Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

However, when you engage in combat outside of your uniform, you are no longer privileged to that protection.
That's the way it has been for a very long time.

I believe having committed acts of atrocity also nullify you of the Geneva POW protection.

Uniformed Iraqi Soldiers were kept in accordance with the Geneva convention, and were also released once Saddam's regime was toppled, in accordance with the Geneva convention.

...so such individuals can be tortured?  Because this country viewed the act as torture in the past.  My god, don't you feel the slightest bit ridiculous arguing that torture is justified when a prisoner is not legally a POW? 

I'm still wondering whose opinion it is that you trust on this issue.  I asked above, but you neglected to respond.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-05-22 8:31 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

He said he still wants it used if you mean Mancow.

Probably thinks he's a tough guy, despite the ability to tap out immediately.  smurfing loser.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

He said he still wants it used if you mean Mancow.

Probably thinks he's a tough guy, despite the ability to tap out immediately.  smurfing loser.

No.
He thinks it's a necessary evil.

bratboy wrote:

Well, I strenuously object.

As do others who probably know what they're talking about.

Oh you and your anonymous one-liners.

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Can the blowhards shut up now?  Also, since he thinks it's torture, and torture is illegal, where's he going to go next with this issue?

He said he still wants it used if you mean Mancow.

But is it legal?

bratboy wrote:

daemon wrote:

"Strenuously object"?

That's from the same movie that has this famous line:

"Yoo can't handle the truth!"

Oh yeah.  Bush fired that guy.

...and I linked the quote, with YT vid, back in the now-closed thread. My argymints keep getting recycled.

I'd put Mancow's counsel about on par with Howard Stern. I doubt either should determine US policies.

Res can't admit waterboarding is 'real' torture; it'd put the whole Bush/Cheney/Fox etc. edifice on the edge of crashing entirely. That Admin has said flat-out we didn't torture anyone, dear. It's a settled question. It was 'enhanced interrogation' to defuse 'ticking time bombs' and keep us all safe from imminent harm.

So he still wants to use a technique that can't produce viable, trustworthy intelligence.

Didn't anyone tell him the history of torture? Why it is used? That its primary use is to get false testemony that agrees with the questioners desires?

If the veracity of the answer isn't paramount, then let's allow police here to use it. We can get 100% confessions to all crimes.

I really am curious....

bratboy wrote:

I'm curious--who's word do you take this on?  I've presented mountains of evidence regarding those with specific knowledge of the procedure who identify it as torture.  The military.  The FBI.  Those who have undergone the procedure themselves as part of training.  I've detailed the numerous past regimes that have practiced it.  I've pointed out that this country has tried and punished others before for engaging in the practice. You reject my evidence and conclusions, but offer none of your own.

Who's lead are you following?

I notice that Cheney couldn't even find anyone to honestly quote in his torture speech.

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

I guess that's the best "endorsement" he could come up with.  Strange.

resedit wrote:

It has produced viable intelligence.
Like any interrogation method, the intelligence should be verified.

"Verified?"  Why bother with that?  The false intelligence served its purpose well:

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri , who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi, whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002 . While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida, which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.

Link.
'Verification' really wasn't a concern.

sturner wrote:

resedit wrote:

And you would be convicted of rape, not torture.

Hmmm, well, tell that to the muslim weomen in yugoslavia who were raped. Culturally it ruined them. That qualifies as torture. under the definition.

So you are suggesting that whether or not something is torture can depend upon circumstances around the act, and not necessarily the act itself?

Interesting.

resedit wrote:

So you are suggesting that whether or not something is torture can depend upon circumstances around the act, and not necessarily the act itself?

Interesting.

Didn't we already cover this?

Sex can be consensual in one instance and rape in another.  An assault could appear similar to a boxing match.  It isn't really "torture" if it occurs in a controlled situation, conducted by peers (rather than captors), and with the knowledge that it will quickly be over and you'll be alright.

Wow, mind-blowing stuff!

Cheney would last very few minutes with me.
I am more fit and more moral than he.

Last edited by Pariah (2009-05-23 2:40 am)

Bat wrote:

Yes, we did.

Of course we did.  The evidence that the Bush administration saw 9/11 and AQ as an immediate path to Iraq is undeniable.  There's just so much of it.  The idea that torture was employed to gin up "connections" between the two isn't surprising in the slightest.  Nor is the fact that, after such intelligence was clearly identified as unreliable, the Bush administration went out and used it anyway.  No integrity whatsoever.