher plane.

Don't you mean YOU?? We're the same person remember, :P.

You're right, I just got a little angry when she distorted my post to intentionally misquote me so she could call me wrong...

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 02:17 PM
So what do you suggest we do? If we find someone who probably has information about terrorism should we just arrest them and leave them alone? Or maybe we should have them over for tea and they'll decide to be nice guys and tell us everything.

I personally think it's better to get some false information with the right information than get none at all.

...as if those are the only two options. **cough**falsedichotomy**cough**

The other thing that I don't get about this whole "we must torture them or innocents may die!!!!" thing is that there's a strange assumption of responsibility. If policeman A captures suspect B who may or may not be involved in act of terrorism T... and policeman A tries but is unable to prevent action T from occurring... it's not policeman A's responsibility. The responsibility lies with, y'know, the people who actually committed act of terrorism T.

jester214
03-13-2008, 02:35 PM
...as if those are the only two options. **cough**falsedichotomy**cough**

The other thing that I don't get about this whole "we must torture them or innocents may die!!!!" thing is that there's a strange assumption of responsibility. If policeman A captures suspect B who may or may not be involved in act of terrorism T... and policeman A tries but is unable to prevent action T from occurring... it's not policeman A's responsibility. The responsibility lies with, y'know, the people who actually committed act of terrorism T.

Certainly those aren't the only two options, but I was refuting a specific argument. On my side of the table I don't just get to go "torture is bad" and be done with it. Sure it's never his fault, if he tries... If instead he captures them and decides to sit them down in a cell and hand them a lawyer without them requesting one and sit back and make sure they're comfy and happy then yeah I think some blame could rest on their shoulders...

Just like the way we blame "society" for a lot of things that happen to people these days.

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 03:06 PM
Certainly those aren't the only two options, but I was refuting a specific argument. On my side of the table I don't just get to go "torture is bad" and be done with it. Sure it's never his fault, if he tries... If instead he captures them and decides to sit them down in a cell and hand them a lawyer without them requesting one and sit back and make sure they're comfy and happy then yeah I think some blame could rest on their shoulders...

You see gray areas when it comes to torture, to wit, "On my side of the table I don't just get to go 'torture is bad' and be done with it."

But you see no gray areas in the arguments used against your position. You appear to boil things down into black-and-white situations - either you're torturing captives to get all information out of them, good or bad... or you're putting them up in a hotel room and doing nothing.

But I just called you on that lack of respect for the other person's arguments and you said it was a specific refutation for a specific argument.

So if I try to pin you down again, you'll back away into generalizations and evade having to give up even an inch of rhetorical ground.

I completely understand why so many people give up arguing you. Your tactics are not respectful of your opponent nor are they internally consistent.

I would have a lot more respect for you (if you care about such a thing) if you would be willing to admit to a degree of error in your own thinking and if you would use the same rules for yourself as you apply to your opponents. Just sayin'.

jester214
03-13-2008, 03:20 PM
You see gray areas when it comes to torture, to wit, "On my side of the table I don't just get to go 'torture is bad' and be done with it."

But you see no gray areas in the arguments used against your position. You appear to boil things down into black-and-white situations - either you're torturing captives to get all information out of them, good or bad... or you're putting them up in a hotel room and doing nothing.

But I just called you on that lack of respect for the other person's arguments and you said it was a specific refutation for a specific argument.

So if I try to pin you down again, you'll back away into generalizations and evade having to give up even an inch of rhetorical ground.

I completely understand why so many people give up arguing you. Your tactics are not respectful of your opponent nor are they internally consistent.

I would have a lot more respect for you (if you care about such a thing) if you would be willing to admit to a degree of error in your own thinking and if you would use the same rules for yourself as you apply to your opponents. Just sayin'.

I use "black and white" to make a point, if a person can't see past that then I really don't care what they think. Of course I cede that my hypotheticals are just that; hypotheticals. Yet I don't see how there worse than the people who say "torture doesn't work period" or how they just say "it's awful period" and that's the extent of their argument.

What lack of respect? For paris? Her entire post centered around how torture doesn't work. If that's not black and white I don't know what is.

So many people? I know of one: LadyLuck. She took one of my posts, quoted it, cut out half a sentence to totally changed the meaning, and then told me I was wrong based on her doing that... So as far as her I really don't give a damn because she was outright deceitful.

I would enjoy your respect, but I don't need it. I also think that you're holding me to a higher standard based on my stance. I "can't" present a obviously hypothetical "black and white" argument to make a point. Yet others whole argument can be black and white but that doesn't seem to bother you.

The "I can't just say torture is bad and be done with it" comment was pointing out that certain people have taken that route and haven't come under the scrutiny I've gotten.

Lunarobverse
03-13-2008, 03:42 PM
I use "black and white" to make a point, if a person can't see past that then I really don't care what they think. Of course I cede that my hypotheticals are just that; hypotheticals. Yet I don't see how there worse than the people who say "torture doesn't work period" or how they just say "it's awful period" and that's the extent of their argument.

What lack of respect? For paris? Her entire post centered around how torture doesn't work. If that's not black and white I don't know what is.

So many people? I know of one: LadyLuck. She took one of my posts, quoted it, cut out half a sentence to totally changed the meaning, and then told me I was wrong based on her doing that... So as far as her I really don't give a damn because she was outright deceitful.

I would enjoy your respect, but I don't need it. I also think that you're holding me to a higher standard based on my stance. I "can't" present a obviously hypothetical "black and white" argument to make a point. Yet others whole argument can be black and white but that doesn't seem to bother you.

The "I can't just say torture is bad and be done with it" comment was pointing out that certain people have taken that route and haven't come under the scrutiny I've gotten.

Taking a position is not the same as "black and white" arguing. What I'm talking about is mischaracterizing the arguments against you, presenting them in very simple ways, and then claiming that "of course" those arguments don't stand up to the "real world" arguments you present.

Like the whole "having tea with the terrorists" thing you keep pulling out, or the image of the police bending over backwards to make "terrorists" comfy. That's an oversimplification of the argument that using non-coercive but smart and humane interrogation techniques would a) yield better data that b) could be admitted in court by not being tainted, c) would improve, rather than degrade, our (the interrogator's) esteem in the world community, d) would abide by the various laws and treaties under which civilized nations operate, and e) do a better job of influencing those who wish us harm into becoming neutral or even friendly towards us. But by presenting that as a straw man "coddle the terrorists" view you're not respecting the full argument.

And I don't argue against moderators, and I can't argue against people I have on ignore. That leaves you. ;D At least you're a good sport about it.

Paris
03-13-2008, 04:00 PM
I personally think it's better to get some false information with the right information than get none at all.

That is the exact thing that got us into Iraq in the first place. There was just enough verifiable "real" info mixed in with the false WMD info to cost us thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars.

What do I suggest? Butt out of things that are none of our fucking business. That is what brought on the attacks on 9/11 in the first place. It's called "blow back". We were beating a hornets nest with a stick, and guess what? Hornets don't take kindly to having their nest beaten.

There is a book out called "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind (http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Doctrine-Americas-Pursuit/dp/B0012F7ULE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205448313&sr=8-1). (word of warning, read this with the lights on, it will scare the shit out of you) I highly recommend this book to help folks get an idea as to why we are fighting in Iraq (and not in Pakistan, where the head bad guy lives). It is a totally bullshit war. It is a war over nothing, and our leaders that took us to war KNEW IT.

The whole topic of whether to torture or not to torture pisses me off!:banghead:
What if we torture someone who is innocent by mistake? Some poor farmer or cab driver or clergyman or community business leader who shares the name of a wanted terrorist, or bears a resemblance to a wanted terrorist is tortured by accident? That is absolutely unacceptable. And IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

What if your brother/husband/son/father was captured because his name was sort of like that of a wanted terrorist? Would you sit around on your ass and just say "Oh, well. I guess war is hell, right?" No! You would plot revenge.

Pay back is a bitch, ain't it?

ETA: I challenge anyone to name one good thing that has come about from the direct result of torturing someone. (I'm talking about verifiable facts with historical relevance, not religious practices of martyrdom)

hockeybobby
03-13-2008, 04:11 PM
^^^:heartbeat Paris :heartbeat

jester214
03-13-2008, 04:19 PM
That is the exact thing that got us into Iraq in the first place. There was just enough verifiable "real" info mixed in with the false WMD info to cost us thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars.

What do I suggest? Butt out of things that are none of our fucking business. That is what brought on the attacks on 9/11 in the first place. It's called "blow back". We were beating a hornets nest with a stick, and guess what? Hornets don't take kindly to having their nest beaten.

There is a book out called "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind (http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Doctrine-Americas-Pursuit/dp/B0012F7ULE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205448313&sr=8-1). (word of warning, read this with the lights on, it will scare the shit out of you) I highly recommend this book to help folks get an idea as to why we are fighting in Iraq (and not in Pakistan, where the head bad guy lives). It is a totally bullshit war. It is a war over nothing, and our leaders that took us to war KNEW IT.

The whole topic of whether to torture or not to torture pisses me off!:banghead:
What if we torture someone who is innocent by mistake? Some poor farmer or cab driver or clergyman or community business leader who shares the name of a wanted terrorist, or bears a resemblance to a wanted terrorist is tortured by accident? That is absolutely unacceptable. And IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

What if your brother/husband/son/father was captured because his name was sort of like that of a wanted terrorist? Would you sit around on your ass and just say "Oh, well. I guess war is hell, right?" No! You would plot revenge.

Pay back is a bitch, ain't it?

ETA: I challenge anyone to name one good thing that has come about from the direct result of torturing someone. (I'm talking about verifiable facts with historical relevance, not religious practices of martyrdom)

Well unless the only people we've ever tortured were innocent then under you're own reasoning we would have gotten information. If I know something and I'm being tortured and I want it to stop, am I really going to go to the trouble of making something fake up to stop and it hope that it works, or am I going to tell the truth? Seems pretty simple...

You say "what if" ok I'll agree that happens, but what about my "what if" that happens every day too.

Right off I can't think of any example that you would be satisfied with, although I know we have gotten reliable intelligence with waterboarding.

But let's say your right, torture doesn't work... Why do we still train out people to resist torture??

jester214
03-13-2008, 04:25 PM
oh, and I forgot, if the discussion bother you that much, feel free to leave.