This quote is really disturbing to me. Why is it Gimmie you never have a problem standing up for the enemy and can never stand tall and proud for our own troops. The torture in guan bothers you more then the torture fo our own troops. :?
i stand up for human rights over all laws.
the difference between you and me is that you see torture of our troops as bad. i see all torture as bad. i view our troops as invaders of a foreign land, breaking international law. they know the risks of what can happen to them, and they were willing participants in breaking international law and waging aggressive war. if the taliban catches and tortures our guys it is not the afghan government, but a rogue terrorist organization who is not bound by international law.
i feel that locking up people who may or may not have been enemy combatants in gitmo without charges and my government, who IS bounf by international law torturing the shit out of them is dead wrong.
OK, understood. But you could do a little more "terorist torturing american troops" bashing also.
This quote is really disturbing to me. Why is it Gimmie you never have a problem standing up for the enemy and can never stand tall and proud for our own troops. The torture in guan bothers you more then the torture fo our own troops. :?
i stand up for human rights over all laws.
the difference between you and me is that you see torture of our troops as bad. i see all torture as bad. i view our troops as invaders of a foreign land, breaking international law. they know the risks of what can happen to them, and they were willing participants in breaking international law and waging aggressive war. if the taliban catches and tortures our guys it is not the afghan government, but a rogue terrorist organization who is not bound by international law.
i feel that locking up people who may or may not have been enemy combatants in gitmo without charges and my government, who IS bounf by international law torturing the shit out of them is dead wrong.
OK, understood. But you could do a little more "terorist torturing american troops" bashing also.
i will post where i feel it is applicable. over the last 7 years i have condemned the torturing of our troops as pows. but that is war. the people in gitmo and other black site prisons run by the cia, some even minors at the time of arrest have not even been formally charged or tried, they have had no due process. yet our government says it is ok to do unspeakable violence to them and violate their human rights. our government is CLEARLY in the wrong in this case, and i will not defend a government that completely ignores international law and wipes it's arse with the international treaties that it has signed and agreed to...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
SADAAM HUSSEIN HIMSELF IS/WAS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!!!!
as were the bush-cheney-rumsfeld trio comico
inflicting mass destruction on iraqi innocents and our own people
and we're still in afghanistan leaving wakes of destruction and have made very little progress in reigning in this problem
and bin laden? still can't find him
we cannot match the fervor with which these people fight
yet we continue
the end is nowhere near in sight and the mass destruction will continue.
I'm only going to guess that you haven't done very much research on S.H.
again i will agree
that hussein was a weapon of mass destruction
again no argument here
but so were the buck passing b, c, r, . .
we are supposed to be better than that
bush used 9/11 as a segue into iraq
and i will never believe otherwise
if I never posted another thing about nobama do you think the bush bashing would stop ?
I doubt it because everybody needs to point the finger at somebody even if it does not matter anymore,
he's out he's history but instead of moving forward everybody looks back and points, but as you wish I will agree to your proposal, and don't sell your self short your great at infantile speak,your the best !
Godfather.
...
But, that is the problem... you HAVE been whinning and crying about Obama. So, it makes it appear that you are either being hypocritical or you are too stupid to know what you are saying. Which is it?
As for Bush... It DOES matter because he is the one who is responsible for creating the situations we are facing today. I find it hard that you cannot comprehend this.
Let me try to put it in the simplest of examples...
Let's say, you buy a car. The previous owner puts battery acid in the gas tank.
You are the one who owns it now... so, yes, you have to fix it. Does that mean you are the one responsible for the current condition of the car?
What you are telling me... is that you would not hold the seller responsible for his actions... simply becase he no longer owns the car. I that how you see it? Is that how you define 'responsibility'?
if I never posted another thing about nobama do you think the bush bashing would stop ?
I doubt it because everybody needs to point the finger at somebody even if it does not matter anymore,
he's out he's history but instead of moving forward everybody looks back and points, but as you wish I will agree to your proposal, and don't sell your self short your great at infantile speak,your the best !
Godfather.
...
But, that is the problem... you HAVE been whinning and crying about Obama. So, it makes it appear that you are either being hypocritical or you are too stupid to know what you are saying. Which is it?
As for Bush... It DOES matter because he is the one who is responsible for creating the situations we are facing today. I find it hard that you cannot comprehend this.
Let me try to put it in the simplest of examples...
Let's say, you buy a car. The previous owner puts battery acid in the gas tank.
You are the one who owns it now... so, yes, you have to fix it. Does that mean you are the one responsible for the current condition of the car?
What you are telling me... is that you would not hold the seller responsible for his actions... simply becase he no longer owns the car. I that how you see it? Is that how you define 'responsibility'?
anything you say old man
Godfather.
...
Great. I'm glad you cleared that up. You believe that you are responsible for things left behind by others. I guess you and I just have to agree that we have very differing views on personal responsibility.
peace...
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
fu*kin A right,our country was attacked and Bush did what needed to be done,all you soft limp wristed people need to quit whinning and try standing up for your country ...just once !
Godfather.
Do you think the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11?
we're Americans,we don't take no crap ! God Bless America
Godfather.
"If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years."
- Hunter S. Thompson
If lives are at stake, why not extract the information however necessary? It's absurd to put lives in jeopardy because we might hurt someone's "feelings."
'Torture may produce information, but it doesn't produce reliable information, as every experienced interrogator I have spoken with repeatedly tells me – on both sides of the Atlantic. It produces the information that the subject believes the interrogator wants to hear.'
- Philippe Sands
United Nations Convention Against Torture
The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are Articles 1, 2, 3, and the first paragraph of Article 16.
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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
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 ("refouler") 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.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
If lives are at stake, why not extract the information however necessary? It's absurd to put lives in jeopardy because we might hurt someone's "feelings."
The reasons why torture is wrong can be divided into reasons of pure principle and reasons based on the bad consequences of torture. Both sorts of reason are valid.
Reasons of principle
* Torture treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves
o it treats the victim as a 'thing', not as a person with all the value that we associate with persons
o torturers often explicitly dehumanise their victims to make it easier to torture them
o it uses the physical body of the victim not as a component part of a person of value, but as a tool to achieve the aims of the torturer
[Torture] dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain.Kenneth Roth, Getting Away with Torture, Global Governance, 2005
* Torture is sometimes used to destroy the autonomy of the victim
o some societies have used torture to suppress independent thought and convert people to 'right-thinking'. The individual is tortured until they abandon their own views and beliefs and adopt those of the torturers. The victim ceases to be an 'end in themselves' but becomes just another means to support the regime of the torturer
* Torture violates the rights and human dignity of the victim, including
o the legal right to remain silent when questioned
Consequentialist reasons
Consequentialist reasons why torture is wrong
* Torture is a slippery slope - each act of torture makes it easier to accept the use of torture in the future
* Torture is an ineffective interrogation tool
o It may well produce false information because under torture a prisoner will eventually say anything to stop the pain - regardless of whether it is true
o Because of this the interrogator can never be 'sure' that they are getting the truth and will never know when to stop
o More effective methods of interrogation that don't involve torture are available
o If a suspect is tortured it may be impossible to prosecute them successfully - British common law excludes involuntary statements or confessions on the ground that such evidence is inherently unreliable
* Torture damages the humanity of the torturers
o Those who carry out torture are likely to become brutalised by their acts, and desensitised to humanity
o The more acts of torture a person carries out, the more likely they are to carry out torture
* Torture damages the institution that carries it out
o It damages the reputation and moral authority of the institution
o Its use is likely to produce internal dissent and so damage the integrity of the institution
o Using torture provides 'the enemy' with something they can exploit for propaganda
History offers no modern examples of the strategic effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques, but it is replete with examples of the negative strategic effects such techniques have on the counterinsurgency force.Lou Dimarco, Losing the Moral Compass: Torture and Guerre Revolutionnaire in the Algerian War, Parameters, 2006
* State-approved torture is bad for the state
The use of torture is dishonourable. It corrupts and degrades the state which uses it and the legal system which accepts itLord Hoffmann, British judge
When the state itself beats and extorts, it can no longer be said to rest on foundations of morality and justice, but rather on force.Mordecai Kremnitzer quoted in Marcy Strauss, Torture, New York Law School Law Review, 2004
While the rest of the world is expected to abide by the UN Convention against Torture, for example, the Americans evaluate international law on the basis of whether it serves their interests.Excesses of Sex and Violence, Der Spiegel, May 2004
* Torture can create or strengthen opposition
The interrogations, torture and socialization of prison turned most of the men rounded up by Mubarak into hardened militants, thirsty for revenge: they would become the foot soldiers of terrorismGilles Kepel, The War for Muslim Minds, 2004
Not only will torture create a dedicated core of anti-American jihadists, their stories will lose us the "hearts and minds" campaign with the larger Muslim population.Jeannie L. Johnson, Exploiting Weakness in the Far Enemy Ideology, Strategic Insights, 2005
...everybody needs to point the finger at somebody even if it does not matter anymore,
he's out he's history but instead of moving forward everybody looks back and points...
Godfather.
Godfather,
We've spent a few days debating elsewhere about how when you break the law, there are legal penalties you must pay. I believe you were pretty firm on this, and were of the opinion that no one should be permitted to get away with anything one iota.
Well, Mr Bush has admitted to complicity in torture, which is a crime against humanity. What he did still matters. If he were not someone you were ideologically partial to, I know you, of all people, would not be one to say, "well, it's over and done with, let's just forget it, shall we?"
For consistency's sake, don't dumb down our indignation to "Bush-bashing". The man has commited crimes. He should face trial.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
lettingo, you say bush used 9/11 as a segue into iraq
and i will never believe otherwise
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq? You say you understand that Saddam was a dangerous weapon, so clearly you must believe that it's best that we removed him from power.
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq?
Because American and British soldiers have been killed because of that bullshit war, not to mention all the Iraqi dead whose country has been wrecked.
But as long as it's not you making any kind of sacrifice then why should you give a fuck, right? Sending a bunch of American servicemen and women off to invade and occupy a foreign country on the basis of a bunch of lies doesn't effect you personally. It's just something you see on t.v, and will probably help inspire the creation of a bunch of new games for your playstation.
Oh, and there's also a pesky little thing called international law.
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq?
Because American and British soldiers have been killed because of that bullshit war, not to mention all the Iraqi dead whose country has been wrecked.
But as long as it's not you making any kind of sacrifice then why should you give a fuck, right? Sending a bunch of American servicemen and women off to invade and occupy a foreign country on the basis of a bunch of lies doesn't effect you personally. It's just something you see on t.v, and will probably help inspire the creation of a bunch of new games for your playstation.
Oh, and there's also a pesky little thing called international law.
I don't play playstation, I have an x-box360.
So do think Iraq is going to be a better place without Saddam?
Also, the way you always take one little part of a post to try to make your point is annoying. I believe you only see what you want to see.
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq?
Because American and British soldiers have been killed because of that bullshit war, not to mention all the Iraqi dead whose country has been wrecked.
But as long as it's not you making any kind of sacrifice then why should you give a fuck, right? Sending a bunch of American servicemen and women off to invade and occupy a foreign country on the basis of a bunch of lies doesn't effect you personally. It's just something you see on t.v, and will probably help inspire the creation of a bunch of new games for your playstation.
Oh, and there's also a pesky little thing called international law.
very well stated. thanks for saving me a long winded reply lol...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I have to question how torturous our torture is. Waterboarding? I'd like to try it. KSM was waterboarded 181 times. Doesn't sound very torturing to me.
If the tables were turned, and they were torturing us, They'd be chopping of fingers and toes, sticking needles in our eyes, or pulling on our limbs until the joints pop.
Not saying it's ok, but we're definately more humane then how combatants have treated us.
WAW,Byrnzie,Cosmo why is it so important to you three to change my opinion or try and make me think that you are with out question right ? I have a great understanding of responsibility I believe hurting or killing does not go without punishment but I also believe that we have a right to live without the threat of attack in our country(yes 9/11) and all these people involved need to be held responsible for what they have done and unfortunately they are not going to voluntarily give any info,politics and war are not a pretty game country's around the world have done horrible things and because of that one of the after effects in this country are your freedoms to talk as you wish in America, you say bush should be punished for this water board thing so do you think that the people that attack our country should be punished ?
also non of us have have any idea what really is going on behind the scenes in Washington you just assume the US is throwing it's weight around and bullying other country's for no good reason and you really have no idea why,not that I or anyone else outside the white house does but I don't think that does not matters to you as long as you have that freedom to complain about things you don't fully understand.
and no I don't think any form of torture is ok but neither is attacking this this country and killing its citizens
you've heard the old saying "mess with bull and you get the horns".
some of us are proud of our country and have not taken for granted our freedom but enjoy yours anyway.
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq?
Because American and British soldiers have been killed because of that bullshit war, not to mention all the Iraqi dead whose country has been wrecked.
But as long as it's not you making any kind of sacrifice then why should you give a fuck, right? Sending a bunch of American servicemen and women off to invade and occupy a foreign country on the basis of a bunch of lies doesn't effect you personally. It's just something you see on t.v, and will probably help inspire the creation of a bunch of new games for your playstation.
Oh, and there's also a pesky little thing called international law.
very well stated. thanks for saving me a long winded reply lol...
Angry and full of accusations is what you call a well stated reply?
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq?
Because American and British soldiers have been killed because of that bullshit war, not to mention all the Iraqi dead whose country has been wrecked.
But as long as it's not you making any kind of sacrifice then why should you give a fuck, right? Sending a bunch of American servicemen and women off to invade and occupy a foreign country on the basis of a bunch of lies doesn't effect you personally. It's just something you see on t.v, and will probably help inspire the creation of a bunch of new games for your playstation.
Oh, and there's also a pesky little thing called international law.
I don't play playstation, I have an x-box360.
So do think Iraq is going to be a better place without Saddam?
Also, the way you always take one little part of a post to try to make your point is annoying. I believe you only see what you want to see.
if you see nothing wrong with invading a country based on bullshit lies that have been proven to be lies, and many subsequest justifications to make a case for that bullshit war, then you really have a problem with right and wrong that you so ardently tried to defend in the now dead death penalty thread.
you say "what does it matter what reason he used to go to iraq?"
it matters plenty. first bush said they were complicit in 9/11, when in fact intelligence at the time said that saddam and al qaeda were at odds with each other and did not like each other and had no working relationship. then, he said iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which hans blix and the international weapons inspectors had been saying all along that there were no wmds in the country. then joe wilson said that the report that saddam was trying to get yellow cake in niger was a complete fabrication and he proved that they were not seeking yellow cake, so what happens? his wife, a covert cia operative is outed, which was a treasonable offense punishable by hanging. THEN the story was "saddam was the man who tried to kill my dad." and the reason to go in was to "bring freedom to the people of iraq". which diverted us from the original mission of defeating al qauda in afghanistan. we diverted all of those resources to iraq, and bin laden never was caught, al qaeda regrouped and is now as strong as ever, and the taliban is making a comeback in afghanistan. and thousands of our men and women were killed. thousands who will never come home sent there by an old man with an ax to grind who sought something that his father failed to do. iraq was and never was a threat to us. you try telling it to a dead soldier's family that the reason we went there does not matter, and that even if it was based on lies it was a just cause. i will bet my house you don't have the cajones to do that.
you do not see anything wrong with the way this government build up a false case for war in iraq?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I have to question how torturous our torture is. Waterboarding? I'd like to try it. KSM was waterboarded 181 times. Doesn't sound very torturing to me.
If the tables were turned, and they were torturing us, They'd be chopping of fingers and toes, sticking needles in our eyes, or pulling on our limbs until the joints pop.
Not saying it's ok, but we're definately more humane then how combatants have treated us.
why not google it, there are videos of waterboarding all over the web.
waterboarding is simulated drowing.
how about you lie down on a board blindfolded while a few men hold you down, shove a towel in your mouth and pour water down your open throat and you tell me if it is torture or not. seriously, volunteer to have it done to you and report back what you experienced. if it is not torture then why are wold bodies including the united states classifying waterboarding as torture? 181 times that he feared for his life. no wonder the info we got from him was inconsistent.
give me you, a waterboard and an hour and you will confess to nailing jesus to a cross...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So do think Iraq is going to be a better place without Saddam?
A better place? 1 million dead. 4-5 million displaced. The country's infrastructure destroyed. Ongoing sectarian violence. Al Qaeda operating freely in Iraq.
A better place? No. It's not a better place.
Not that that's the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is 'What right did we have to invade and destroy that country?'
WAW,Byrnzie,Cosmo why is it so important to you three to change my opinion or try and make me think that you are with out question right ? I have a great understanding of responsibility I believe hurting or killing does not go without punishment but I also believe that we have a right to live without the threat of attack in our country(yes 9/11) and all these people involved need to be held responsible for what they have done and unfortunately they are not going to voluntarily give any info,politics and war are not a pretty game country's around the world have done horrible things and because of that one of the after effects in this country are your freedoms to talk as you wish in America, you say bush should be punished for this water board thing so do you think that the people that attack our country should be punished ?
also non of us have have any idea what really is going on behind the scenes in Washington you just assume the US is throwing it's weight around and bullying other country's for no good reason and you really have no idea why,not that I or anyone else outside the white house does but I don't think that does not matters to you as long as you have that freedom to complain about things you don't fully understand.
and no I don't think any form of torture is ok but neither is attacking this this country and killing its citizens
you've heard the old saying "mess with bull and you get the horns".
some of us are proud of our country and have not taken for granted our freedom but enjoy yours anyway.
If lives are at stake, why not extract the information however necessary? It's absurd to put lives in jeopardy because we might hurt someone's "feelings."
Are you suggesting that using torture is Ok to get info?
Absolutely.
Every human being is created with certain rights and dignities endowed to them by God, I believe.
However, if you WILLINGLY participate in activities meant to take innocent life, and you get caught, you forfeit those dignities. I'm not going to pity the terrorist who wishes to slaughter my fellow countrymen. If they're witholding knowledge which can save innocent life, then waterboard them until they squeal. They've fofeited those rights and those dignities in favor of MURDER.
I have to question how torturous our torture is. Waterboarding? I'd like to try it. KSM was waterboarded 181 times. Doesn't sound very torturing to me.
If the tables were turned, and they were torturing us, They'd be chopping of fingers and toes, sticking needles in our eyes, or pulling on our limbs until the joints pop.
Not saying it's ok, but we're definately more humane then how combatants have treated us.
why not google it, there are videos of waterboarding all over the web.
waterboarding is simulated drowing.
how about you lie down on a board blindfolded while a few men hold you down, shove a towel in your mouth and pour water down your open throat and you tell me if it is torture or not. seriously, volunteer to have it done to you and report back what you experienced. if it is not torture then why are wold bodies including the united states classifying waterboarding as torture? 181 times that he feared for his life. no wonder the info we got from him was inconsistent.
give me you, a waterboard and an hour and you will confess to nailing jesus to a cross...
Like I said, I would try it. But still, neither you or Byrnzie have yet to answer my question.
To the part highlighted in color...................poor bastard, I really feel sorry for him. NOT!!!!!!
I have to question how torturous our torture is. Waterboarding? I'd like to try it. KSM was waterboarded 181 times. Doesn't sound very torturing to me.
If the tables were turned, and they were torturing us, They'd be chopping of fingers and toes, sticking needles in our eyes, or pulling on our limbs until the joints pop.
Not saying it's ok, but we're definately more humane then how combatants have treated us.
why not google it, there are videos of waterboarding all over the web.
waterboarding is simulated drowing.
how about you lie down on a board blindfolded while a few men hold you down, shove a towel in your mouth and pour water down your open throat and you tell me if it is torture or not. seriously, volunteer to have it done to you and report back what you experienced. if it is not torture then why are wold bodies including the united states classifying waterboarding as torture? 181 times that he feared for his life. no wonder the info we got from him was inconsistent.
give me you, a waterboard and an hour and you will confess to nailing jesus to a cross...
Like I said, I would try it. But still, neither you or Byrnzie have yet to answer my question.
To the part highlighted in color...................poor bastard, I really feel sorry for him. NOT!!!!!!
i will not address yoru question because the assertion that all info gained from torture is credible is ridiculous. anyone with half a brain will tell you that.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So do think Iraq is going to be a better place without Saddam?
A better place? 1 million dead. 4-5 million displaced. The country's infrastructure destroyed. Ongoing sectarian violence. Al Qaeda operating freely in Iraq.
A better place? No. It's not a better place.
Not that that's the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is 'What right did we have to invade and destroy that country?'
I believe we have the right to remove an evil dictator from power that kills and tortures people in order to keep that power. And god bless to the soldiers that have made that happen.
Every human being is created with certain rights and dignities endowed to them by God, I believe.
However, if you WILLINGLY participate in activities meant to take innocent life, and you get caught, you forfeit those dignities. I'm not going to pity the terrorist who wishes to slaughter my fellow countrymen. If they're witholding knowledge which can save innocent life, then waterboard them until they squeal. They've fofeited those rights and those dignities in favor of MURDER.
I think you'll find international law disagrees with you on this.
WAW,Byrnzie,Cosmo why is it so important to you three to change my opinion or try and make me think that you are with out question right ? I have a great understanding of responsibility I believe hurting or killing does not go without punishment but I also believe that we have a right to live without the threat of attack in our country(yes 9/11) and all these people involved need to be held responsible for what they have done and unfortunately they are not going to voluntarily give any info,politics and war are not a pretty game country's around the world have done horrible things and because of that one of the after effects in this country are your freedoms to talk as you wish in America, you say bush should be punished for this water board thing so do you think that the people that attack our country should be punished ?
also non of us have have any idea what really is going on behind the scenes in Washington you just assume the US is throwing it's weight around and bullying other country's for no good reason and you really have no idea why,not that I or anyone else outside the white house does but I don't think that does not matters to you as long as you have that freedom to complain about things you don't fully understand.
and no I don't think any form of torture is ok but neither is attacking this this country and killing its citizens
you've heard the old saying "mess with bull and you get the horns".
some of us are proud of our country and have not taken for granted our freedom but enjoy yours anyway.
Godfather.
this is the kind of response that makes me realize why the US gov't can go overseas and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people without consequence ...
apparently this all started on 9/11 ... nothing americans did from vietnam to guatemala to chile to iran to anywhere in the world mattered ...
I believe we have the right to remove an evil dictator from power that kills and tortures people in order to keep that power. And god bless to the soldiers that have made that happen.
Comments
OK, understood. But you could do a little more "terorist torturing american troops" bashing also.
i will post where i feel it is applicable. over the last 7 years i have condemned the torturing of our troops as pows. but that is war. the people in gitmo and other black site prisons run by the cia, some even minors at the time of arrest have not even been formally charged or tried, they have had no due process. yet our government says it is ok to do unspeakable violence to them and violate their human rights. our government is CLEARLY in the wrong in this case, and i will not defend a government that completely ignores international law and wipes it's arse with the international treaties that it has signed and agreed to...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
again i will agree
that hussein was a weapon of mass destruction
again no argument here
but so were the buck passing b, c, r, . .
we are supposed to be better than that
bush used 9/11 as a segue into iraq
and i will never believe otherwise
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
fool me once
shame on you
fool me twice
uh uh uh uh
i'm flustrated now
we won't get fooled again
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
Godfather.
Great. I'm glad you cleared that up. You believe that you are responsible for things left behind by others. I guess you and I just have to agree that we have very differing views on personal responsibility.
peace...
Hail, Hail!!!
Do you think the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11?
"If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years."
- Hunter S. Thompson
'Torture may produce information, but it doesn't produce reliable information, as every experienced interrogator I have spoken with repeatedly tells me – on both sides of the Atlantic. It produces the information that the subject believes the interrogator wants to hear.'
- Philippe Sands
United Nations Convention Against Torture
The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) came into force in June 1987. The most relevant articles are Articles 1, 2, 3, and the first paragraph of Article 16.
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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
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 ("refouler") 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.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
http://web.archive.org/web/200804031116 ... ng_1.shtml
Why is torture wrong?
The reasons why torture is wrong can be divided into reasons of pure principle and reasons based on the bad consequences of torture. Both sorts of reason are valid.
Reasons of principle
* Torture treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves
o it treats the victim as a 'thing', not as a person with all the value that we associate with persons
o torturers often explicitly dehumanise their victims to make it easier to torture them
o it uses the physical body of the victim not as a component part of a person of value, but as a tool to achieve the aims of the torturer
[Torture] dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain.Kenneth Roth, Getting Away with Torture, Global Governance, 2005
* Torture is sometimes used to destroy the autonomy of the victim
o some societies have used torture to suppress independent thought and convert people to 'right-thinking'. The individual is tortured until they abandon their own views and beliefs and adopt those of the torturers. The victim ceases to be an 'end in themselves' but becomes just another means to support the regime of the torturer
* Torture violates the rights and human dignity of the victim, including
o the legal right to remain silent when questioned
Consequentialist reasons
Consequentialist reasons why torture is wrong
* Torture is a slippery slope - each act of torture makes it easier to accept the use of torture in the future
* Torture is an ineffective interrogation tool
o It may well produce false information because under torture a prisoner will eventually say anything to stop the pain - regardless of whether it is true
o Because of this the interrogator can never be 'sure' that they are getting the truth and will never know when to stop
o More effective methods of interrogation that don't involve torture are available
o If a suspect is tortured it may be impossible to prosecute them successfully - British common law excludes involuntary statements or confessions on the ground that such evidence is inherently unreliable
* Torture damages the humanity of the torturers
o Those who carry out torture are likely to become brutalised by their acts, and desensitised to humanity
o The more acts of torture a person carries out, the more likely they are to carry out torture
* Torture damages the institution that carries it out
o It damages the reputation and moral authority of the institution
o Its use is likely to produce internal dissent and so damage the integrity of the institution
o Using torture provides 'the enemy' with something they can exploit for propaganda
History offers no modern examples of the strategic effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques, but it is replete with examples of the negative strategic effects such techniques have on the counterinsurgency force.Lou Dimarco, Losing the Moral Compass: Torture and Guerre Revolutionnaire in the Algerian War, Parameters, 2006
* State-approved torture is bad for the state
The use of torture is dishonourable. It corrupts and degrades the state which uses it and the legal system which accepts itLord Hoffmann, British judge
When the state itself beats and extorts, it can no longer be said to rest on foundations of morality and justice, but rather on force.Mordecai Kremnitzer quoted in Marcy Strauss, Torture, New York Law School Law Review, 2004
While the rest of the world is expected to abide by the UN Convention against Torture, for example, the Americans evaluate international law on the basis of whether it serves their interests.Excesses of Sex and Violence, Der Spiegel, May 2004
* Torture can create or strengthen opposition
The interrogations, torture and socialization of prison turned most of the men rounded up by Mubarak into hardened militants, thirsty for revenge: they would become the foot soldiers of terrorismGilles Kepel, The War for Muslim Minds, 2004
Not only will torture create a dedicated core of anti-American jihadists, their stories will lose us the "hearts and minds" campaign with the larger Muslim population.Jeannie L. Johnson, Exploiting Weakness in the Far Enemy Ideology, Strategic Insights, 2005
Godfather,
We've spent a few days debating elsewhere about how when you break the law, there are legal penalties you must pay. I believe you were pretty firm on this, and were of the opinion that no one should be permitted to get away with anything one iota.
Well, Mr Bush has admitted to complicity in torture, which is a crime against humanity. What he did still matters. If he were not someone you were ideologically partial to, I know you, of all people, would not be one to say, "well, it's over and done with, let's just forget it, shall we?"
For consistency's sake, don't dumb down our indignation to "Bush-bashing". The man has commited crimes. He should face trial.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
and i will never believe otherwise
What does it matter what reason he used to go to Iraq? You say you understand that Saddam was a dangerous weapon, so clearly you must believe that it's best that we removed him from power.
Because American and British soldiers have been killed because of that bullshit war, not to mention all the Iraqi dead whose country has been wrecked.
But as long as it's not you making any kind of sacrifice then why should you give a fuck, right? Sending a bunch of American servicemen and women off to invade and occupy a foreign country on the basis of a bunch of lies doesn't effect you personally. It's just something you see on t.v, and will probably help inspire the creation of a bunch of new games for your playstation.
Oh, and there's also a pesky little thing called international law.
I don't play playstation, I have an x-box360.
So do think Iraq is going to be a better place without Saddam?
Also, the way you always take one little part of a post to try to make your point is annoying. I believe you only see what you want to see.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If the tables were turned, and they were torturing us, They'd be chopping of fingers and toes, sticking needles in our eyes, or pulling on our limbs until the joints pop.
Not saying it's ok, but we're definately more humane then how combatants have treated us.
also non of us have have any idea what really is going on behind the scenes in Washington you just assume the US is throwing it's weight around and bullying other country's for no good reason and you really have no idea why,not that I or anyone else outside the white house does but I don't think that does not matters to you as long as you have that freedom to complain about things you don't fully understand.
and no I don't think any form of torture is ok but neither is attacking this this country and killing its citizens
you've heard the old saying "mess with bull and you get the horns".
some of us are proud of our country and have not taken for granted our freedom but enjoy yours anyway.
Godfather.
Angry and full of accusations is what you call a well stated reply?
you say "what does it matter what reason he used to go to iraq?"
it matters plenty. first bush said they were complicit in 9/11, when in fact intelligence at the time said that saddam and al qaeda were at odds with each other and did not like each other and had no working relationship. then, he said iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which hans blix and the international weapons inspectors had been saying all along that there were no wmds in the country. then joe wilson said that the report that saddam was trying to get yellow cake in niger was a complete fabrication and he proved that they were not seeking yellow cake, so what happens? his wife, a covert cia operative is outed, which was a treasonable offense punishable by hanging. THEN the story was "saddam was the man who tried to kill my dad." and the reason to go in was to "bring freedom to the people of iraq". which diverted us from the original mission of defeating al qauda in afghanistan. we diverted all of those resources to iraq, and bin laden never was caught, al qaeda regrouped and is now as strong as ever, and the taliban is making a comeback in afghanistan. and thousands of our men and women were killed. thousands who will never come home sent there by an old man with an ax to grind who sought something that his father failed to do. iraq was and never was a threat to us. you try telling it to a dead soldier's family that the reason we went there does not matter, and that even if it was based on lies it was a just cause. i will bet my house you don't have the cajones to do that.
you do not see anything wrong with the way this government build up a false case for war in iraq?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
why not google it, there are videos of waterboarding all over the web.
waterboarding is simulated drowing.
how about you lie down on a board blindfolded while a few men hold you down, shove a towel in your mouth and pour water down your open throat and you tell me if it is torture or not. seriously, volunteer to have it done to you and report back what you experienced. if it is not torture then why are wold bodies including the united states classifying waterboarding as torture? 181 times that he feared for his life. no wonder the info we got from him was inconsistent.
give me you, a waterboard and an hour and you will confess to nailing jesus to a cross...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A better place? 1 million dead. 4-5 million displaced. The country's infrastructure destroyed. Ongoing sectarian violence. Al Qaeda operating freely in Iraq.
A better place? No. It's not a better place.
Not that that's the question we should be asking. The question we should be asking is 'What right did we have to invade and destroy that country?'
Do you think Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
Absolutely.
Every human being is created with certain rights and dignities endowed to them by God, I believe.
However, if you WILLINGLY participate in activities meant to take innocent life, and you get caught, you forfeit those dignities. I'm not going to pity the terrorist who wishes to slaughter my fellow countrymen. If they're witholding knowledge which can save innocent life, then waterboard them until they squeal. They've fofeited those rights and those dignities in favor of MURDER.
Like I said, I would try it. But still, neither you or Byrnzie have yet to answer my question.
To the part highlighted in color...................poor bastard, I really feel sorry for him.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I believe we have the right to remove an evil dictator from power that kills and tortures people in order to keep that power. And god bless to the soldiers that have made that happen.
I think you'll find international law disagrees with you on this.
this is the kind of response that makes me realize why the US gov't can go overseas and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people without consequence ...
apparently this all started on 9/11 ... nothing americans did from vietnam to guatemala to chile to iran to anywhere in the world mattered ...
No, you don't have that right.