Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LePaul on November 02, 2007, 05:42:21 PM
-
I guess I'm at a loss to see the further wussification of this country.
We capture terrorists in the field of battle.
According to the, ahem, civil world of utopian manners, we have to "Mother may I" and "Please tell" us any info.
I seldom watch the national news, but all three networks made a big "boohoo" over how, gawsh darnit mean we are to dare interogate terrorists.
Frankly, I have no problem with our forces playing russian roulette with these scumbags. I mean, Hello....enemy forces out to kill us?
But if the media had their way, we'd give these guys rights and prosecute they on Judge Judy.
Rant over. Yesh.
-
I sat on our local water board.
I would have said anything to get out of those meetings.
It was boring and at times unpleasant, but I would not classify it as torture... it's not any tougher than jury duty.
-
'cept the "field of battle" isn't defined and apparently includes every square inch of the U.S. of A. and "terrorist" isn't defined either and is soon likely to include twelve year-olds who participate in illegal file sharing.
It bears repeating even though the ears that need to hear it most are long deaf: civil liberties are meaningful because they apply to the objectionable equally as to the saintly.
-
Maybe we should give em pink bellies instead of chinese water torture??
Just a suggestion:D
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I guess I'm at a loss to see the further wussification of this country.
We capture terrorists in the field of battle.
According to the, ahem, civil world of utopian manners, we have to "Mother may I" and "Please tell" us any info.
I seldom watch the national news, but all three networks made a big "boohoo" over how, gawsh darnit mean we are to dare interogate terrorists.
Frankly, I have no problem with our forces playing russian roulette with these scumbags. I mean, Hello....enemy forces out to kill us?
But if the media had their way, we'd give these guys rights and prosecute they on Judge Judy.
Rant over. Yesh.
I'd assume you would likely have problems with them doing the same to our troops wouldn't yea? The reason we shouldn't torture prisoners is because our own troops become POW's from time to time.
If we fail to lead by example, why will anyone else feel the need to not torture our soldiers? Regardless of what terrorist do we shouldn't be lowering ourselves to their standards.. If we do we are no better than they are.
Just because we aren't fighting a conventional army now, doesn't mean that we wont do so in the future. How can we expect the next real army to treat our captured troops under the laws of the Geneva convention, if we have a track record of breaking it ourselves.
Are we not better than they are? If you say yes, well then I'd expect you to act like it.
-
is waterboarding anything like snowboarding?
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'd assume you would likely have problems with them doing the same to our troops wouldn't yea? The reason we shouldn't torture prisoners is because our own troops become POW's from time to time.
Ya, we need to be careful here. If we don't treat our prisoners with kid gloves, the enemy might get really mad and start doing things worse than mutilating, incinerating, torturing, and beheading our captured troopers.
-
"on the field of battle" is different than "in Gitmo being held indefinitely without access to a lawyer for sometimes years..." conveniently offshore so the jailors can claim (incorrectly) that the constitution doesn't apply, regardless of one's citizenship. that's just whacked... "on the field of battle", I agree, almost anything goes... but something's wrong when the gov't can snatch a guy off the street, whisk him away and hold him incommunicado for as long as they see fit, 'cause they've deemed him an "enemy combatant" and the rules don't apply.
it doesn't just happen "on the field of battle."
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Ya, we need to be careful here. If we don't treat our prisoners with kid gloves, the enemy might get really mad and start doing things worse than mutilating, incinerating, torturing, and beheading our captured troopers.
I guess you didn't read the rest of the post.
-
I read it... I just disagree with it. I don't want to be "better" than anyone.
We've taken the high road for years and it got us nothing... less than nothing. Our enemies think us soft and are emboldened by what we consider our benevolence. Our enemies consider it weakness.
Tell me, what is the point in being better than our enemy? They already maim and kill our troopers when they catch them. Much of the rest of the world has been indifferent or openly unfriendly to us for years.. this in spite of the fact that no other country even approaches our world wide generosity. IMHO we have nothing to gain by being "better"
In my opinion we are in a dog fight. The kind of fight where one dog doesn't get up and walk away when it's over. I think we need not be nicer, but nastier still than we are now. We need to fight like we are cornered and have nowhere to go. I believe this because our enemy would not stop trying to kill us if we left their country. gave in to their demands( it never worked for the palestinians.. they kept on killing Jews)
I believe we must get primordial... mercilessly exterminate our enemy as we ourselves face such a fate if we don't.(terrorists w/ nukes one day)
I'm not trying to make you see my view.. just giving you mine. YMMV
-
Al Jizerra or whatever it is named seems to always broadcast terrorist support messages, killings, etc. Even though the address is Qatar, why cant we just drop a 500lb bomb on it and shut that station down
What does that country have, a few camels and a drunken arab?
-
I think its a difficult situation...I agree with the whole idea that if we do it, we can't be suprised when it happens to American POW's, however, in the short term; I think this is the type of enemy that will do whatever they please to American's, regardless of the path we take in treating POW's. I also think if the US Government publically admitted to the general use of torture, it would be a lot of fuel added to the jihad fire....
However in the long term, we have to entertain the idea that in the future, there is the potential to be fighting a war against a state, and a legitimate military, and once again, I don't think we want them to view torture as "fair game" because the United States is doing it.
Back to the current situation......Should we allow needless and random torture against any POW just for the hell of it? No, and it should never be stood for...That said, if an individual is captured, and we have reasonable belief that he (or she) harbors time critical information, which would lead to an attack, or the loss of life, then I think it is the duty of the US Government to make every attempt possible to extract the information. Defining everything and setting definitive rules is a whole different story, that i'm not even going to get into though.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Al Jizerra or whatever it is named seems to always broadcast terrorist support messages, killings, etc. Even though the address is Qatar, why cant we just drop a 500lb bomb on it and shut that station down
What does that country have, a few camels and a drunken arab?
You mean Qatar, the richest middle eastern country.... with a GDP of 52,500$, opposed to our own 40,200$? Your post shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sure hope you are smarter than your post. Yet, you may only be the ultimate example that ignorance of fact is in fact bliss.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I think its a difficult situation...I agree with the whole idea that if we do it, we can't be suprised when it happens to American POW's, however, in the short term; I think this is the type of enemy that will do whatever they please to American's, regardless of the path we take in treating POW's. I also think if the US Government publically admitted to the general use of torture, it would be a lot of fuel added to the jihad fire....
However in the long term, we have to entertain the idea that in the future, there is the potential to be fighting a war against a state, and a legitimate military, and once again, I don't think we want them to view torture as "fair game" because the United States is doing it.
Back to the current situation......Should we allow needless and random torture against any POW just for the hell of it? No, and it should never be stood for...That said, if an individual is captured, and we have reasonable belief that he (or she) harbors time critical information, which would lead to an attack, or the loss of life, then I think it is the duty of the US Government to make every attempt possible to extract the information. Defining everything and setting definitive rules is a whole different story, that i'm not even going to get into though.
This is why the geneva convention should be treated not as governing law, but as Gentlemanly agreements between countries.
-
I can honestly see both sides of the argument. I certainly wouldn't want the term "terrorists" applied so broadly that we are waterboarding soccar moms because they were spotted at a protest at one point in time.
OTOH, I have a real big problem with not civilians that have no clue about military operations putting drastic limitations on our military and then blaiming them when the job doesnt get done.
I understand the whole constituionality argument that "civilian" govt. runs the military.....however, I think we should leave discretion up to the commanders on the ground. Let them do their jobs and use their judgement yet hold them accountable for their standards.
I have no problem with using non-invasive interrogation techniques on a guy when it might save millions of lives.
I have a huge problem with it when we are doing on a farmer who might or might not know anything.
There's a difference and our commanders on the ground know this. Let them make that call.
-
IF IT'S WRONG WE SHOULDN'T DO IT.
Sheesh, that was simple.
-
The problem with torture is that it seldom produces results that are useful. Just because the interrogator thinks he knows the suspect knows what he wants doesn't make it so. The one being tortured will make up a story if he doesn't have what the interrogator wants just to make it stop. As long as the suspect is consistent during successive "interrogations" the story, no matter how contrived, will be believed. Then some other poor sap who probably has nothing at all to do with the situation gets to go through hell.
Torture is even worse when applied to criminal cases. False confessions tend to be the result, but we don't often hear how the confession was obtained. Someone paid for the crime, making society as a whole feel safer. We are now less safe. The perpetrator is still out there, looking for the next opportunity. But as we have are a society of appearances, all is well.
-
Originally posted by crockett
If we fail to lead by example, why will anyone else feel the need to not torture our soldiers?
Do you seriously believe that any positive example we lead will affect the way that terrorists behave?
Pass some of what you're smoking....:lol
-
Originally posted by Auger
Torture is even worse when applied to criminal cases. False confessions tend to be the result, but we don't often hear how the confession was obtained. Someone paid for the crime, making society as a whole feel safer. We are now less safe. The perpetrator is still out there, looking for the next opportunity. But as we have are a society of appearances, all is well.
What about in the instance of a missing person? Torture to find the location of the person, not to get a confession?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do you seriously believe that any positive example we lead will affect the way that terrorists behave?
Pass some of what you're smoking....:lol
Is that really the only reason to act civilized?
I don't think so.
And the problem with torture is NOT that it yields spotty intelligence. It is that it is WRONG. My god people!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is that really the only reason to act civilized?
I don't think so.
And the problem with torture is NOT that it yields spotty intelligence. It is that it is WRONG. My god people!
Let's make a straw man and say that 1,000 water boardings produce 1 confession that ends up being a lead that stops a dirty nuke from taking out 200,000 people in LA. Still wrong? Still feeling "unethical"? Not me.
Sleep tight tonight, someone with more balls than *you is protecting America and your personal interests.
*Proverbial "you", not you personally, but those who think like you.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You mean Qatar, the richest middle eastern country.... with a GDP of 52,500$, opposed to our own 40,200$? Your post shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sure hope you are smarter than your post. Yet, you may only be the ultimate example that ignorance of fact is in fact bliss.
That's not what it says here Mr. Bliss: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
or here: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
(Qatar doesn't rank on this page....)
You didn't point out that it was a PER CAPITA GDP figure (since there are many ways to determine and askew these numbers), and for what he was refering to, is quite useless to mention anyways. A few million sitting on oil and gas. Thats what pumps thier GDP out the wazoo, and that oil and gas is probably a better reason for not bombing, ya think?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Let's make a straw man and say that 1,000 water boardings produce 1 confession that ends up being a lead that stops a dirty nuke from taking out 200,000 people in LA. Still wrong? Still feeling "unethical"? Not me.
Sleep tight tonight, someone with more balls than *you is protecting America and your personal interests.
*Proverbial "you", not you personally, but those who think like you.
Still wrong. Those 1000 water boardings will likely create more terrorists than they "catch".
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Is that really the only reason to act civilized?
I don't think so.
And the problem with torture is NOT that it yields spotty intelligence. It is that it is WRONG. My god people!
The problem with torture in this case is because it is illdefined.
The 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture narrowly defines torture within the confines of the second form. The Convention defines torture as any act which intentionally inflicts severe mental or physical pain on a victim for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession or for punishing the victim for conduct or suspected conduct
the European Court of Human Rights refrained from committing to a particular set of criteria for the severity requirement, or creating a list of acts which would always be considered torture, or characterizing the evidence necessary to prove either. Thus, the outcome of an individual case remains unpredictable.
Is water boarding severe physical pain? From what I have read, its not so much physical pain as the panic that ensues when one believes he is drowning.
Is fear severe mental pain? If you think it is, WB is torture if you think not, WB is alowed under int'l law.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Still wrong. Those 1000 water boardings will likely create more terrorists than they "catch".
Ah. The ol' "we create more when we do this" theory. Doesn't hold much water. Terrorists are already fed a daily dose of "infidel" sandwiches without reviewing tapes of tortured comrades. The torture tapes aren't shown during their terrorist camp breaks...only reruns of the WTC towers collapsing are. :rolleyes:
-
As long as a method of interogation does no permanent physical damage to someone then it isn't torture. Waterboarding isn't torture, it just make someone very uncomfortable. Keeping them awake for 24-36-48 hours isn't torture, it just makes them real tired. Stacking naked guys on top of each other, taking pictures and laughing at them isn't toture, that's a frat prank.
These guys have been caught and linked to terrorists groups. These groups go about their daily lives thinking of ways to kill or maim as many people as they possibly can. Not for political reasons, but because their religion tells them it's not only OK to do it but that it's their DUTY to do it. In the span of 2 hours on September 11th 2001 these people managed to kill over 3000 of my fellow citizens who were doing nothing more than living their lives and not bothering anyone.
Why should I feel bad for them when some soilder spits on their Koran? As far as I'm concerned they can wipe a pigs bellybutton with the thing right in front of them and then rub it in their face. Wouldn't bother me at all.
Why should I worry about their civil rights when I KNOW they don't give a ratts bellybutton about mine?
Because I think I'm better than that? Because I should be above such things?
How about this....they want to live like it's the middle ages, fine. I say treat like we would have in the middle ages.
I don't give a damn if some limp wristed wimp thinks it's wrong. If they don't have the stomach for it then leave it to the real men that do and stay out of the way.
The only way we can ever be secure is to turn our wolfhounds loose and let them hunt down and kill the wolfs. Otherwise the sheep will continue to get picked off one by one and think it's better to keep the wolfs happy with a little here and a little there until one day the sheep are all dead.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Why should I worry about their civil rights when I KNOW they don't give a ratts bellybutton about mine?
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Matthew 16:26
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
As long as a method of interogation does no permanent physical damage to someone then it isn't torture. Waterboarding isn't torture, it just make someone very uncomfortable. Keeping them awake for 24-36-48 hours isn't torture, it just makes them real tired. Stacking naked guys on top of each other, taking pictures and laughing at them isn't toture, that's a frat prank.
So it would be acceptable for police officers to do such things to citizens then?
-
I think a major problem with the torture arguement on a whole is that there are people that believe, and groups that want people to believe that torture is just another tool in the rucksack of a US Soldier. As gunslinger started to point out, most civillians have no clue about military operations, and making the average American believe that US soldiers are out in Iraq and Afghanistan just torturing anyone and everyone, is just as dangerous as the negatives involved in the practice of torture....
I'll be honest with you...I never really thought about torture in regards to the US holding an individual who has time critical information which could save lives....Know why? Because I expect my country to do everything it possibly can to prevent the loss of life.
Like I said earlier...We should never accept random torture (it's not happening anyways.....), however, in a situation where an individual has information that is going to lead to either an attack, or the US's ability to prevent it, then we damn well better do whatever it takes to get that information out of him.
But I can also understand the points of people like Senator McCain...He was a POW for 7 or whatever it was years...I believe he was tortured the entire time...What for? At best, for him, or another POW to record a scripted statement against the US?
So here it is........I say that if it's a time critical situation to safe lives, torture only for valid information...never to force anyone to do something, and as soon as that window of the validity of the information the individual holds closes, then there is nothing else torture can accomplish ie- torturing a gitmo jihadi captured in 2001.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So it would be acceptable for police officers to do such things to citizens then?
wow. just...'wow'. could you explain to me the police officer/citizen comparison to that of a soldier/terrorist ?
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Al Jizerra or whatever it is named seems to always broadcast terrorist support messages, killings, etc. Even though the address is Qatar, why cant we just drop a 500lb bomb on it and shut that station down
What does that country have, a few camels and a drunken arab?
Qatar is pretty rich country in middle east. It's no wonder Saddam tried to reclaim that *province* ~17 yrs ago.
-
Is waterboarding the dead end when it comes to humane turture?
Gotta come up with something more creative and at the same time won't damage or show bruises:)
-
i say dont let the enemy know we have taken any method off the table... Have our own rules but as far as they know we might be clipping off toes with wirecutters...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
wow. just...'wow'. could you explain to me the police officer/citizen comparison to that of a soldier/terrorist ?
Rip, what's the difference between a terrorist and someone you think is a terrorist?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Rip, what's the difference between a terrorist and someone you think is a terrorist?
We could use the same system used in the middle ages to find those witches, you know wrap them in chains and throw em in the river, if they float they aint terrorists.
shamus
-
Boy this got construed quickly.
The terrorists in question are enemy combatants. As is from the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan and where ever they are attacking us from.
Not, Thrawn, your annoying local cub scout leader or whatever civilian-world distraction.
The terrorists have one agenda...to kill us any way they possibly can. They have no borders, they are obviously not part of any Geneva Convention.
I'm just drumming my fingers wondering why some people just dont get that. You want to afford these killers every tenant of Legal Protection.
I don't buy this "Well we shouldnt do it because its wrong" creedo that MT advocates. We're dealing with some really whacked extremists out there, raised to think we are the holy enemy they've been raised to beleive.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Boy this got construed quickly.
I don't buy this "Well we shouldnt do it because its wrong" creedo that MT advocates. We're dealing with some really whacked extremists out there, raised to think we are the holy enemy they've been raised to beleive.
LOL... I wonder how many of you don't "buy this" yet think of yourselves as christian?
sad really
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
As long as a method of interogation does no permanent physical damage to someone then it isn't torture. Waterboarding isn't torture, it just make someone very uncomfortable. Keeping them awake for 24-36-48 hours isn't torture, it just makes them real tired. Stacking naked guys on top of each other, taking pictures and laughing at them isn't toture, that's a frat prank.
"make someone very uncomfortable" by the definition of the word is torture. "makes them real tired" by the definition of the word is torture. "stacking naked guys" by the definition of the word is torture.
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).
Torture isn't just about physical pain, it can be also psychological.
Originally posted by LePaul
The terrorists in question are enemy combatants. As is from the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan and where ever they are attacking us from.
Last time I heard some of the gitmo detainees were revealed to the US troops for the reward money or a store owner didn't like his competition and gave up the name of his competition as a terrorist.
The problem is that we don't know if they really are terrorists. Otherwise nobody would been released from Gitmo nor would the "investigators" have to collect proof.
Are we really willing to accept that some of the tortured might be innocent?
What if someday in the future, say 20 years from now, you're arrested as a suspected terrorist due to some screw up and end up tortured because they think you are a terrorist and nobody has any problem with it? Are you willing to accept that? or some of your relative or friend ending up in the situation?
It will happen if it will become a generally accepted method. It will also spread from the terrorist interrogations to the regular crime interrogations. Just because torture has become accepted and because of the belief that of course the officials wouldn't torture innocent people.
Let's not forget that under the law you are not guilty until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.
-
They are not afforded any legal rights. That's the point. These are terrorists. I'm sorry, did you miss the part about we DONT read them their rights?
As for MT's post...just more diversion. Now he's questioning our faith for diasagreeing with him. If that's the best you can do, thanks for playing :)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
"make someone very uncomfortable" by the definition of the word is torture. "makes them real tired" by the definition of the word is torture. "stacking naked guys" by the definition of the word is torture.
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).
Torture isn't just about physical pain, it can be also psychological.
Last time I heard some of the gitmo detainees were revealed to the US troops for the reward money or a store owner didn't like his competition and gave up the name of his competition as a terrorist.
The problem is that we don't know if they really are terrorists. Otherwise nobody would been released from Gitmo nor would the "investigators" have to collect proof.
Are we really willing to accept that some of the tortured might be innocent?
What if someday in the future, say 20 years from now, you're arrested as a suspected terrorist due to some screw up and end up tortured because they think you are a terrorist and nobody has any problem with it? Are you willing to accept that? or some of your relative or friend ending up in the situation?
It will happen if it will become a generally accepted method. It will also spread from the terrorist interrogations to the regular crime interrogations. Just because torture has become accepted and because of the belief that of course the officials wouldn't torture innocent people.
Let's not forget that under the law you are not guilty until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.
I could care less about their mental anguish. What about my mental anguish??? I was in New York the day after the attack and witnessed for myself the destruction they inflicted on our country. I went to over 2 dozen funerlas for firefighters and police officers that were killed in that attack. Why should I worry about their mental anguish??? I don't. They deserve everything they get from our men and women in uniform and they should feel lucky that we DON'T go as far as they do on a regular basis.
Anyone who thinks the US has gone too far in our intergation methods needs to talk to someone who was DIRCETLY affected by the events of 9/11.
It's real easy to point fingers after the fact when you have no personal stake in what is going on.
For me it's personal. They attacked my county and killed my fellow citizens. I went to the funerals, I saw the bodies being dug out of the rubble, I pulled security in New York Harbor while it was being done and it has effected me for the rest of my life. I WILL NEVER FORGET!!!!
So forgive me if I have NO compasion for those sorry pieces of trash. Kill them all and I wont shed a single tear. Waterbording????: Give me a break....they deserve worse than that in my opinion. Put them on the rack as far as I'm conserned.
-
They this they that... do you understand that not all these accused terrorists are terrorists?! What the hell is wrong with you people? You keep saying "they have no rights coz they're terrorists", but not all of them have been terrorists and some have been even released from Gitmo.
Those who have been arrested as terrorists/suspected terrorists might be innocent, just like you and me. That should be figured out first instead of torturing them first. After that I don't care what you do with them, but the current witch hunt mentality must not go on. Not every middle eastern guy is a terrorist. If they would be, why on earth would you go to free Iraq for the people of Iraq? Wouldn't it be just easier to nuke the nest of terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Samiam
'cept the "field of battle" isn't defined and apparently includes every square inch of the U.S. of A. and "terrorist" isn't defined either and is soon likely to include twelve year-olds who participate in illegal file sharing.
It bears repeating even though the ears that need to hear it most are long deaf: civil liberties are meaningful because they apply to the objectionable equally as to the saintly.
Bush declared US soil a battleground in the war on terror and did away with posse comitatus. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) effectively does away with habeas corpus rights as well for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” Who exactly is an "enemy of the state", or an "enemy combatant”?.. that definition is solely at the discretion of Bush.
Bush did away with the oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization; the right to challenge governmental power, arguably the most critical part of the Magna Carta.
Section 950q of the MCA states: “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter of the MCA who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.”
Note "any person", which means US citizens.
Section 950v. “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” states “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
Section 950j states that once a person is detained, “ not withstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision) no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”
Welcome to Bushs neoclown land where US citizens cant even challenge "..the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions..".. it may be illegal & unconstitutional, but you cant challenge the word of king George... or soon to be Queen Clinton.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Boy this got construed quickly.
The terrorists in question are enemy combatants. As is from the battlefield in Iraq, Afghanistan and where ever they are attacking us from.
Not, Thrawn, your annoying local cub scout leader or whatever civilian-world distraction.
They are attacking us from Iraq? Or are "we" being attacked in Iraq?
A very good argument can be made that the collation invasion of Iraq was the actions of an aggressor. Last statistics I saw indicated that only about 4% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreigners. Now those statistics are old but the point is that at least at one point in time the vast majority of insurgents where Iraqis fighting an occupying force.
Imagine the shoe was on the other foot. A foreign power decides to invade the US and occupy. Would you resist? Would any of your friends and family? If so, what if they were arrested and water boarded? Would you be perfectly fine with this? Would it not be torture? What if they were water boarded for hours and days on end?
What if your friends and relatives weren't resisting, but that the occupying power thought they were connected to the resistance?
-
A news reporter is given a water boarding demonstration.
http://current.com/pods/controversy/PD04399
-
Originally posted by LePaul
They are not afforded any legal rights. That's the point. These are terrorists. I'm sorry, did you miss the part about we DONT read them their rights?
As for MT's post...just more diversion. Now he's questioning our faith for diasagreeing with him. If that's the best you can do, thanks for playing :)
You really don't understand, and you probably never will. Your faith has nothing to do with your agreeing with me or not. Torturing is inhuman as well as inhumane. You can't argue against that except to the point that you think we should act in the same manner as our enemy. This is morally corrupt and you should know that. You can't seem to tell the difference between diversion and cold smack in the face with the tuna of truth. Keep on trying though... maybe you'll figure it out.
-
Attitudes will change when a nuke is detonated in downtown San Francisco, probably not before.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'd assume you would likely have problems with them doing the same to our troops wouldn't yea? The reason we shouldn't torture prisoners is because our own troops become POW's from time to time.
That's the thing. when our guys are captured they are executed. first they are mutiliated tortured etc. So if we were to make the terrorists we capture (gasp!) feel like they are drowning or give them "mental anguish" it really won't change much.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Attitudes will change when a nuke is detonated in downtown San Francisco, probably not before.
Perhaps by some relatives seeking revenge of an innocent victim who happens to die from waterboarding?
Maybe from a bomb dropped on their house?
Maybe from getting killed from a stray bullet?
Maybe from ...?
Perhaps that's why it isn't so good to invade and occupy a country on false pretenses.
Too many innocent victims that we end up creating enemies of.
Those are the relatives I'd be worrying about down the road.
-
Originally posted by Cypher
That's the thing. when our guys are captured they are executed. first they are mutiliated tortured etc. So if we were to make the terrorists we capture (gasp!) feel like they are drowning or give them "mental anguish" it really won't change much.
From a pragmatic stand point it does. Your allies look at you with contempt. People who may be sitting on the fence instead support your enemies because you are acting like barbaric scum.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do you seriously believe that any positive example we lead will affect the way that terrorists behave?
Pass some of what you're smoking....:lol
Originally posted by crockett
I guess you didn't read the rest of the post.
-
We shouldn't even detain them. If they are firing at our guys, kill them on site. Then the "Waterboard whining" will stop.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Imagine the shoe was on the other foot. A foreign power decides to invade the US and occupy. Would you resist? Would any of your friends and family? If so, what if they were arrested and water boarded? Would you be perfectly fine with this? Would it not be torture? What if they were water boarded for hours and days on end?
What if your friends and relatives weren't resisting, but that the occupying power thought they were connected to the resistance?
Oh you know they can't answer that question truthfully. Then they would have foot in mouth disease.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Oh you know they can't answer that question truthfully. Then they would have foot in mouth disease.
I will. I'd take as many of them with me as possible (not my family, to eliminate any retarded remarks). I'm proud of the Country I live in. I'm also tired of the fence jumpers. They can leave it anytime they want.
I was raised not to lie and I still live by it.
-
Attitudes will change when a nuke is detonated in downtown San Francisco, probably not before.
Unlike the show "21" the nuke won't be prevented by some last second coercion. It will either be prevented, or not, by our human intelligence operations. Basically, spies, and likely in foreign countries. The fact that human intelligence lacks the lobbyists in Washington that the aerospace industry commands is worrisome. We let these capabilities lapse in the past 30-40 years and are half-assed playing marginal catch up.
I could see Hollywood style "21" torture on very specific and know targets in clear circumstances. Unfortunately, the kind antics seen in Abu Ghraib illustrate both a glaring and embarrassing failure of military discipline and, at a higher level, the total lack of appreciation for how to fight 4th generation warfare successfully. The harm these actions cost the US in support and legitimacy -- in Iraq, the Middle East and broader internationally was tremendous. From a 4th Generation warfare perspective these means do not justify 99 percent of the ends they might possibly generate. But as noted the ends tend to be limited to begin with even in 3rd generation warfare dynamics. BTW, most of those prisoners were not found to be the real deal.
On the moral and freedoms front, I would rather we not become our enemy to "feel" safe. Kinda defeats the point of America. Freedom, rights, morality -- all messy. Terrorists and other bad people can take advantage of this for sure. But, the alternative is not a country I would like to call home, anymore than I would move to Saudi Arabia, or North Korea. After all, what state is safer from terrorism today than north Korea?
Charon
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Imagine the shoe was on the other foot. A foreign power decides to invade the US and occupy.
i have to ask, why would any foreign power want to occupy the USA?
-
I agree Charon. I would have us neither live in fear nor exercise oppresion. However, when a city or two is nuked, attitudes will change. I'm just making what I believe to be an observation.
-
folks like this are never gonna be placated:
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071102ZombieSF01.jpg)
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071102ZombieSF02.jpg)
Any of these poor bastards from North Korea would LAUGH at you for comparing 'water-boarding' to what happened to them:
When Mr. Shin was 13, his mother and brother attempted an escape, unsuccessfully. That day, a civilian car met Mr. Shin outside the camp school. He was driven to a secret, underground location.
There, guards demanded details of the plot. Mr. Shin was ignorant of it. He was suspended over a fire. When he screamed, a hook was hacked into his groin. Unconscious, he was slung into a cell with a skeletal old man.
The man cared for the child's festering injuries and gave him his own meager rations. It was the first time Mr. Shin had ever received affection from another human. "I will never forget him," Mr. Shin wrote. "I came to love him more than my parents."
After seven months, Mr. Shin was released to witness his mother's hanging and his brother's execution by shooting. Mr. Shin noticed his father in tears, but he had only one emotion: "I was furious with them; as a result of their crimes, I was subject to torture."
Life continued. His niece was raped and killed by guards. He dropped a sewing machine; guards chopped off a fingertip with a knife. Constantly hungry, he once found three corn kernels in a pile of cow manure, his "lucky day." Unaware of any world beyond the wire, his dreams were to excel at work, gain permission to marry or become a team leader.
link (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=499EDC6D-7BAE-400F-B834-07CB628E3553)
-
Originally posted by john9001
i have to ask, why would any foreign power want to occupy the USA?
Lol, Mexico is:D
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"on the field of battle" is different than "in Gitmo being held indefinitely without access to a lawyer for sometimes years...
Look back through history, at how POW's were treated before this Iraq and wussyfication of America... the Devil Country to most all third world nations
THEY, the enemy, do not get lawyers. Period. No where in the articles of war or the Geneva Convention (of which Al Quiada is not a signatory) is it written that POWs get lawyers. They can be vistied by Red Cross and other NEUTRAL parties. Other than that all they get is held in prisons. And after the war is over, they get REPATRIATED to their own craphole country.
-
However, when a city or two is nuked, attitudes will change. I'm just making what I believe to be an observation.
Can't disagree with that.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Odee
THEY, the enemy, do not get lawyers. Period. No where in the articles of war or the Geneva Convention (of which Al Quiada is not a signatory) is it written that POWs get lawyers. They can be vistied by Red Cross and other NEUTRAL parties. Other than that all they get is held in prisons. And after the war is over, they get REPATRIATED to their own craphole country.
But Bush claims they aren't POWs. The neutral parties have restricted access to them. Unlike POWs, Gitmo detainees are pending for a trial, which why it is reasonable to also let them have an access to lawyers. The state of an enemy is also questionable, because some of the detainees have been released, which means they haven't been enemies or otherwise they wouldn't have been set free.
Gitmo detainees have been also arrested under different conditions. They haven't been necessarily detained on the battlefield like POWs, but they've been also arrested from their home et cetera. In several cases they've been turned in to the US troops by locals who have been after the reward money. It's a nice way to get rid of someone who you have quarrel with and even get money for it.
That's what is the problem here: Being detained in Gitmo isn't a guarantee of a person being an enemy combatant. Therefore torture is bad, restricting their access to lawyer is bad, etc.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
wow. just...'wow'. could you explain to me the police officer/citizen comparison to that of a soldier/terrorist ?
If you take away the rights of one group, it is inevitable you take them away from others. Remember, Bush just declared our own soil a battleground.... how long until US citizens are held without due process?
I will never defend a terrorists stance... it's wrong.
I would point out, that most of those who say we should do anything possible to kill them all, would be the first to take up arms were we under occupation for any reason whatsoever.
But, I will defend our democratic stance of habeas corpus and free will determination. For the price of 3,000 american lives, the lives of three of my friends alone, this country sold it's soul.... that which made it different, that made us stand apart. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.... not just those you agree with. See back to the end of World War Two...when our allies wanted to hang everyone, and we alone, stood up to say "Give due Process it's time".
That was the sole reason for the Nuremburg Trials.... trials which should be seen as a win for rational thought, and a defeat for "caveman justice".