And I would add that these are not POW's, they do not adhere to the laws of war, are not deserving of Geneva protections, are not American citizens, and hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?
|
And I would add that these are not POW's, they do not adhere to the laws of war, are not deserving of Geneva protections, are not American citizens, and hasn't the question of torture been answered legally?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't know. Maybe you could answer my question.
It defies logic how 39 seconds of waterboarding ISN'T torture, but 40 seconds IS. It's bizarre to even consider such a notion.
Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard... Now, let's take your ticking time bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard, who you KNOW, knows stuff that can save American lives...
The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling, but NOT talking, after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds the guy is about to give up the vital, life saving information - but he doesn't - not quite yet.
So, with a pure heart and mind, and every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds, and the guy gives up his stuff.
Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy DIDN'T give up the stuff? Does it matter?
So, NO! The legality has NOT been established. We do NOT live in bizarro world.
excon
Chatty Joe Biden
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...g_pandoras_box_
Well then ex, since Congress approved all means necessary, funded Gitmo, many were kept apprised of what was going on and raised no objections, investigate and let the chips fall where they may. Just don't stop with half the story. But like I said before, either Congress doesn't want this investigation because they have something to hide or they don't really believe we broke any laws either.
It similarly defies logic that people who are 18 years old can vote, but those who are 17 and 11 months can't. Or that a person who is born on this side of a line on a map is considered a legal citizen, but someone born 20 feet away on the other side of the line is not. Nevertheless, those are the standards that have been set. And they are the LEGAL STANDARD.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Actually, once the legal standard is set, anything beyond it IS illegal. So at 40 seconds the interrogator is fine. At 41 he's not. The standard may not make sense to you, but it is THE standard... it HAS been settled, it HAS been established. You just don't like it. Fine. You thinks it's immoral. No problem. We can disagree about the morality of it. But it isn't AGAINST THE LAW, and that's what this issue is all about: Should the guys responsible (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, and the rest) be prosecuted for breaking the law? The answer is NO because no law was broken.Quote:
Nonetheless, let's for a minute assume that standard... Now, let's take your ticking time bomb scenario. You've got a guy on the waterboard, who you KNOW, knows stuff that can save American lives...
The waterboarder notices the detainee struggling, but NOT talking, after 35 seconds. At 38 seconds the guy is about to give up the vital, life saving information - but he doesn't - not quite yet.
So, with a pure heart and mind, and every good intention, the waterboarder goes 45 seconds, and the guy gives up his stuff.
Is the waterboarder a hero or a war criminal? What if the guy DIDN'T give up the stuff? Does it matter?
So, NO! The legality has NOT been established. We do NOT live in bizarro world.
Excon
Elliot
I agree with you Dare. I am as white as the new fallen snow and I voted for him. So did my son, and so did my daughter. My husband voted for McCain was has recently been leaning the other way. And, I would vote the same way today. Obama, a breath of fresh air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dare81
Don't forget about the large numbers that did NOT vote for him because he was black. My niece is usually a very compassionate, sweet person but she really shocked me around election time. I said something like" you voted for McCain?!?" she came back with... "I'm not voting for no ni&&er!" You could have knocked me over with a feather after hearing this come out of her mouth. She went on to say, "I voted for who my daddy told me to vote for". I just had to realize that she hadn't started thinking for herself yet (age 21) and was just mimicikng her father. The big corporate exec, my sisters ex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfoxkit
You went around asking blacks if they voted for Obama because he is black? Or did they just say that they supported Obama and you assumed it was because of the black thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfoxkit
I am not throwing out any race card antics here. I'm just asking you how you know their reason for backing Obama. Was because he was black.
You've "heard" ? Sounds like you hang out at the beauty parlor with the other gossips.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Some would argue that it shouldn't need a discussion or wrestling...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And yes, I got three of your favourit discussion points in one post. A new record for me. But you failed to address the point I made. Where does it stop?? The slippery slope remember? You've brought it up before..
Oh, so it was OK cause Congress said so? C'mon Steve, that's laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Anything else Congresss does you reject.
So for once you disagree with Elliot? He calls them POW's.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What do you call them? Oh that's right. Enemy combatants...
Who made this law and when? Was it made to justify illegal actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
But since the events in question actually took place the fact that we can and do discuss it freely still shows we're not the same as them. They wold have no discussion on the morality of it beyond what heinous act would Allah have them do next to accomplish their goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
I'm not as huge a fan of the slippery slope as you might think, but on those issues I have precedents and history on my side. No one is actively campaigning for more torture and I doubt the court system is going to find any precedents to justify increased torture. We do have Lambda which has for years campaigned for the right to have their little boy lovers.Quote:
And yes, I got three of your favourit discussion points in one post. A new record for me. But you failed to address the point I made. Where does it stop?? The slippery slope remember? You've brought it up before..
Do we always have to agree? I know you guys think we walk in lockstep together but we don't. I've never, ever, not once considered rogue jihadists as POW's. They don't fit any of the legal criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfoxkit
Ummm... if it is law, then the actions pursuant to it are not illegal. Changing the law now doesn't make past actions illegal as you can't charge somebody ex post facto. As for who made the law, I would hazard a guess that it was either congress or an activist judge but don't my word for it as I am only a Political Scientist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Steve,
An illegal combatant or an unlawful combatant captured in battle is still a POW. He is just simply not subject to the rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions. He's still a POW. He's just a POW without rights.
A spy caught during wartime is similarly a POW. But because he's a spy, he's not subject to GC protections. He's an unlawful combatant as per the GC, and not subject to the protections of the GC, but he's still a POW.
Elliot
So if a law is made to justify illegal activity than that is OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
And thanks, I won't take your word for it.
Claiming something is an "illegal activity" doesn't make it an "illegal activity." You have to have the law to back it up making it "illegal." It becomes law when congress makes it a law. Now, a lot of liberals like to think that anything that they find distasteful is an "illegal activity," and they simply need to make it a statement of fact (like you just did) and repeat it over and over again until everyone around them believes it or else find an activist judge who agrees with them and legislates it from the bench ex post facto. The basis of your argument is that you have already decided what is "illegal,' and you've made up your mind and the rest of us just need to accept your enlightenment as superior to our reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Sorry, not buying it anymore!
Sounds like RNC and Fox News talking points! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
Hello Mark:
We've been here before... Waterboarding is torture. It's illegal. It always has been. Hopefully, it always will be. Conservatives think all you got to do is redefine the meaning of a word, and everything will be OK... Then they think they can fool us into thinking their definition has been right all along...
But, of course, they're flat wrong... Clearly, if the things WE do to detainees were done to American captives, you'd never hear the end of it...
Can you say hypocrisy?
excon
Hey Excon old buddy,Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Unfortunately you have me there. Redefinition of a word is a wholly liberal democrat prerogative and how dare us conservatives do it! Seriously, both sides do it enough that it has become standard procedure. Case in point would be Bill Clinton trying to redefine what the meaning of the word "is" is. It is no longer about the truth and that was born out with this gulf war business. Bush "lied" according to any liberal or press source you would care to name but he said nothing Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Reid, Pelosi, and nameless others didn't say countless times based upon the same intelligence estimates and the same intelligence sources before Bush became President. It only became a "lie" when they didn't like the messenger. Captured newspaper reporters are tortured and mutilated and have their heads cut off with their executions broadcast live so we can watch on TV and we simply don't hear the end of it... we barely hear it at all. A few soldiers die every now and then in Iraq and we don't hear the end of it (even if it's a simple vehicle accident, its counted as an American casualty). Even more people die every year on the roads in South Carolina and we don't hear about it in Colorado from the press or the democrats. I don't hear the democrats saying "its a lost cause and that the civil war is not winnable and we should pull out." For a population of 28 million in Iraq to a population of 4 million in South Carolina the percentages are staggering small in Iraq.
No more spin. The civil war is a lost cause. Governor Sanford (R) of South Carolina doesn't want the stimulus money, lets pull out now! We can put that money to better use in Colorado anyway!
When defining torture Excon uses the Potter Stewart rule.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, when YOU can't recognize torture when you see it, some adult has to step in.
excon
Hello again, Mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
You lost me too with your rant against the dreaded left... I don't know about THEIR words. I only know about mine.
So, I'll take that as a YES. The Bushies redefined the law so as to allow them to commit a war crime in our name. Mind you, not only is torture against the law, but writing the memos that allowed it, is too.
excon
And thus we go back to my earlier statementQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
You have proven my point much more succinctly than I ever could have imagined. Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
I am sorry if I used too much reason and logic. It was completely inappropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Writing memos which explore whether certain actions are legal is in your mind illegal? Are you advocating locking up all the lawyers who write memos? Or just making the writing of memos a punishable offense?
When memos are outlawed, only outlaws will have memos!
You can have my memo when you pry my cold dead hands from around it.
"I am in here for car-jacking, what are you in here for?" "I wrote a memo."
"A memo is hard to define, but I know it when I see it."
Thanks for the material buddy, this is the best laugh I had in a while!
Waterboarding was never classified as a crime. In 2005, Ted Kennedy proposed a bill outlawing waterboarding. Congress turn him down. In 2007, again the proposal was made and again turned down by Congress .
If you cite international law it is important to understand that the Senate added a caveat about CID(cruel inhumane degrading treatment ) It was to be understood in the U.S. by governing American law and not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like “degrading treatment” might mean.
That means US statute was the guidelines and not what anyone "thinks " torture is. Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines it as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” .
But that is not defined in the code either and that is why the so called "torture memos " by the Justice Dept was needed ;to clarify how far an interrogator can go.
Thanks for the material buddy, this is the best laugh I had in a while!Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
Hello again, Mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
So, you're actually accusing ME of redefining the word. Dude! That's chutzpa!
excon
Actually, I am! You came back and stated that the writing of the memo itself was an illegal activity thus proving my earlier point. You ARE redefining the writing of memos to be illegal, are you not? (if you are not sure, see your past posts) Now under your rules, any defense team in a criminal trial would be committing an illegal act anytime they write memos to each other exploring possible defenses they might offer up before a judge or a jury. I don't have chutzpa my friend, you got it all!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
Read carefully. Unlike my opposition, I don't change the meaning of words.. I don't dance around. I don't spin. I don't misspeak. I remember what I post.
The writing of the memos by itself, isn't a crime, as you so aptly point out. However, the writing of the memos to reach a foregone conclusion, so as to provide cover for war crimes, IS against the law. It's called conspiracy.
excon
It is spin. You have decided something is illegal and the memo supporting it is also illegal. The question is who defines the legality? The question was answered by another poster and you choose to ignore it. Here it is again...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You don't like it, so you are defining it as illegal because you "think" it is, all based upon your own liberal superior position-
I also read carefully. I don't have to remember what you post because its still in here to be referred back to.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As for my opinion, to use waterboarding to get a confession for use in a court of law, I would consider it a violation of the 5th amendment right against self incrimination and actions to get the confession a violation of 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. If it was used to extract time sensitive information needed to save lives from someone who was an unlawful combatant whom intelligence indicated a very high likelihood that they had the information, then I don't. I consider it a reasonable search and I don't afford them the 5th amendment protections either as the Geneva Conventions are clear on the issue.
Hello again, Mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
I see that your values ARE malleable depending on the circumstance... Isn't that what you righty's call moral relativism?? I think you do.
Ahhh, the ticking time bomb scenario... I'll discuss it, and have. I've torn it apart from one end to the other... Couldn't you find those posts?? I will if you insist.. However, you'd think you could come up with stuff that some TV writer didn't think of first.
Tell me, is the "intelligence indicated" mentioned above, from the same source that Vice used to tell us about the Iraqi WMD'S?? The same intelligence that warned up about 9/11?? The same "slam dunk" intelligence used to invade Iraq??
"Intelligence", hmmm. Somebody TOLD you that the guy you are about to torture KNOWS stuff that you want to KNOW... Why don't you torture the guy who told you that?? Oh, you DID?? That's where this "intelligence" came from?? I understand. Really, I do.
Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
Defense teams are guilty of conspiracy if they write a memo supporting the position of the defendant in a self-defense case?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, MarkQuote:
Originally Posted by SailorMark
If you want to discuss silly tangents, go discuss it with somebody else. I thought you were a serious opponent.. Guess not.
excon
All Obama has to do to prove your point is release the information Cheney asked him to release. (He declassified other stuff, why not this?) Did the information gained actually provide us with good intelligence which enabled us to stop them from committing more acts of terrorism against the United States?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You are right about the faulty "slam dunk" intel, but wrong in your misplaced blame. It was intel from the leftover gutted intelligence operations that Bill Clinton left to the new administration. If you claim Bush left Obama the financial mess, then you have to admit Clinton left Bush the faulty intel. And why wouldn't Bush and Cheney believe it? Clinton and the Democrat leaders had been repeating it for years!
I imagine you have "torn apart" those other arguments the same way you think are tearing apart mine- By ignoring the facts and the arguments based upon those facts because you've already made up your mind.
My opinion isn't malleable and it isn't moral relativism. I don't think our government has a right to use waterboarding against you to find out if you broke the law and then use that evidence against you. You are a citizen and you have the rights spelled out for you in the Constitution. They are not, and the law even goes so far as to state they do not even have Geneva Convention protections yet you are trying to give them the civil rights that would protect them from my government which has the obligation to protect me from foreign enemies! What is more important, the governments obligation to protect me or their supposed right to not have their feeling hurt?
I believe this is a standard hollow argument strategy- Belittle your opponent if they use your logic against you. I simply followed your argument out to what I consider a reasonable conclusion just to show how preposterous it was. I feel like I can safely take the point on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Sailor Mark,
Great points. And ones that Tomder, Speechless and I have made to Excon. He's wrong, his arguments are weak, he is stuck with ignoring facts in order to make his point, and he knows it. But he'll never admit it, because he can't stand to admit that Bush was right about ANYTHING. His hatred of Bush is so strong that he's willing to paint himself into a corner with his own arguments rather than accept that Bush was right about anything, especially anything having to do with the War on Terror (aka "Bush's War") that he decries so strongly.
Kudos on a well-reasoned response.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 AM. |