You are completely correct, I'm sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
For the record I don't have any respect for O'Reilly. It doesn't take much googling to turn up mentions of his hypocrisy and lying.
|
You are completely correct, I'm sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
For the record I don't have any respect for O'Reilly. It doesn't take much googling to turn up mentions of his hypocrisy and lying.
Hello starty:Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
I don't disagree. I am not a nice guy at all. But, my country is better than me. That's why we've collectively given up our personal responses to the situation you describe, to the "authorities" who are bound by the law that we have agree to abide by. We aren't vigilantes.
If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.
You know who else thinks our country is better than us?? That would Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you adopted Reagan's views on torture, you would be called a rabid score settler from the hard left. You'd be a Bush hater.
To wit: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."
It's certainly true, of course, that Ronald Reagan was very pre 9/11, but the concept of a uniquely scary Islamic terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by them in 1979 and they occupied our embassy; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan in the early 1980s; 280 U.S. Marines were killed by them in Lebanon in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by them in 1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 where we killed the adopted infant daughter of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying to control Muslim countries way back then, too.
Yet even with all those Islamic terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.
excon
Then I say bring it back...
As in make torture legal under certain situations.. and circumstances. I am not afraid to say it. Screw this "let's talk it over" Do you still feel like you like in America? (yes I do have a heart)
That's all for now.
Hello again, start:Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
Barbarism is like pregnant. There's no such thing as a little. If you open the door a crack, it will get opened all the way.
Lest you think I'm against torture because I'm soft on terrorists, be aware that I'm much more concerned with our American military men. They'll, of course, be tortured mercilessly, and we won't be able to say a thing.
Plus, I worry about what that makes us. Certainly, if torture is OK in some circumstances (and I guess how many lives could be saved would be the measure), then we could torture some of our own criminals. Why not? Certainly, if the guide is what torture could produce, instead of who we choose to be as a people, then all hell breaks loose. Civilization would break down.
Do you really want that?
excon
I don't want that. I have to disagree though, we wouldn't be going around just torturing who ever we want whenever. I do agree that a certain measure would have to be in place. Our own criminals? Like a guy that knows a serial killer? Please explain... what type of criminals?
Hello again, Start:Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
Any criminal who, if tortured, could give up information that could save lives. Drug dealers?? Sex offenders? Mafia? Kidnappers? Take your pick.
excon
I am talking warfare excon... bombings, hi jacking's and so on...
Hello again, start:
Your position is understandable. YOU only want torture to be used in war.
But, if saving lives is the criteria we use when deciding to torture, then it doesn't take a great leap of faith to envision some rightwing congressman saying we should torture drug dealers. If he did, what would be the basis for our argument against it?
excon
It is a viable argument or discussion rather. But I say war, and only war. There is a difference between one who wants to bring us down as a nation, and one who doesn't.
Hello again, starty:Quote:
Originally Posted by startover22
I have a principle of not screwing little girls. It's not lip service. I'm not going to screw even ONE. If I did, I couldn't truthfully say that I have a principle of not screwing little girls. I could only say that I don't screw many.
I don't steal. That doesn't mean I can steal $.25 because it isn't much. It means that I don't steal.
If we say we don't torture, then we don't torture. But, if you only subscribe to not torturing 99% of the time, you can't say it's a principle you adhere to. Oh, you could say it, if you were hypoticritical like Bill O'Reilly. But a principle is a principle... It's inviolate, in my view. If it's NOT, it's lip service.
excon
I understand what you are saying, and like you, I think you have a valid point. So, I will go out on a limb and say I am hypocritical and want the torture to be held out under certain situations. BUT not in others. I find nothing wrong with it, if it has order and worthiness. Like if I know someone who is going to bomb the sh!t out of us, I could expect to be tortured until I say who, what, when, and where. I want "them" to think that, don't you?
Hello again, starty:
I like you too, starty, and I hope you have recovered from your bumps and bruises. Your mind is still in tact, though.
excon
Well, thanks for the well wishes, and I promise not to know something again... or even put my foot in a ring that may... I will never be healed from the mental damage of being scared...
Ok, now that we both got our points across, I need to relax, sheesh!
Your argument and simplifies down to a simple fundemental question. Was the methods approved torture? The lawyers in the Justice Dept. took great pains to study the law and determined that under strict conditions and guidelines the methods employed were not torture under law or treaty.
Did they take it to the edge ? Probably... However lots of things in the country are conducted on the edge.
It is funny that you would have some qualms about these methods but would applaud an extrajudicial assassination attempt that kills an "innocent " child.If there is a red line between murder and legal assassination in warfare then surely there is one between torture and aggressive interogation under the same circumstances.
Hello tom, and Steve:
I would like you to answer question #42.
excon
Hey ex, I haven't posted since #32, how did I get dragged into this? Besides, what was the question? The only one I saw in #42 you answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It got this far because you guys don't yet realize that torture is against the very notion of what the United States of America stands for. But, I ain't going to give up. I LOVE my country too much to see it devolve into madness.
Re:#42, you're right. But what I said DOES require a comment. Or do you think Reagan was a hard lefty?
Ex
PS> (edited) What?? I got to DRAG you into an argument with me??
Ex you are obsessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist, but have offered no solutions. This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Anyone can complain and criticize but it does not hold water unless you can give us an answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1673573
See post #37 in the same thread also.
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You've followed my career here for a while. You should know that I am obsessed with the LAW - not torture.
What I would have done is OBEYED it. I'm not speaking hypothetically here either. When I served, I KNEW the law. If I were ordered to torture, I would have refused. Before this is over, we'll find others who did the same.
You DO know the law on torture, don't you? If not, I'll tell you. Torture is a crime that we are obligated to prosecute.
Oh, I forgot - you're still on the "denial" team. Even Krauthammer got off that crap. Like me, he knows torture when he sees it. washingtonpost.com
excon
Hello again, Steve and tom:
You're right. It wasn't #42. It was #35. #35 is real good.
excon
That kind of much sums up pretty all the threads in the Current Events section here don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Nah, but when someone mentions me by name I've usually made a recent comment. Here is what Reagan said to the Senate:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Sounded like he had his doubts, too. I'd love to be able to hear Reagan's opinion now.Quote:
With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. 1 also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.
In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification, The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.
Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.
By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.
RONALD REAGAN
You already do that, by yoiur own admission, vis-à-vis drugs... specifically marijuana. You have said on any number of occasions that you ignore the laws vis-à-vis marijuana because you don't believe them to be fair, just, whatever. You clearly only obey laws that you find convenient and disobey them if they don't suit you.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Interestingly enough, though, Ronald Reagan's CIA tortured captured KGB agents and other foreign combatants captured by the USA. And that was REAL torture, not the so-called "torture" used at Gitmo.Quote:
You know who else thinks our country is better than us?? That would Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you adopted Reagan's views on torture, you would be called a rabid score settler from the hard left. You'd be a Bush hater.
To wit: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."
Reagan was nothing if not a realist.
No... he left it to the CIA to deal with.Quote:
It's certainly true, of course, that Ronald Reagan was very pre 9/11, but the concept of a uniquely scary Islamic terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by them in 1979 and they occupied our embassy; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan in the early 1980s; 280 U.S. Marines were killed by them in Lebanon in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by them in 1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 where we killed the adopted infant daughter of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying to control Muslim countries way back then, too.
Yet even with all those Islamic terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.
Excon
Furthermore, you ignore the definition of torture defined in Article I of the convention:
"For the purposes of this Convention, 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."
What was done at Gitmo did not constitute "severe pain and suffering", and was not "based on descrimination of any kind". There was no descrimination involved, and the "pain and suffering" was anything but severe, as seen from the memos themselves. Furthermore, these actions DID arise only from "lawful sanctions" as defined by the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration, and as seen in the memos.
Reagan would have had absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with what was done in Gitmo, because it didn't constitute torture under any definition, and certainly not under the UN Convention Against Torture.
Elliot
The CIA ran School of the Americas under his watch.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM. |