Libs Claim Pres Bush Confessed To War Crimes [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

11-10-2010, 08:16 AM

The liberals have there irrational issues about Bush, However in this case.

( realize some here don't think waterboarding is torture, but you brought it up red)
I remember Clearly BUSH saying "we don't torture" now he's saying when they asked if AlShikMuhamend should be water boarded he said. "Damn right.". If that's a true representation of what he said then He's Admitting to Authorizing it. Now the question is if Waterboarding can be defined as torture, (as it's been since the 1500' when it was done in the Spanish Inquisition, And people went to jail for in Texas while Bush was Gov,) Is the Lawyers sleazy work around. great for the client horrible for the country.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g6LtL9lCTRA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g6LtL9lCTRA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zmi3uLLTVI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zmi3uLLTVI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Former Navy SERE's Trainer and counter-terrorism adviser to the US government talks to Amnesty International.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vuJUoMbgaU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-vuJUoMbgaU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

the question of whether Bush or Clinton should be based on the evidence not on whether or not a certain party likes them or not.
Either the "rule of law" is for everyone or it's not. And frankly it's not. Politicians and people with money and position literally get away with murder and torture.
God Bless America

red states rule

11-10-2010, 06:04 PM

SpidermanTUba

11-10-2010, 07:28 PM

Waterboarding is not torture.

It was torture when we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for it after WW II.

It remained torture when a U.S. soldier was court martialed for it in Vietnam.

When did it stop being torture?

SassyLady

11-10-2010, 07:39 PM

Perhaps it's torture when used on soldiers and not on terrorists?

SpidermanTUba

11-10-2010, 08:25 PM

Perhaps it's torture when used on soldiers and not on terrorists?

Perhaps you're a moron. Or maybe you just like tyrants.

Pagan

11-10-2010, 09:26 PM

red states rule

11-11-2010, 04:22 AM

TORTURE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CC0QFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ohchr.org%2Fenglish%2Fabout% 2Ffunds%2Ftorture%2Fdocs%2Fcompilation_torture.pdf&rct=j&q=geneva%20convention%20torture&ei=SlPbTI_fC46-sAP19LjlAw&usg=AFQjCNGKKBeMHFUirhkjGZmrVdIrg7Me5A)

Article 1
1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Article 2
1 For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.

The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the
performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

Again, waterboarding is ot torture. Libs are having a cow that THREE TERRORISTS were waterboarded and LIVES SAVED from the information obtained from the terrorist bastards

Sorry to bust your bubble - terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention

To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are rarely interpreted strictly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

red states rule

11-11-2010, 04:24 AM

Perhaps you're a moron. Or maybe you just like tyrants.

Perhaps you are already beaten in the debate and you have nothing else to offer but the insults?

Pagan

11-12-2010, 04:14 AM

Again, waterboarding is ot torture. Libs are having a cow that THREE TERRORISTS were waterboarded and LIVES SAVED from the information obtained from the terrorist bastards

Really?

You ever been Waterboarded?

Also read the Geneva Convention definition

Sorry to bust your bubble - terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention

Sorry to piss on your Wheaties, but WE ARE numbnutts. :lame2:

namvet

11-14-2010, 11:41 AM

well after getting they're ass cleaning in the mid term they are required to complain. it is they're job.

but i dare say at night they go home any cry in they're pillows yelling its not fair. stomping they're lil feet and hold they're breath. :laugh2:

a far bigger disaster is i forgot to make my NFL picks for today !!!!

revelarts

11-14-2010, 12:32 PM

Everyone thought it was torture until we started doing it.

The Fact is Waterboading has been considered torture for the past few 1000 years or so.

And it doesn't matter if the accuser is liberal moderate or conservative.
the Laws says Waterboarding is Torture.
Americans have gone to jail for it.
Despite sincerely held and contrary opinions. It is the Law.

the fact the the people it's was used on were terrorist, soldiers, civilians, old or young green or blue makes no difference.

the Laws says it's Waterboarding Torture.
Americans have gone to jail for it.

Everyone here agrees that it was done.
the Law says it is torture.
It seems Bush now admits he ordered it.
According to the law, protecting the people is No defense

Other Americans have gone to jail for it.
Seems the only question is why shouldn't he?

DragonStryk72

11-14-2010, 03:05 PM

red states rule

11-15-2010, 04:25 AM

Looks as if some here would rather have had terrorist attacks happen rather then doing everything possible to stop them

Some here would rather have US citizens murdered rather then violate the "rights" of terrorists

The liberal media did there part to ignore the fact lives were saved by the waterboarding of THREE terrorists

Say you're the editor of a major U.S. city's newspaper and that sources in the national security community have informed your reporters that waterboarding was a crucial tactic in making a terrorist detainee spill his guts with information that, when followed up by authorities, thwarted a planned terrorist attack on same major U.S. city.

You would probably run the story on the front page with a banner headline to that effect, but at the very least you'd make sure that fact was reported in your paper's coverage.

That is, of course, unless you're the ideologically leftward, politically correct editors at the Los Angeles Times. Patterico has details in an April 27 post at his blog:

The L.A. Times had a front page article yesterday titled CIA reportedly declined to closely evaluate harsh interrogations:

The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on imprisoned Al Qaeda suspects for nearly seven years without seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles.

You might think that would be something that the biggest Los Angeles newspaper would care about.

You’d be wrong. The closest the paper comes to telling readers this fact is to say that in a speech,

Bush said that “alternative” interrogation methods had been crucial to getting Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to talk.

Not good enough. What does it mean to say that we got KSM to “talk”? It means that we got him to “disclose details of massive plots against the United States.” According to the intelligence community, waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives.

How do you make it though an entire article on the effectiveness of harsh interrogation and not even mention that little tidbit?

Ask the geniuses at the Los Angeles Times.

And they wonder why the print newspaper industry is dying.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/04/27/la-times-leaves-out-waterboarding-helped-thwart-terror-attack-los-ange#ixzz15LEBbjaB

I wonder these same posters would react if an attack did happen and the liberal media was on its high horse asking why the government did not stop the attack when he had a high ranking terrorist in custody?

SassyLady

11-15-2010, 01:27 PM

gabosaurus

11-17-2010, 03:56 PM

namvet

11-17-2010, 04:05 PM

your rep precede's you. climb back in your palm tree and swing like the dumb and blind monkey you are

red states rule

11-21-2010, 06:33 AM

The truth is the truth. If Saddam was guilty of "war crimes," then so should Dubya. I have listed many of them here in the past. Not that anyone was listening, since that topic seems to bring out the deaf, dumb and blind monkeys.
And if not guilty of war crimes, Dubya was guilty of gross negligence and stupidity. He stated to several insiders involved in his 2000 presidential campaign that his top priority was to invade Iraq. But it wasn't reported on Fox or published in a right-wing blog, so none of you chose to believe it.

Of course Gabby libs can always tell bold face lies to make their points or to excuse what they have said in the past

Notice how this panel is made up of 4 libs and one conservative. Not one liberal corrects the lie of Mark Shields

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m73_DoTcp9A&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m73_DoTcp9A&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

jon_forward

11-22-2010, 02:07 PM

TERRORIST HAVE NO RIGHTS! They know going in what lays ahead if they are caught. they made the choice to kill innocents, i say waterboarding is too good for them.

fj1200

11-22-2010, 02:18 PM

Notice how this panel is made up of 4 libs and one conservative. Not one liberal corrects the lie of Mark Shields

All truth should be run through Mark Shields; he's smart.

abso

11-27-2010, 10:22 AM

Again, waterboarding is ot torture. Libs are having a cow that THREE TERRORISTS were waterboarded and LIVES SAVED from the information obtained from the terrorist bastards

Sorry to bust your bubble - terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention

Sorry to interfer in the subject, but since you are looking up terrorist in the wrong treaty then read my post......

International humanitarian law: "Geneva Conventions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law

Violations and punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law#Violations_and_puni shment
During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.

Spies and "terrorists" are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.

The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.

After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.

So lets look at the UN Convention Against Torture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture

Definition of torture

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:
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.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment:

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction.

This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.

Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised. Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.

Signatories of CAT "Convention Against Torture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture#Signatories_of_CAT

IT Includes: United States of America

The current membership of the Committee Against Torture is:
<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#dae4f8><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom width=283>Ms. Felice GAER (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/647a2ab573a858f6c1256a2a0027ba29/7ffad6b6ff3fa91580256842005bff15?OpenDocument) (Vice-Chairperson)

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=248>United States of America

</TD><TD vAlign=bottom width=134>2011

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Rest of the committee members:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/members.htm

red states rule

11-27-2010, 10:30 AM

Sorry to interfer in the subject, but since you are looking at terrorist from the wrong scope......

International humanitarian law: "Geneva Conventions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law

Violations and punishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law#Violations_and_puni shment
During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.

Spies and "terrorists" are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.

The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.

After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.

So lets look at the UN Convention Against Torture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture

Definition of torture

Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:
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.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.

Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment:

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction.

This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.

Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised. Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.
The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.

Signatories of CAT "Convention Against Torture"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture#Signatories_of_CAT

IT Includes: United States of America

The current membership of the Committee Against Torture is:
<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#dae4f8><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom width=283>Ms. Felice GAER (http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/647a2ab573a858f6c1256a2a0027ba29/7ffad6b6ff3fa91580256842005bff15?OpenDocument) (Vice-Chairperson)

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=248>United States of America

</TD><TD vAlign=bottom width=134>2011

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Rest of the committee members:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/members.htm

As I pointed out to another terrorist defender - TERRORISTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION

Terrorists do wear uniforms, display their arms in the open, hide behind civilians, and last I cheked, the terrorists did not sign the Geneva convention

Again, only THREE TERRORISTS WERE EVER WATERBOARDED!!!!!!

Unlike our captives, the people the terrorists take hostage usually end up dead and hung upside down from bridges

So spare me your BS and pity party for those bastards

The best way to put an end to this crap over the treatment of terrorists is for our military to stop taking these pigs alive

They want to die for Allah? Good. Let our troops do what is needed for a fast intorduction

abso

11-27-2010, 10:35 AM

As I pointed out to another terrorist defender - TERRORISTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION

Terrorists do wear uniforms, display their arms in the open, hide behind civilians, and last I cheked, the terrorists did not sign the Geneva convention

Again, only THREE TERRORISTS WERE EVER WATERBOARDED!!!!!!

Unlike our prisoneers, the people the terorists take hostage usually end up dead and hung upside down from bridges

So spare me your BS and pity party for those bastards

The best way to put an end to this crap over the treatment of terrorists is for our military to stop taking these pigs alive

They want to die for Allah? Good. Let our troops do what is needed for a fast intorduction

actually i agree with you, they should be killed at sight, i dont want them alive at all, but since you were talking about laws, i wanted to show you that i won the debate, not you.

but if you debate with me about feelings, i will share the same feelings as you, they should be killed, not taken as prisoners and then spending money on keeping them alive while they are killing us.

and as i said, terrorists are not covered in geneva convention, but they are covered in CAT, and your country is a member of CAT who agreed to prevent torture wutever the reason, even for terrorists, and even if its for the puplic safety, so about laws, torture is always illegal even for terrorists.

but anyway, i dont care if they torture terrorists or not, i dont care if they burn them alive or not, all i want is for them to be very sure that they are actually terrorists not just suspects, then i wont have any problem with torturing them with any possible mean.

and by the way, i dont even know what waterboarding is, and i didnt even bother to look it up in google, cuz i dont care, but if you consider water boarding not torture, then what happened in Abu Gharib was surely a torture, so dont think that USA doesnt actually torture people, because it does, and anyone who believe otherwise is mistaken.

red states rule

11-27-2010, 10:38 AM

actually i agree with you, they should be killed at sight, i dont want them alive at all, but since you were talking about laws, i wanted to show you that i won the debate, not you.

but if you debate with me about feelings, i will share the same feelings as you, they should be killed, not taken as prisoners and then spending money on keeping them alive while they are killing us.

and as i said, terrorists are not covered in geneva convention, but they are covered in CAT, and your country is a member of CAT who agreed to prevent torture wutever the reason, even for terrorists, and even if its for the puplic safety, so about laws, torture is always illegal even for terrorists.

but anyway, i dont care if they torture terrorists or not, i dont care if they burn them alive or not, all i want is for them to be very sure that they are actually terrorists not just suspects, then i wont have any problem with torturing them with any possible mean.

You won NOTHING

Waterboarding is not torture and lives were saved from using it. I guess some people would rather had innocent people kiled rather then violate the "rights" of terrorists

Yet those same idiots wil be the first to demand "why" and "how" if the terrorit bastards pull off another attack

abso

11-27-2010, 10:46 AM

You won NOTHING

Waterboarding is not torture and lives were saved from using it. I guess some people would rather had innocent people kiled rather then violate the "rights" of terrorists

Yet those same idiots wil be the first to demand "why" and "how" if the terrorit bastards pull off another attack

as i said, i won it in the legal aspect which you used as your argument, but in general i agree with you.

about if torture is legal or not, its not, and even for terrorists, so admit it unless you dont like to be proven wrong.

about me, i agree with torturing any terrorists, thats all, i think CAT is a useless treaty which limits the abilities of security agencies from protecting people like us while it give more protection to terrorists who kill us.

my opinion is simple enough, if we should treat them as humans and not torture them, then they should treat us as humans and not kill us, but since they treat us like pigs and kill us, then we should treat them like pigs and kill them or torture them.

red states rule

11-27-2010, 10:48 AM

as i said, i won it in the legal aspect which you used as your argument, but in general i agree with you.

about if torture is legal or not, its not, and even for terrorists, so admit it unless you dont like to be proven wrong.

about me, i agree with torturing any terrorists, thats all, i think CAT is a useless treaty which limits the abilities of security agencies from protecting people like us while it give more protection to terrorists who kill us.

Then why post the usual crap about the Geneva Convention and "international law"?

Seems you were saying how the US can defend itself as long as we wear the handcuffs while the terrorists do what they do best

Kill from the shadows and for Allah

abso

11-27-2010, 10:51 AM

Then why post the usual crap about the Geneva Convention and "international law"?

Seems you were saying how the US can defend itself as long as we wear the handcuffs while the terrorists do what they do best

Kill from the shadows and for Allah

i posted it because you used law as your argument, so i used law as mine, then i stated my opinion that i dont agree with the law.

proving you wrong about the law doesnt mean that i agree with the law, i agree with you, but i just disagreed with you about the point that says that law permits torturing terrorists.

i approve of torturing terrorists but i admit that its not legally allowed, but i hope that they cancel CAT and allow it, anyway, none respect that law, and everyone uses torture, so its useless :laugh:

revelarts

11-27-2010, 10:52 AM

Looks as if some here would rather have had terrorist attacks happen rather then doing everything possible to stop them

Some here would rather have US citizens murdered rather then violate the "rights" of terrorists

Red this is just BS.
the reason the 9-11 attacks weren't stopped wasn't because of lack of Torture.

We had more than enough info in our intel agencies to stop it. The problem was connecting the dots, incompetence and complicity.
Dealing with potential terrorist attacks we don't need any application of Illegal "ENHANCED" methods.

The liberal media did there part to ignore the fact lives were saved by the waterboarding of THREE terrorists

That's what we've been told. Until we have details how can we know that.
3 they've admitted to, there are reports of more and much evidence was shredded.
Believe the best if you will but the best is still illegal under U.S. law.

I wonder these same posters would react if an attack did happen and the liberal media was on its high horse asking why the government did not stop the attack when he had a high ranking terrorist in custody?

Some how your assuming that Torture is the only method to get information. Many have explained that's it's unreliable and counterproductive. And there has yet to be a ticking time bomb scenario where 1 guy is the key to the whole thing. that's TV fiction. I would be PISSED if the Gov't decided that the only thing to Do was to question ONE guy when we have a billion dollar intel industry that can be brought to bear on an issue.

red states rule

11-27-2010, 10:54 AM

i posted it because you used law as your argument, so i used law as mine, then i stated my opinion that i dont agree with the law.

proving you wrong about the law doesnt mean that i agree with the law, i agree with you, but i just disagreed with you about the point that says that law permits torturing terrorists.

i approve of torturing terrorists but i admit that its not legally allowed, but i hope that they cancel CAT and allow it, anyway, none respect that law, and everyone uses torture, so its useless :laugh:

The point is we are not violating any laws. We are defending our country and saving innocent lives

Again, waterboarding is not torture

But then again the people ranting about waterboarding is torture have nothing to say about innocent people being beheaded and the video shown on the internet

Case closed

abso

11-27-2010, 10:57 AM

The point is we are not violating any laws. We are defending our country and saving innocent lives

Again, waterboarding is not torture

But then again the people ranting about waterboarding is torture have nothing to say about innocent people being beheaded and the video shown on the internet

Case closed

again, you are wrong, you cant say that you are not violating any law while your country signed a treaty and obligated itself to stop torturing for any reasons.

so from the legal aspect, i say its illegal.

from the human aspect, i say its legal and should be allowed.

red states rule

11-27-2010, 10:58 AM

Red this is just BS.
the reason the 9-11 attacks weren't stopped wasn't because of lack of Torture.

We had more than enough info in our intel agencies to stop it. The problem was connecting the dots, incompetence and complicity.
Dealing with potential terrorist attacks we don't need any application of Illegal "ENHANCED" methods.

That's what we've been told. Until we have details how can we know that.
3 they've admitted to, there are reports of more and much evidence was shredded.
Believe the best if you will but the best is still illegal under U.S. law.

Some how your assuming that Torture is the only method to get information. Many have explained that's it's unreliable and counterproductive. And there has yet to be a ticking time bomb scenario where 1 guy is the key to the whole thing. that's TV fiction. I would be PISSED if the Gov't decided that the only thing to Do was to question ONE guy when we have a billion dollar intel industry that can be brought to bear on an issue.

Wow if you are so damn smart maybe you should be working in one of our intell agencies

Again (how many time do I have to remind you people of this?) ONLY THREE TERRORISTS WERE EVER WATERBOARDED

You people act like thousands pf por innocent freedom fighters were "tortured" by the big bullies of the US

Grow up people this is a war we are in and you will not win it by tying the hands of the people you demand keep us safe

revelarts

11-27-2010, 10:59 AM

red states rule

11-27-2010, 11:00 AM

again, you are wrong, you cant say that you are not violating any law while your country signed a treaty and obligated itself to stop torturing for any reasons.

so from the legal aspect, i say its illegal.

from the human aspect, i say its legal and should be allowed.

Another terrorist defender who wants the US to fight this war with lawyers and legal documents while the terrorits fight it with bombs and guns

Pagan

11-27-2010, 01:04 PM

red states rule

11-27-2010, 02:07 PM

And as I pointed out earlier, WE ARE numbnutts.

Get a clue eh?

As I pointed out to you ASSHOLE - if you can show me where terrorists wear uniformes, badges of rank, carry their arms openly, are part of branch of the military for a narion - then I will admit you are correct

But again, it is weak ass wimps like you that think this fight can be won in a court of some law and with lawyers

OBL said he use the legal system against America and useful idiots like you are showing he can do it

fj1200

11-27-2010, 03:04 PM

And as I pointed out earlier, WE ARE...

Yes WE are but who is a protected person?

abso

11-27-2010, 04:43 PM

Another terrorist defender who wants the US to fight this war with lawyers and legal documents while the terrorits fight it with bombs and guns

you are really the most stupid human being i have ever seen, i have said in more than 4 posts that i agree with torture and i want CAT to be cancelled, and all what i am saying is that legally torture is not allowed.

i was just educating an ignorant human being like yourself, who thinks that he knows everything about international law just from Geneva convention.

so someone who says to you that legally its not allowed, but i dont agree with that law and i want torture to be used against terrorists, that makes me a terrorist defender ?

i saw someone who doesnt know about his laws, so i told him about the laws of his own country, and about a treaty that his country signed and a committee that his coutry is a part of, but thats make me terrorist defender !!!

i really cant reason with someone who have no common sense at all like yourself, so go on with your life, hate muslims or terrorists or arabs or asians or who ever you want to hate.

abso

11-27-2010, 04:58 PM

Wow if you are so damn smart maybe you should be working in one of our intell agencies

Again (how many time do I have to remind you people of this?) ONLY THREE TERRORISTS WERE EVER WATERBOARDED

You people act like thousands pf por innocent freedom fighters were "tortured" by the big bullies of the US

what someone like you doesnt understand is that none is talking about waterboarding anymore, we are talking about the torture in general, should we agree with it or not, but you onle have two things to talk about, "Waterboarding" and "Terrorists are not covered in Geneva convention", those are the only two arguments that you had during your whole discussion, actually only one of them is valid, the one about Geneva convention, but about the waterboarding, you are very mistaken if you think that only three have been tortured that way, i dont really care if hundreds have been tourtered that way as long as they are all terrorists not innocents.

and about Geneva convention, it does not cover terrorists.

But CAT does cover terrorists, and USA is part of it, so stop speaking about international law, because in the field of law, all your arguments about torture will lose.

Dont try to legalise torture, if i were you, i would try to humanize it, not legalise it, i really hope that you can know the difference.

Grow up people this is a war we are in and you will not win it by tying the hands of the people you demand keep us safe

if you read my posts, you will see that i already said that things like CAT, limits the abilities of the security agencies all over the world to protect innocent people like us, and give more protection to stupid terrorists who kill us, so things like CAT should be cancelled from international law, but apparently, you still think that i am defending terrorists.

abso

11-27-2010, 05:05 PM

Yes WE are but who is a protected person?

Good question..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_I._General_Provision s

Fourth Geneva Convention "1949":

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person:
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

red states rule

11-27-2010, 05:07 PM

you are really the most stupid human being i have ever seen, i have said in more than 4 posts that i agree with torture and i want CAT to be cancelled, and all what i am saying is that legally torture is not allowed.

i was just educating an ignorant human being like yourself, who thinks that he knows everything about international law just from Geneva convention.

so someone who says to you that legally its not allowed, but i dont agree with that law and i want torture to be used against terrorists, that makes me a terrorist defender ?

i saw someone who doesnt know about his laws, so i told him about the laws of his own country, and about a treaty that his country signed and a committee that his coutry is a part of, but thats make me terrorist defender !!!

i really cant reason with someone who have no common sense at all like yourself, so go on with your life, hate muslims or terrorists or arabs or asians or who ever you want to hate.

Fine camel jockey, if you do not like having your BS talked about then leave

I am saying the US does not torture the terrorists - they get damn fine treatment

OBL said their would be assholes like you that would help him use the legal syatem of the US against us - and he was right. All the bastards have to do is whine in public they were "tortured" and usual idiots like you will be right there to sing the song they tell you to sing

red states rule

11-27-2010, 05:08 PM

what someone like you doesnt understand is that none is talking about waterboarding anymore, we are talking about the torture in general, should we agree with it or not, but you onle have two things to talk about, "Waterboarding" and "Terrorists are not covered in Geneva convention", those are the only two arguments that you had during your whole discussion, actually only one of them is valid, the one about Geneva convention, but about the waterboarding, you are very mistaken if you think that only three have been tortured that way, i dont really care if hundreds have been tourtered that way as long as they are all terrorists not innocents.

and about Geneva convention, it does not cover terrorists.

But CAT does cover terrorists, and USA is part of it, so stop speaking about international law, because in the field of law, all your arguments about torture will lose.

Dont try to legalise torture, if i were you, i would try to humanize it, not legalise it, i really hope that you can know the difference.

if you read my posts, you will see that i already said that things like CAT, limits the abilities of the security agencies all over the world to protect innocent people like us, and give more protection to stupid terrorists who kill us, so things like CAT should be cancelled from international law, but apparently, you still think that i am defending terrorists.

What do pinheads like you call "torture"?

Yelling at them?

Slapping them?

Sleep deprivation?

Having to read your BS posts?

fj1200

11-27-2010, 05:27 PM

Good question..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_I._General_Provision s

Fourth Geneva Convention "1949":

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person:
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Good find, that's not the definition I had in mind. But, we have normal relations with Afghanistan, at least the current iteration, which seems to exclude the Taliban/Al Qaeda. I hate reading legalese and I don't like to fall back on legalese either... tough questions.

abso

11-27-2010, 06:28 PM

Good find, that's not the definition I had in mind. But, we have normal relations with Afghanistan, at least the current iteration, which seems to exclude the Taliban/Al Qaeda. I hate reading legalese and I don't like to fall back on legalese either... tough questions.

Taliban and Al Qaeda are not included in Geneva Convention, they dont qualify to be protected persons, but they qualify for CAT "Committee Against Torture" which refuse any torture of any kind to any human wutever the reason or the benifit of the torturing, and USA are a part of CAT, so legally it has an obligation not to torture anyone even terrorists, even if the torture will prevent coming attacks, thats about the legal aspect.

but anyway, i dont care about the legal aspect, its stupid, and CAT should be cancelled, if torturing one terrorist will save more than hundred lifes, why shouldnt we do it !!!, so i say that we should torture terrorists, they kill us anyway, so why should we treat them kindly !!!

abso

11-27-2010, 06:30 PM

What do pinheads like you call "torture"?

Yelling at them?

Slapping them?

Sleep deprivation?

Having to read your BS posts?

why do you think that i am against torture while i said over dozen times that i support it !!!!, if you cant read my posts accurately, get someone to read it for you. :poke:

and by the way, yes,
Slapping, Sleep deprivation are both torture unless you dont have any common sense at all.

i am brave enough to admit that they are torture and support them at the same time, perhaps you should do the same, stop denying that they are torture.

you dont have to deny that something is torture so that you can support it, i admit that i support torture in any possible mean to save lives, so stop perverting the truth to suit you, admit they are torture, then support them.

Pagan

11-27-2010, 08:13 PM

As I pointed out to you ASSHOLE - if you can show me where terrorists wear uniformes, badges of rank, carry their arms openly, are part of branch of the military for a narion - then I will admit you are correct

But again, it is weak ass wimps like you that think this fight can be won in a court of some law and with lawyers

OBL said he use the legal system against America and useful idiots like you are showing he can do it

Christ you are the ignorant fuck, once more I will attempt to explain and maybe you'll get a clue.

We signed the Geneva Convention therefore we are bound by it's rules.

jimnyc

11-27-2010, 08:49 PM

Christ you are the ignorant fuck, once more I will attempt to explain and maybe you'll get a clue.

We signed the Geneva Convention therefore we are bound by it's rules.

And it's rules apply to those we hold as "prisoners of war". In order for a detainee to be considered a "prisoner of war", the following must apply:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Terrorists certainly don't apply to any of the described above, far from it. It might not specifically state in the agreements that "prisoners of war requirements must be met before the no torture clause applies" - but there's obviously a reason they spell it out in the convention article that explains torture. These are techniques that are not to be used when holding a prisoner of war who fit the above criteria. It's ridiculous to think ANY of the participants signing the above had done so with the intent of giving protections to terrorists. Therefore, IMO, if you're not a prisoner of war, then you don't qualify for the protections.

fj1200

11-27-2010, 08:57 PM

but anyway, i dont care about the legal aspect, its stupid, and CAT should be cancelled, if torturing one terrorist will save more than hundred lifes, why shouldnt we do it !!!, so i say that we should torture terrorists, they kill us anyway, so why should we treat them kindly !!!

I think we agree about that.

abso

11-28-2010, 12:29 AM

I think we agree about that.

sure we do

Mr. P

11-28-2010, 12:39 AM

You ever been Waterboarded?

Yes.

abso

11-28-2010, 12:40 AM

And it's rules apply to those we hold as "prisoners of war". In order for a detainee to be considered a "prisoner of war", the following must apply:

Terrorists certainly don't apply to any of the described above, far from it. It might not specifically state in the agreements that "prisoners of war requirements must be met before the no torture clause applies" - but there's obviously a reason they spell it out in the convention article that explains torture. These are techniques that are not to be used when holding a prisoner of war who fit the above criteria. It's ridiculous to think ANY of the participants signing the above had done so with the intent of giving protections to terrorists. Therefore, IMO, if you're not a prisoner of war, then you don't qualify for the protections.

Yes you are right, terrorists doesnt qualify for Geneva Convention, as they dont qualify to be protected persons, but as i said, from the legal aspect, USA cant torture terrorists because its a member of CAT "Committee Against Torture" which prohibits torture whatever its reason or goal, and it doesnt approve of torturing the terrorists who kill us even if it will save our lifes, its ironic isnt it ? :salute:

so, about the international law, it does not approve of torturing terrorists, but about me or you or most of other humans, we all approve of it, as terrorists deserve to be tortured if they hold back some information that could save our lifes.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 09:02 AM

Kathianne

11-28-2010, 09:29 AM

Pagan

11-28-2010, 09:36 AM

Yes.

I seriously doubt that

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 09:43 AM

I seriously doubt that

Then you don't know Mr. P. This is something that was long discussed with him before, and as much as he and I have our differences, there is NO DOUBT whatsoever that his military background "allowed" him to undergo this experience. You should question HOW he got waterboarded instead of just dismissing his claims.

Either way, I'll defer to those who actually have been waterboarded before those who guess.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 09:45 AM

Perhaps the US should propose that they are opting out of this with all non-signatories or just pull out altogether?

My belief? It should only apply to those who signed on the dotted line and treat their prisoners the same in return - which is likely the whole reason behind the treaties to begin with. They should add some sort of amendment that states those not on board with the treaty, or more specifically, terrorists, are not covered and should receive the same treatment they give others.

Kathianne

11-28-2010, 09:53 AM

My belief? It should only apply to those who signed on the dotted line and treat their prisoners the same in return - which is likely the whole reason behind the treaties to begin with. They should add some sort of amendment that states those not on board with the treaty, or more specifically, terrorists, are not covered and should receive the same treatment they give others.

I'd agree with that. Simple reason that nothing done in the name of the people, which includes the Constitution and any treaties passed under Article 1, should not be a suicide pact.

Pagan

11-28-2010, 09:58 AM

Then you don't know Mr. P. This is something that was long discussed with him before, and as much as he and I have our differences, there is NO DOUBT whatsoever that his military background "allowed" him to undergo this experience. You should question HOW he got waterboarded instead of just dismissing his claims.

Either way, I'll defer to those who actually have been waterboarded before those who guess.

That's right I don't Mr P. so with my own knowledge of Waterboarding I don't have any reason to believe him since his claim hasn't been verified.

Here, let's post something that can be verified.

I know waterboarding is torture - because I did it myself (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/10/31/2007-10-31_i_know_waterboarding_is_torture__because.html)

"However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it."

"In the media, waterboarding is called "simulated drowning," but that's a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning."

"Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia - meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells"

Malcom Nance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Wrightson_Nance)

A 26-year veteran of the US intelligence community, Nance is a frequent guest analyst on Fox News. He served as the chief consultant at Real World Rescue in 2000. In 2004 Nance was working as a security consultant in Iraq. In 2006 Nance was consulting over Australian security.
He is also notable for testifying before the U.S. Congress about the use of "extended interrogation techniques". He told the House Judiciary Committee that:
"Waterboarding is torture, period."
"I believe that we must reject the use of the waterboard for prisoners and captives and cleanse this stain from our national honor."
"water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel(ing) your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs."

Kathianne

11-28-2010, 10:05 AM

I would hope that treaty or not, the US intelligence agencies would be as discriminate as they appear to have been in using such since 9/11. Problems like Abu Ghraib were not done by trained people, but by individuals out of control and a few officers that shouldn't have been. There are punishments for such behavior, without treaties.

It's been obvious that in order to avoid the law, extraordinary rendition has been used, by both Bush and Obama administrations. How much info has been gained by those? We don't know. What the CIA got? Well the mastermind behind the attacks, that we do know.

Making it 'lawful' doesn't mean it needs to be used, but the threat is there...

Pagan

11-28-2010, 10:50 AM

And it's rules apply to those we hold as "prisoners of war". In order for a detainee to be considered a "prisoner of war", the following must apply:

Terrorists certainly don't apply to any of the described above, far from it. It might not specifically state in the agreements that "prisoners of war requirements must be met before the no torture clause applies" - but there's obviously a reason they spell it out in the convention article that explains torture. These are techniques that are not to be used when holding a prisoner of war who fit the above criteria. It's ridiculous to think ANY of the participants signing the above had done so with the intent of giving protections to terrorists. Therefore, IMO, if you're not a prisoner of war, then you don't qualify for the protections.

Here, from the CFR -

The United States and the Geneva Conventions (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11485/united_states_and_the_geneva_conventions.html)

"This article of the Geneva Conventions bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs. Until recently it remained unclear whether the article applied to CIA interrogators, located overseas, who were questioning high-ranking members of al-Qaeda and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants.” In July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay. "Quoting [Common Article Three] is like quoting the Bible for international lawyers," says Peter Danchin, a Columbia University legal expert"

Mr. P

11-28-2010, 10:50 AM

I seriously doubt that
Why would you doubt ? Do you think I'd lie about such a thing? What's the point in that? Proof... what sort of proof are you looking for besides my word ?

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 10:54 AM

That's right I don't Mr P. so with my own knowledge of Waterboarding I don't have any reason to believe him since his claim hasn't been verified.

I clipped the rest of your response as I wasn't debating whether or not it is considered to be torture by law and the media. I was merely pointing out to your response that Mr. P was in fact waterboarded before, even if you do doubt it. Now you say you doubt it because you don't know him and can't verify it. I'm simply telling you that you are wrong. If you want to continue thinking someone who has an impeccable military history, and people vouching for him, to be lying - then so be it. IMO, it shows more about your character than his.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 10:56 AM

Here, from the CFR -

The United States and the Geneva Conventions (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11485/united_states_and_the_geneva_conventions.html)

"This article of the Geneva Conventions bars torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war, or POWs. Until recently it remained unclear whether the article applied to CIA interrogators, located overseas, who were questioning high-ranking members of al-Qaeda and other so-called “unlawful enemy combatants.” In July 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hamdan decision that this article does indeed apply to top terror suspects detained in CIA-run prisons as well as at Guantanamo Bay. "Quoting [Common Article Three] is like quoting the Bible for international lawyers," says Peter Danchin, a Columbia University legal expert"

Then, IMO, the courts made a horrible decision. In no way should "terrorists" receive ANY type of protection from any treaty, regardless of whom signed it. They deserve nothing short of what they give to others. But I'll concede that as per that courts precedence, it overrides my opinion of the text of the treaty.

Pagan

11-28-2010, 10:58 AM

Why would you doubt ? Do you think I'd lie about such a thing? What's the point in that? Proof... what sort of proof are you looking for besides my word ?

No offense, but I don't know you and with the nature of the Internet someone could claim anything. Not to mention that with my own personal experience with those who "have" been waterboarded you'd be all over the waterboard debate stating the reality that it "is" torture.

Mr. P

11-28-2010, 12:04 PM

No offense, but I don't know you and with the nature of the Internet someone could claim anything. Not to mention that with my own personal experience with those who "have" been waterboarded you'd be all over the waterboard debate stating the reality that it "is" torture.
You are correct you don't know me which is good reason not to dismiss my experience. You say I'd be all over the debate stating waterboarding is torture IF I had the experience. Why...just because you claim you know some that say it is? I know many that hold the opposite view that have, like myself, also had the experience. That's MY reality.

My experience is that most that claim the method is torture know nothing about it except the dramatic media reports they see and hear. There is no convincing those folks there may be more to it than what they are told in 30 seconds by the liberal media, I've tried. That's why I'm not all over the debate.

Kathianne

11-28-2010, 12:07 PM

You are correct you don't know me which is good reason not to dismiss my experience. You say I'd be all over the debate stating waterboarding is torture IF I had the experience. Why...just because you claim you know some that say it is? I know many that hold the opposite view that have, like myself, also had the experience. That's MY reality.

My experience is that most that claim the method is torture know nothing about it except the dramatic media reports they see and hear. There is no convincing those folks there may be more to it than what they are told in 30 seconds by the liberal media, I've tried. That's why I'm not all over the debate.

Like Pagan I've read a lot of accounts, including reporters that decided 'to give it a try.' After all the readings I found that those who'd undergone this by military or had prior military training, reported as you did your experience. The others? Seemed to me they had an agenda regarding waterboarding.

Pagan

11-28-2010, 05:41 PM

You are correct you don't know me which is good reason not to dismiss my experience. You say I'd be all over the debate stating waterboarding is torture IF I had the experience. Why...just because you claim you know some that say it is? I know many that hold the opposite view that have, like myself, also had the experience. That's MY reality.

My experience is that most that claim the method is torture know nothing about it except the dramatic media reports they see and hear. There is no convincing those folks there may be more to it than what they are told in 30 seconds by the liberal media, I've tried. That's why I'm not all over the debate.

Yes you don't know me, I don't know you. I base it off my own experience of those who I sent to SERE's school. Like I mentioned to bring validity to the reality I also posted verification from Malcolm Nance.

Drowning is torture, that IS reality.

You know it just shows how far we've fallen as a Nation and Society when there's a debate on whether torture is legal or not, fucking pathetic.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 05:49 PM

You know it just shows how far we've fallen as a Nation and Society when there's a debate on whether torture is legal or not, fucking pathetic.

I find it more pathetic that some would afford protection to terrorists who want to rid the earth of us.

The only debating should be about how we go forth to remove ourselves from a treaty some would consider "protection" for terrorists.

abso

11-28-2010, 05:49 PM

I wonder how many Islamic countries, that have many active terrorists and terrorist cells, are party to both the Geneva and UN treaties? I wonder how many of them prosecute those who "torture"?

So while we are bound by the "CAT", and we are "better people" for being above those who cut our soldiers and citizens heads off - we once again tie our soldiers hands, and it's they who will likely be the ones to suffer by being "better" than terrorists.

All islamic countries have signed both Geneva Convention and CAT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture#Signatories_of_CAT

and all of them prosecute those who torture when they get caught torturing terrorists, but of course, that rarely happens, like what happens in USA, lots of torturing takes place, but only few get caught doing it.

and i think that i speak for both of us when i say, that we both dont care if they get caught or not, because we both agree with torturing terrorists if it will help saving innocent lifes.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 05:51 PM

All islamic countries have signed both Geneva Convention and CAT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture#Signatories_of_CAT

and all of them prosecute those who torture when they get caught torturing terrorists, but of course, that rarely happens, like what happens in USA, lots of torturing takes place, but only few get caught doing it.

and i think that i speak for both of us when i say, that we both dont care if they get caught or not, because we both agree with torturing terrorists if it will help saving innocent lifes.

And although they are against torture, it's ok to lash, hang and stone people for the offenses that would receive simple to large fines in any other country. Go figure.

abso

11-28-2010, 05:53 PM

My belief? It should only apply to those who signed on the dotted line and treat their prisoners the same in return - which is likely the whole reason behind the treaties to begin with. They should add some sort of amendment that states those not on board with the treaty, or more specifically, terrorists, are not covered and should receive the same treatment they give others.

i completely agree, terrorists should be dealt with in the same manner they use with others, they kill us, we kill them, they torture us, we torture them, innocent lifes are more important than protecting their right not to be tortured, they lost that right the moment they started killing innocents.

abso

11-28-2010, 05:56 PM

And although they are against torture, it's ok to lash, hang and stone people for the offenses that would receive simple to large fines in any other country. Go figure.

all that punishments you state are only limited to few countries, the radical ones, like Iran and Saudia, but they are not used anywhere else, nothing like that is used in egypt, algeria, morocco, tunisia, lebanon, syria, iraq, UAE, Jordan, Indonisia and so on.

Pagan

11-28-2010, 06:09 PM

I find it more pathetic that some would afford protection to terrorists who want to rid the earth of us.

The only debating should be about how we go forth to remove ourselves from a treaty some would consider "protection" for terrorists.

You just don't have a clue do you?

The attempts at justifying torture just goes to show the Terrorists have won. They've accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing our Country into a Tyrannical Nation who legalizes

1. Torture
2. Dissolving Habeas corpus
3. Nullification of our Constitution

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

abso

11-28-2010, 06:19 PM

You just don't have a clue do you?

The attempts at justifying torture just goes to show the Terrorists have won. They've accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing our Country into a Tyrannical Nation who legalizes

1. Torture
2. Dissolving Habeas corpus
3. Nullification of our Constitution

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

its hard to sacrifice your values, but you can never ask a mother to sacrifice her child, who may die in the next attack, just because you wont to preserve some values.

if preserving some values, will cost us the life of our children, we will choose to discard those values for the sake of our children, we dont have a choice, if its your kid, you will torture hundreds of terrorists if it could help you to save him.

Kathianne

11-28-2010, 06:24 PM

its hard to sacrifice your values, but you can never ask a mother to sacrifice her child, who may die in the next attack, just because you wont to preserve some values.

if preserving some values, will cost us the life of our children, we will choose to discard those values for the sake of our children, we dont have a choice, if its your kid, you will torture hundreds of terrorists if it could help you to save him.

That might make sense, if not for the Palistinians history of using infants and toddlers.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 06:29 PM

You just don't have a clue do you?

The attempts at justifying torture just goes to show the Terrorists have won. They've accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing our Country into a Tyrannical Nation who legalizes

1. Torture
2. Dissolving Habeas corpus
3. Nullification of our Constitution

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin

Your quote is useless as the only one giving up liberties will be the terrorists. They will not "have won" if the world gets tough with them and treats them like the monstrous killers they are. We will not be a tyrannical nation if a rare amount of terrorists get waterboarded to save American's lives. Habeas corpus and the constitution I subscribe to do not and never will be directed towards individuals that can be categorized as "terrorists".

abso

11-28-2010, 06:40 PM

That might make sense, if not for the Palistinians history of using infants and toddlers.

and that might make a sense too if you have actually visited palestine before and seen someone do what you say, and if all your info didnt come from the media.

revelarts

11-28-2010, 07:49 PM

...Habeas corpus and the constitution I subscribe to do not and never will be directed towards individuals that can be categorized as "terrorists".

Well Jim, that's really the rub of the problem isn't it.
right there.

So many individuals can be categorized as terrorist.
Legally A terrorist is anybody the President says is a terrorist Jim.

But Sadly Jim you don't see any problem with torture or the Presidents claiming authority to use it.

jimnyc

11-28-2010, 08:13 PM

Well Jim, that's really the rub of the problem isn't it.
right there.

So many individuals can be categorized as terrorist.
Legally A terrorist is anybody the President says is a terrorist Jim.

But Sadly Jim you don't see any problem with torture or the Presidents claiming authority to use it.

I don't see any problem with torturing a known terrorist if we know it is going to save lives. The rest of what you guys usually write is putting words in my mouth. But I won't bend or feel embarrassed because I have no respect and would give no leniency or "due process" to a known terrorist.

Mr. P

11-28-2010, 09:13 PM

Pagan...is there any situation that you would accept the use of waterboarding in a interrogation?

Kathianne

11-29-2010, 04:16 AM

and that might make a sense too if you have actually visited palestine before and seen someone do what you say, and if all your info didnt come from the media.

The all important 'cop out'. Visit and don't trust the media. Well guess what? I don't trust the media, haven't for more than 25 years. There's enough information out there from sources to recognize what the Palestinians have done via Hamas and violent cells of Hizbollah. Egypt has been on the receiving end of this too, so your 'defense' seems even more weird.

red states rule

11-29-2010, 04:40 AM

This was pubkished a few years ago, but sadly it still applies

October 30, 2008,Washington (AP) Nuclear devices have caused untold havoc in Los Angeles, New York. Chicago and Washington, D.C. Operating on an emergency broadcasting network from a hidden location outside the Capital, the President declared a State of Emergency. National Guard troops and emergency medical teams are aiding local police and fire departments in emergency evacuations of all three cities. Homeland Security is directing supplies to evacuation centers but do not believe supplies can reach those trapped inside those cities for several days.

"It is not yet certain who was behind the attacks but the markings on two devices which failed to detonate were in Farsi," said unnamed sources inside the Langley, Virginia Frank Church memorial bunker of the Climate Intelligence Agency, the former Central Intelligence Agency, renamed last year as part of the Intelligence Authorization Bill passed by the Democratic Congress. "At least we think it was Farsi, he added, explaining, "we had to replace all our Farsi speakers with Sheryl Crow and Laurie David under the new law."

The attack happened as the Agency head was meeting with Area Studies professors in Durham North Carolina to issue a joint proclamation accusing white male athletes of systematically raping the planet and using more than their allotted share of carbon dioxide emissions. "All the huffing and panting and busing from one event to another places them just under bovine flatulence in the scale of polluters," charged Jennifer Broadhurst, Chair of the Professors for Fair Share Emissions, a public interest group.

Former Vice-President Gore had been scheduled to address the meeting but his Gulfstream Jet was stalled on the ground in Kyoto because of an unexplained problem respecting the credit card he was using to pay for the carbon offsets for the trip.

In the Congressional bunker at another undisclosed location, Congressman Henry Waxman said, "As soon as we can dig our way out of this, I am holding hearings to determine whether the outing of Plame is behind this massive intelligence failure." He indicated he'd been in contact with Richard Clarke who asserted that he had warned the President that "someday, somewhere, somehow, something bad was going to happen."

Senator Schumer demanded to know, "Who is responsible for this?" He hinted that a subpoena of Karl Rove's emails to the RNC and a voter in Boise made reference to a Persian Cat. "I can't prove it, but a circumstantial case could be made that this shows he knew what was about to befall us and kept quiet to effect the election."

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for President issued a statement from her headquarters blaming Bush, "When we voted for this the President should have known it was stupid and stopped us. If we'd known now what we should have known then if we'd read the intelligence reports we were given we wouldn't have passed this. A leader would have called us into the Oval Office and read it out loud to us."*

There was no word from the Republican nominee who reportedly had rolled up his sleeves and joined the rescue party in the Capital.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/what_did_you_do_in_the_war_on.html

abso

11-29-2010, 07:40 AM

The all important 'cop out'. Visit and don't trust the media. Well guess what? I don't trust the media, haven't for more than 25 years. There's enough information out there from sources to recognize what the Palestinians have done via Hamas and violent cells of Hizbollah. Egypt has been on the receiving end of this too, so your 'defense' seems even more weird.

i dont defend them, i actually hate their leaders, but i cant punish the innocent people of palestine just because some of them are stupid misguided humans.

they attacked egyptian borders many times, and once sniped one of our border guards, which is an act of war, but still, we couldnt retaliate against Hamas, because attacking them means to get innocent people involved in the process, innocents who will die.

and we cant just retaliate and say that the blood of the innocent are on the hands of Hamas because they started it, we feel more responsible of our actions than to blame someone else for them, if we have the ability to retaliate against Hamas without killing innocents, we would have done it, but there is no way that we can do that, so we had to abstain from getting our revenge..

Only GOD know how much i want to eradicate Hamas from the face of the earth, they are stupid people who cant distinguish anymore between who is an enemy and who is a friend, but as much as i want to teach them a lesson, i refuse to have innocent blood on my hands which is an outcome that cant be avoided in any military operation.

so i am not here to defend anyone, not arabs or muslims or christians or egypt or palestine or afghanistan or iraq, i am not here to defend anything, i am here to state my opinion about any issue.

some of my opinions will agree with yours, and some will disagree with them, like on the torture issue, i actually agree with torture, i am not against it, although i am against using it on any suspect who may turn out to be innocent, such cases is what makes people iritated from torture, but almost everyone will agree with torturing a terrorists who can give us information that could save lifes.

abso

11-29-2010, 07:44 AM

If you're too fucking stupid to know what a terrorist is and what makes one a terrorist, me explaining it to you won't help. More importantly, look at the topic of the thread and tell me whether the 3 known to be waterboarded were terrorists or not. And should we take back SCARING them and maybe having them pee their pants, and in return we will get dead bodies?

I don't give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks I "get it" or not. I don't need the approval of a dumb fuck like yourself in order to express my opinion.

and you dont need to insult everyone who disagree with you just to express your opinion either

Kathianne

11-29-2010, 07:44 AM

i dont defend them, i actually hate their leaders, but i cant punish the innocent people of palestine just because some of them are stupid misguided humans.

they attacked egyptian borders many times, and once sniped one of our border guards, which is an act of war, but still, we couldnt retaliate against Hamas, because attacking them means to get innocent people involved in the process, innocents who will die.

and we cant just retaliate and say that the blood of the innocent are on the hands of Hamas because they started it, we feel more responsible of our actions than to blame someone else for them, if we have the ability to retaliate against Hamas without killing innocents, we would have done it, but there is no way that we can do that, so we had to abstain from getting our revenge..

Only GOD know how much i want to eradicate Hamas from the face of the earth, they are stupid people who cant distinguish anymore between who is an enemy and who is a friend, but as much as i want to teach them a lesson, i refuse to have innocent blood on my hands which is an outcome that cant be avoided in any military operation.

so i am not here to defend anyone, not arabs or muslims or christians or egypt or palestine or afghanistan or iraq, i am not here to defend anything, i am here to state my opinion about any issue.

some of my opinions will agree with yours, and some will disagree with them, like on the torture issue, i actually agree with torture, i am not against it, although i am against using it on any suspect who may turn out to be innocent, such cases is what makes people iritated from torture, but almost everyone will agree with torturing a terrorists who can give us information that could save lifes.

and yet you earlier wrote:

and that might make a sense too if you have actually visited palestine before and seen someone do what you say, and if all your info didnt come from the media. Meaning the accusation wasn't valid, because I hadn't SEEN it done or VISITED Gaza. Sorry, what I wrote was regarding that earlier quote, not the discussion you just had on Egypt, which btw, I brought up.

fj1200

11-29-2010, 09:22 AM

i dont defend them, i actually hate their leaders, but i cant punish the innocent people of palestine just because some of them are stupid misguided humans.

So how can Hamas be dealt with? They are the ones who are punishing their own people. Is it a good idea that they be left to their own whims because they hide behind innocents?

abso

11-29-2010, 10:42 AM

and yet you earlier wrote:

Meaning the accusation wasn't valid, because I hadn't SEEN it done or VISITED Gaza. Sorry, what I wrote was regarding that earlier quote, not the discussion you just had on Egypt, which btw, I brought up.

i wasnt defending them, just saying that they dont kill their own children, doesnt mean that i defend them, and just saying that you are wrong doesnt mean that i defend them.

just like when i proved "red states rule" to be wrong about the legitimacy of torture, doesnt mean that i am against torture.

Pagan

11-29-2010, 10:44 AM

Pagan...is there any situation that you would accept the use of waterboarding in a interrogation?

No, Torture for one thing doesn't work. People will admit to anything, implicate their own mothers and other innocent people just to make it stop.

Torture is only the tool of the incompetent and tyrants.

Mr. P

11-29-2010, 10:55 AM

No, Torture for one thing doesn't work. People will admit to anything, implicate their own mothers and other innocent people just to make it stop.

Torture is only the tool of the incompetent and tyrants.
Waterboarding works. You don't think the trained interrogators are smart enough to know what info may not be valid? Do you think that maybe they are very aware of the fact it could be false? Do you think everyone will give false info., the first go round?

Pagan

11-29-2010, 11:09 AM

Waterboarding works. You don't think the trained interrogators are smart enough to know what info may not be valid? Do you think that maybe they are very aware of the fact it could be false? Do you think everyone will give false info., the first go round?

Like I said, just goes to show how we've fallen as a Nation and Society when there are those who justify the interrogation methods of the Dark Ages, Stalin, Nazi's, Imperial Japan, Viet Cong, Pinochet, etc.

Fucking Pathetic and as I mentioned before it shows how the Terrorists have won

Pagan

11-29-2010, 11:20 AM

Robert Fisk: Torture does not work, as history shows (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html)

"Once broken, the Jewish prisoners, of course, confessed. After another torture session, Samuel named a fellow Jew. Further sessions of torture finally broke him and he invented the Jewish ritual murder plot and named others guilty of this non-existent crime. Two tortured women managed to exonerate children but eventually, in Grafton's words, "they implicated loved ones, friends and members of other Jewish communities". Thus did torture force innocent civilians to confess to fantastical crimes. Oxford historian Lyndal Roper found that the tortured eventually accepted the view that they were guilty.

Grafton's conclusion is unanswerable. Torture does not obtain truth. It will make most ordinary people say anything the torturer wants. Why, who knows if the men under the CIA's "waterboarding" did not confess that they could fly to meet the devil. And who knows if the CIA did not end up believing him."

Mr. P

11-29-2010, 11:21 AM

Like I said, just goes to show how we've fallen as a Nation and Society when there are those who justify the interrogation methods of the Dark Ages, Stalin, Nazi's, Imperial Japan, Viet Cong, Pinochet, etc.

Fucking Pathetic and as I mentioned before it shows how the Terrorists have won
How about those questions I asked?

Pagan

11-29-2010, 11:25 AM

How about those questions I asked?

Look at my above responses, but again NO

Mr. P

11-29-2010, 11:37 AM

Pagan

11-29-2010, 12:18 PM

Is that a No to all the questions?

Let me break it down for you -
Pagan...is there any situation that you would accept the use of waterboarding in a interrogation? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Waterboarding works - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

You don't think the trained interrogators are smart enough to know what info may not be valid? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Do you think that maybe they are very aware of the fact it could be false? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Do you think everyone will give false info., the first go round? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Capiche?

Mr. P

11-29-2010, 01:30 PM

Let me break it down for you -
Pagan...is there any situation that you would accept the use of waterboarding in a interrogation? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Waterboarding works - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

You don't think the trained interrogators are smart enough to know what info may not be valid? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Do you think that maybe they are very aware of the fact it could be false? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Do you think everyone will give false info., the first go round? - NO, it's not reliable. Wasn't during the Dark Ages, nor with the Nazi's, Stalin, Mao, Imperial Japan, etc., etc.

Capiche?
Sure I capiche, it's clear you know nothing about interrogation nor are do you interested in discussion. Fine with me, I'll not continue to waste my time.

Pagan

11-29-2010, 02:42 PM

Sure I capiche, it's clear you know nothing about interrogation nor are do you interested in discussion. Fine with me, I'll not continue to waste my time.

Really?

OK if you say so

abso

11-29-2010, 02:53 PM

Again, bomb boy, you can tell me what to do when you pay the bills around here.

Also, many others insult one another here quite frequently, yet you don't say anything. You're just mad because of my views on muslims and terrorists - and the FACTUAL verses from the quran and hadith I posted, that were verified by many muslims. You're mad because the majority of your religion mistreat women, support terrorism in one way or another and almost all of you live 500 years behind the rest of us.

In short, fuck you and what you think of my opinion.

actually i am not mad at all, i am just pointing out that you should use less insults if you want people to be more open to your arguments, but when you insult someone, he wont accept anything you say, fact or not, none will listen to someone who insults them for no reason.

and the majority of my religion does not mistreat women, and does not support terrorism, if you dont want to believe that, its your problem and i dont care.

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 04:11 PM

Finally an answer, now that wasn't that hard was it?

So you're requiring solid proof, so who determines the validity of the "proof", it's requirements for it to be "valid" and how it is presented. Then finally who makes the determination like I asked before who are "Terrorists"?

No, I wasn't requiring solid proof. See, that is why you asked in the manner you did so that you can try to weasel around.

Who determined that OBL was a terrorist? Timothy McVeigh? All of the Saudi's on the planes for 9/11? (I can go on for hours through prior terror attacks) Who do you think labeled these scumbags as terrorists? Should we just let them go because you don't like how they get classified as such?

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 04:15 PM

So your reply -

So you refusing to answer is your answer?

OK if you say so :laugh2:

Just because you clipped out the multiple times I stated that "known terrorists" should be allowed to be tortured doesn't mean I didn't state it. If someone is a known terrorist, then we are beyond identifying them. We have a shitload of a list of "known terrorists" in the Al Qaeda network an others in Iraq and Afghanistan - but by your logic we should stop firing upon them with drones or attacking them as we first need to determine IF they are terrorists and then we need to settle who gets to make that final determination. Awesome logic!!

Kathianne

11-29-2010, 04:21 PM

i wasnt defending them, just saying that they dont kill their own children, doesnt mean that i defend them, and just saying that you are wrong doesnt mean that i defend them.

just like when i proved "red states rule" to be wrong about the legitimacy of torture, doesnt mean that i am against torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/16208

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/01/occupied-territories-stop-use-children-suicide-bombings

I am not wrong.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/593575821.html?dids=593575821:593575821&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+30%2C+2004&author=Richard+Cohen&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Stop+Using+Children&pqatl=google

Pagan

11-29-2010, 04:24 PM

Just because you clipped out the multiple times I stated that "known terrorists" should be allowed to be tortured doesn't mean I didn't state it. If someone is a known terrorist, then we are beyond identifying them. We have a shitload of a list of "known terrorists" in the Al Qaeda network an others in Iraq and Afghanistan - but by your logic we should stop firing upon them with drones or attacking them as we first need to determine IF they are terrorists and then we need to settle who gets to make that final determination. Awesome logic!!

Really, where did I so called "clip" it out?

BTW here's the question which you refused to answer -

Really?

No putting words in your mouth you just very obviously "just don't get it".

Who defines who's a Terrorist and what's the definition Jim? Answer that simple question

Stop evading the question and answer, you were making progress.

Pagan

11-29-2010, 04:28 PM

No, I wasn't requiring solid proof. See, that is why you asked in the manner you did so that you can try to weasel around.

Who determined that OBL was a terrorist? Timothy McVeigh? All of the Saudi's on the planes for 9/11? (I can go on for hours through prior terror attacks) Who do you think labeled these scumbags as terrorists? Should we just let them go because you don't like how they get classified as such?

Yes I would define them as "Terrorists", but again who is the defining authority and what are their guidelines. Are you saying ANY black ops are all Terrorists since they're not uniformed military, are spies also Terrorists?

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 04:35 PM

Really, where did I so called "clip" it out?

BTW here's the question which you refused to answer -

Stop evading the question and answer, you were making progress.

How do any of these sound?

the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

For the purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include,in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty ... We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines or elsewhere

activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

I would say that if ANY of the above definitions apply, then the person is a terrorist. Argue with the various entities if you don't like their definitions, but ANY of them are good enough reason for me to give the green light to torture if it's possible it can save lives. If you want to afford them protections, that's your opinion.

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 04:36 PM

Yes I would define them as "Terrorists", but again who is the defining authority and what are their guidelines. Are you saying ANY black ops are all Terrorists since they're not uniformed military, are spies also Terrorists?

We've killed and/or captured thousands considered to be terrorists since 2003. Do you have a problem with ANY of them being classified as such? How did THEY get classified?

Pagan

11-29-2010, 05:00 PM

How do any of these sound?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

I would say that if ANY of the above definitions apply, then the person is a terrorist. Argue with the various entities if you don't like their definitions, but ANY of them are good enough reason for me to give the green light to torture if it's possible it can save lives. If you want to afford them protections, that's your opinion.

Let's go through it by line item shall we?

the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

Pretty much includes all Covert Ops across the board.

[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

This covers a good chunk of any criminal behavior in the U.S.

the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

Again covers any and all those who protest against the Government.

For the purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include,in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty ... We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases in Europe, the Philippines or elsewhere

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

So with this definition any and all Covert Ops are "Terrorists" and it also includes those protesting and speaking out against the Government.

So now that you've defined it you support Government snagging any and all they call a terrorist. Then torture a confession out of them.

Sorry, I don't support going back to the Dark Ages of absolute rule.

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 05:15 PM

Let's go through it by line item shall we?

Pretty much includes all Covert Ops across the board.

This covers a good chunk of any criminal behavior in the U.S.

Again covers any and all those who protest against the Government.

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

Covers pretty much any and all Covert Ops

So with this definition any and all Covert Ops are "Terrorists" and it also includes those protesting and speaking out against the Government.

So now that you've defined it you support Government snagging any and all they call a terrorist. Then torture a confession out of them.

Sorry, I don't support going back to the Dark Ages of absolute rule.

Your ability to "redefine" the definitions is hilarious. Tell me how many thousands of terrorists were either killed or captured via these definitions? Now tell me how many peaceful protesters have been classified as terrorists. How many local "Joe's" who committed no crimes. How many regular criminals in the US that were involved in "regular" crimes who were misclassified as terrorists?

I'm also confident that the small snippets of definitions on wikipedia is not where the agencies definitions stop.

Look, argue in defense of terrorists and claim it's what is best for our country, you won't be alone. But if me supporting torturing the fuck out of known terrorists somehow bothers you, too fucking bad. I would vote to allow our government to torture 20,000 known terrorists if it would save just one American life.

Pagan

11-29-2010, 05:24 PM

Your ability to "redefine" the definitions is hilarious. Tell me how many thousands of terrorists were either killed or captured via these definitions? Now tell me how many peaceful protesters have been classified as terrorists. How many local "Joe's" who committed no crimes. How many regular criminals in the US that were involved in "regular" crimes who were misclassified as terrorists?

I'm also confident that the small snippets of definitions on wikipedia is not where the agencies definitions stop.

Look, argue in defense of terrorists and claim it's what is best for our country, you won't be alone. But if me supporting torturing the fuck out of known terrorists somehow bothers you, too fucking bad. I would vote to allow our government to torture 20,000 known terrorists if it would save just one American life.

Again it comes down to -

Who defines who's a Terrorist and how.

From your response's I gather it's the government, is that your answer?

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 06:13 PM

Again it comes down to -

Who defines who's a Terrorist and how.

From your response's I gather it's the government, is that your answer?

We have MANY possible agencies (police, cia, fbi, nsa...) and possibly the military catching these people. If you want a unified definition -who do you think should come up with it, the local boy scouts? As much as we both detest more and more government involvement, it needs to be a large consensus WITH authority over the various agencies in order for it to work. Hell, they still need to classify specifically what counts as torture as it's very loosely defined at this point. But you'll argue that we are giving government too much control and the ability to torture..

But who do you want making these tough decisions, the military? The CIA? The FBI, your local pee wee football team? Your local Elks? The Rotary Cub?

SOMEONE has to deal with this scum. SOMEONE needs to classify, for people like you, specifically what a terrorist is. And SOMEONE needs to classify specifically what torture is. You've posted the outline several times, but it doesn't spell out specific techniques and everyone might have a different idea of what "pain, long term, fear" and all that other bullshit applies to.

And with that said - I still think terrorists deserve no protections, IMO from any state, federal or international laws or treaties.

Pagan

11-29-2010, 06:34 PM

We have MANY possible agencies (police, cia, fbi, nsa...) and possibly the military catching these people. If you want a unified definition -who do you think should come up with it, the local boy scouts? As much as we both detest more and more government involvement, it needs to be a large consensus WITH authority over the various agencies in order for it to work. Hell, they still need to classify specifically what counts as torture as it's very loosely defined at this point. But you'll argue that we are giving government too much control and the ability to torture..

But who do you want making these tough decisions, the military? The CIA? The FBI, your local pee wee football team? Your local Elks? The Rotary Cub?

SOMEONE has to deal with this scum. SOMEONE needs to classify, for people like you, specifically what a terrorist is. And SOMEONE needs to classify specifically what torture is. You've posted the outline several times, but it doesn't spell out specific techniques and everyone might have a different idea of what "pain, long term, fear" and all that other bullshit applies to.

And with that said - I still think terrorists deserve no protections, IMO from any state, federal or international laws or treaties.

So are you saying that a Court is the definitive authority on determining who a Terrorist is?

jimnyc

11-29-2010, 07:28 PM

So are you saying that a Court is the definitive authority on determining who a Terrorist is?

You've heard my stance on torture, how it should/could be defined and who can possibly oversee any unification. NOTHING you say will change my stance on whether or not known terrorists should be tortured or if they should be afforded any protections. So stop with the "So you are saying..." shit that is not surprisingly followed by a statement I never even came close to saying.

gabosaurus

11-29-2010, 11:44 PM

Pagan

11-30-2010, 12:20 AM

You've heard my stance on torture, how it should/could be defined and who can possibly oversee any unification. NOTHING you say will change my stance on whether or not known terrorists should be tortured or if they should be afforded any protections. So stop with the "So you are saying..." shit that is not surprisingly followed by a statement I never even came close to saying.

Then answer the very simple and direct question

"Who defines who's a Terrorist and how?"

Why do you continue to evade it?

SassyLady

11-30-2010, 12:20 AM

So terrorism is not terrorism if the U.S. does it?
When a terrorist group announces that it has tortured a prisoner, people scream bloody murder and want vengeance. But when the Bushies tortured prisoners, it was a necessary act that saved lives. Despite the fact that there has never been any proof of such.
Bush and Cheney were war criminals, pure and simple. Cheney was known to enjoy watching film of interrogations. I often wondered how often he had to wipe off his TV screen after waterboardings. There is no telling how many captured soldiers suffered in retaliation for their acts. Not that any of the Bushies cared. It was their war and they were proud of it, carnage and all.

So, Gabby, do you think the terrorists tortured people to get information to save lives? Or, do you think they tortured people to cause fear and terror so they can have control? Or to further their religious/cultural beliefs?

If you cannot see the difference, then I know you've lost your soul.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 12:24 AM

NightTrain

11-30-2010, 01:06 AM

Arf! Arf ruff ruff arf!

What's that, girl? Sarah fell down the well?

Growwwwlll!! Rrrrruff! Yap yap yap!

You say Dubya was Evil? And Cheney, too? It was all about the Oiilllll?

Yorrrph yarf! Rowwlf yip! yarp yarp yarp!

Gabby, you mean to say that we're the real terrorists?

You need to be put down.

SassyLady

11-30-2010, 02:01 AM

Those who torture, support and defend torture have lost their soul.

Perhaps ... those who torture based on religion or to control through fear, as opposed to gaining information to save others, is a slam dunk. I think it would be worth sacrificing my soul to save innocents.

abso

11-30-2010, 03:11 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict

http://www.cnsnews.com/node/16208

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/01/occupied-territories-stop-use-children-suicide-bombings

I am not wrong.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/593575821.html?dids=593575821:593575821&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+30%2C+2004&author=Richard+Cohen&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Stop+Using+Children&pqatl=google

it does happen, but not on daily basis as you think, its not a common thing to happen, because families which are willing to allow their kids to join the war are rare, but your logic to generalize that practice is what i am against, you cant deny that many palestinians are against that practice.

From your first link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict

This deliberate involvement of children in armed conflict has been condemned by international organisations and certain Palestinian groups.

Major Palestinian armed groups, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, have publicly disavowed the use of children in military operations, but those stated policies have not always been implemented. Some leaders, including representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have said that they consider children of 16 to be adults.

-----------------------------------------------------

so some of them consider 16 to be adult, while you consider 18 to be adult, then my question is, who can define who is and who isnt an adult ???, why should someone follow your own definition which is over 18, instead of their definition which is over 16 ?

i am not saying that i support those bombing, i dont support them even if the bomber is 30 or 40, i am just debating about the child using part which you stated.

i dont deny that some get used in the operations, but not very often, and not on daily basis, its rare to find a family that accepts to let her childs fight.

and instead of just saying that they are being used, you should ask, why and how can they convince teenagers to detonate themselfs, WHY would a teenager accept that ?

Again from the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict#Indoctrination

According to emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine Vamik Volkan,

Most suicide bombers in the Middle East are chosen as teenagers, “educated,” and then sent off to perform their duty when they are in their late teens or early to mid-twenties. The "education" is most effective when religious elements of the large-group identity are provided as solutions for the personal sense of helplessness, shame, and humiliation. Replacing borrowed elements sanctioned by God for one’s internal world makes that person omnipotent and supports the individual’s narcissism. I found that there was little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well.<SUP id=cite_ref-Volkan_7-0 class=reference></SUP>
Volkan gives the examples of beatings, torture, or the loss of a parent as typical humiliating events which might make a young person more susceptible to recruitment for suicide terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------

abso

11-30-2010, 03:13 AM

Perhaps ... those who torture based on religion or to control through fear, as opposed to gaining information to save others, is a slam dunk. I think it would be worth sacrificing my soul to save innocents.

yes it would

abso

11-30-2010, 03:24 AM

Then answer the very simple and direct question

"Who defines who's a Terrorist and how?"

Why do you continue to evade it?

Pagan, i think he answered your question many times already, so there is no need to post it again and again and again .......................

you should have already stopped doing that when he said "SOLID PROOF"

instead of asking who defines a terrorist again, you should discuss the means to identify that proof, and verify it, not to get us back to stage number 1 again, which is the definition of the terrorist.

lets discuss the evidence them, lets say if he caught wearing a bomb and trying to detonate it, that would be hard evidence, in such case i agree with torturing him to know who helped him to stop furthur future operations.

i say that if someone was caught driving a car full of bombs, that guy could be classified as terrorist, and should be tortured if he refuses to give information about the origin of the bombs.

there are alot of ways to positively identify a terrorist, the only case that we shouldnt use torture in it, is if we have no solid proof, if the proof is just based on the word of another identified terrorist who may have given us a false info while he was under torture, so we cant torture someone basing it on the words of another terrorist, he may give us the name of an innocent, we need a proof more solid that that, or a confession from the person himself that he has helped them in anyway.

please dont get us back again to the first question, i really got bored from reading it over and over and over, and reading the same answer from jim, start discussing his answer instead of saying that the same answer applies for covert ops, we all know that covert ops may be considered as terrorist operations, but they usualy dont get caught to decide if we should torture them or not, so just skip that part.

abso

11-30-2010, 03:30 AM

So, Gabby, do you think the terrorists tortured people to get information to save lives? Or, do you think they tortured people to cause fear and terror so they can have control? Or to further their religious/cultural beliefs?

If you cannot see the difference, then I know you've lost your soul.

the problem is that, torture is useful to us, to protect innocents, but sometimes its used on the wrong people, innocent people, and that is a price we have to pay, we all agree with torture, but lets be clear on this, if oneday it happens to one of us on false evidence, the one who will be tortured will change his mind totally, and he will be against torture, since he will experience himself that it can happen to innocents too.

SassyLady

11-30-2010, 03:52 AM

the problem is that, torture is useful to us, to protect innocents, but sometimes its used on the wrong people, innocent people, and that is a price we have to pay, we all agree with torture, but lets be clear on this, if oneday it happens to one of us on false evidence, the one who will be tortured will change his mind totally, and he will be against torture, since he will experience himself that it can happen to innocents too.

Agreed. Just like the death penalty .... some people are for it until it is a family member who is facing the sentence. And some people are against it until one of their family members is murdered and then they want the murderer to be put to death.

A belief can change when one has a different world view or experience.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 07:30 AM

Then answer the very simple and direct question

"Who defines who's a Terrorist and how?"

Why do you continue to evade it?

If you're too stupid (which we know) to understand what I wrote, that's too bad, and you can still go fuck yourself! :coffee:

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 07:37 AM

So terrorism is not terrorism if the U.S. does it?

It's TORTURE we are discussing. Can your shitty degree from "cal" not read the difference?

When a terrorist group announces that it has tortured a prisoner, people scream bloody murder and want vengeance. But when the Bushies tortured prisoners, it was a necessary act that saved lives. Despite the fact that there has never been any proof of such.

A terrorist groups announcement generally is followed by "Allah Akbar" and the holding up in the air of a lopped off head. Where have we EVER done anything remotely like that to prisoners?

Bush and Cheney were war criminals, pure and simple. Cheney was known to enjoy watching film of interrogations. I often wondered how often he had to wipe off his TV screen after waterboardings.

All class as usual I see. You should really see someone about this Bush/Cheney problem you have. Too bad you're wrong as usual.

There is no telling how many captured soldiers suffered in retaliation for their acts. Not that any of the Bushies cared. It was their war and they were proud of it, carnage and all.

Their war? None of YOUR beloved family of Dems wanted this war since 1998 or voted to allow the war? Keep dreaming, simpleton.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 09:01 AM

If you're too stupid (which we know) to understand what I wrote, that's too bad, and you can still go fuck yourself! :coffee:

Again evading the question, just shows how you don't have a clue.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 09:35 AM

Again evading the question, just shows how you don't have a clue.

I've replied and you don't like my replies. Your continued badgering only shows how stupid you are.

BTW - did you say you served in the military? I hope not, because I wouldn't believe that for shit!

Pagan

11-30-2010, 11:08 AM

I've replied and you don't like my replies. Your continued badgering only shows how stupid you are.

BTW - did you say you served in the military? I hope not, because I wouldn't believe that for shit!

Well answer the fucking question then numbnutts, all you do is run around it.

abso

11-30-2010, 11:22 AM

Well answer the fucking question then numbnutts, all you do is run around it.

the problem is, he already answered it !!!

me and him, we have our differences, i dont like him much, he uses too much insults that makes people not ready to listen to him, but sometimes i see him making some valid points, and at least, this time i agree with him on the torture subject.

he already answered your question, and you are the one who is going around his answer, not him who is going around your question.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 11:26 AM

Well answer the fucking question then numbnutts, all you do is run around it.

I'm done with your little games. I answered quite a few times and you just won't listen as you want me to play YOUR game and answer YOUR way. Not gonna happen.

Known terrorists shouldn't be afforded ANY protections. And known terrorists should be able to be tortured if it will save American lives.

That's my opinion, fuck yourself and deal with it.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 11:28 AM

the problem is, he already answered it !!!

me and him, we have our differences, i dont like him much, he uses too much insults that makes people not ready to listen to him, but sometimes i see him making some valid points, and at least, this time i agree with him on the torture subject.

he already answered your question, and you are the one who is going around his answer, not him who is going around your question.

He wants me to answer in a specific manner so that he can think he cornered me and yell "gotcha". Everyone sees me answering but he wants me to act as congress, the president, the military and all of our colelctive intel agencies and spell it out for him and maybe notarize it.

abso

11-30-2010, 11:59 AM

Known terrorists shouldn't be afforded ANY protections. And known terrorists should be able to be tortured if it will save American lives.

i agree, and just want to add that they should be tortured if it will save any life, not just american. :salute:

revelarts

11-30-2010, 12:28 PM

Agreed. Just like the death penalty .... some people are for it until it is a family member who is facing the sentence. And some people are against it until one of their family members is murdered and then they want the murderer to be put to death.

A belief can change when one has a different world view or experience.

That's why we shouldn't make these decisions just based on emotion or personal preferences but upon a cool look at it morally and ethically 1st.

Pragmatism is as sorry a standard as emotion. Lynch mobs justice is not what we want. and neither is the "by any mean necessary" mind set.

We got to go with our higher angels and better selves if want to continue to call ourselves "civilized and ethical". I believe those moral standards come from God. ANd Christians don't torture people. period. The death penalty is allowed but only after a FAIR trial. ANd even then there is a chance to be pardoned, that is forgiveness.

SOME how we managed to survive without legalized torture in the U.S. for a few hundred years. in the midst of much harsher realities than we have today. I don't see any reason to make it legal now EXCEPT TO KEEP CERTAIN PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 12:57 PM

the problem is, he already answered it !!!

me and him, we have our differences, i dont like him much, he uses too much insults that makes people not ready to listen to him, but sometimes i see him making some valid points, and at least, this time i agree with him on the torture subject.

he already answered your question, and you are the one who is going around his answer, not him who is going around your question.

No he hasn't, he's implied. I've even tried to clarify with asking if it's Government or the courts but he still will not answer.

So I'm waiting on "Who" determines "who" is a Terrorist or not since that is the core issue. Why is it so difficult eh?

Pagan

11-30-2010, 12:59 PM

He wants me to answer in a specific manner so that he can think he cornered me and yell "gotcha". Everyone sees me answering but he wants me to act as congress, the president, the military and all of our colelctive intel agencies and spell it out for him and maybe notarize it.

Nope, just a simple answer on who determines who is a terrorist or not. Is it the Courts, is it the Government, WHO?

abso

11-30-2010, 01:14 PM

That's why we shouldn't make these decisions just based on emotion or personal preferences but upon a cool look at it morally and ethically 1st.

Pragmatism is as sorry a standard as emotion. Lynch mobs justice is not what we want. and neither is the "by any mean necessary" mind set.

We got to go with our higher angels and better selves if want to continue to call ourselves "civilized and ethical". I believe those moral standards come from God. ANd Christians don't torture people. period. The death penalty is allowed but only after a FAIR trial. ANd even then there is a chance to be pardoned, that is forgiveness.

SOME how we managed to survive without legalized torture in the U.S. for a few hundred years. in the midst of much harsher realities than we have today. I don't see any reason to make it legal now EXCEPT TO KEEP CERTAIN PEOPLE OUT OF JAIL.

how can torturing a terrorist who admit that he has info but refuses to give it to you be uncivilized ?

its really diffucult issue, as humans we shouldnt get down to the terrorists level and use torture as a mean to get to our goals.

but also as humans we have to get down to the terrorists level and use the torture to protect other humans.

so what should we choose?

i say that any sacrifice should be done to protect human lifes with the exception of sacrificing humans lifes to save others.

its hard to accept, but we all have to accept that alot of people are alive today because some of us sacrificed their values to protect others.

abso

11-30-2010, 01:16 PM

Nope, just a simple answer on who determines who is a terrorist or not. Is it the Courts, is it the Government, WHO?

lets say a committee which study the evidence on the accused person and decides if he qualify to be a terrorist or not, or decides if torture should be used on him or not.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 01:31 PM

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 01:34 PM

No he hasn't, he's implied. I've even tried to clarify with asking if it's Government or the courts but he still will not answer.

So I'm waiting on "Who" determines "who" is a Terrorist or not since that is the core issue. Why is it so difficult eh?

Nope, just a simple answer on who determines who is a terrorist or not. Is it the Courts, is it the Government, WHO?

All of the above - but if it's a KNOWN terrorist, then just proceed directly to torturing without passing GO.

revelarts

11-30-2010, 01:38 PM

how can torturing a terrorist who admit that he has info but refuses to give it to you be uncivilized ?

its really diffucult issue, as humans we shouldnt get down to the terrorists level and use torture as a mean to get to our goals.

but also as humans we have to get down to the terrorists level and use the torture to protect other humans.

so what should we choose?

i say that any sacrifice should be done to protect human lifes with the exception of sacrificing humans lifes to save others.

its hard to accept, but we all have to accept that alot of people are alive today because some of us sacrificed their values to protect others.

Abso
Torture is Ungodly and ineffective.

Deuteronomy 25:2

2 Then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a certain number of stripes according to his offense.
3 Forty stripes may be given him but not more, lest, if he should be beaten with many stripes, your brother should seem low and worthless to you.

Written Statement of FBI interrogator Ali Soufan to the Senate judiciary committee May 2009

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings...42&wit_id=7906

Mr. Chairman, Committee members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I know that each one of you cares deeply about our nation's security. It was always a comfort to me during the most dangerous of situations that I faced, from going undercover as an al Qaeda operative, to unraveling terrorist cells, to tracking down the killers of the 17 U.S. sailors murdered in the USS Cole bombing, that those of us on the frontline had your support and the backing of the American people. So I thank you.

The issue that I am here to discuss today – interrogation methods used to question terrorists – is not, and should not be, a partisan matter. We all share a commitment to using the best interrogation method possible that serves our national security interests and fits squarely within the framework of our nation's principles.

[B]From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the "enhanced interrogation techniques," a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)
My interest in speaking about this issue is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone. People were given misinformation, half-truths, and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities. Examining a past we cannot change is only worthwhile when it helps guide us towards claiming a better future that is yet within our reach.

And my focus is on the future. I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these harmful, slow, ineffective, and unreliable techniques instead of the tried, tested, and successful ones – the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible....
.....
...I personally interrogated many terrorists we have in our custody and elsewhere, and gained confessions, identified terror operatives, their funding, details of potential plots, and information on how al Qaeda operates, along with other actionable intelligence. Because of these successes, I was the government's main witness in both of the trials we have had so far in Guantanamo Bay – the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, and Ali Hamza Al Bahlul, Bin Laden's propagandist. In addition I am currently helping the prosecution prepare for upcoming trials of other detainees held in Guantanamo Bay....

From Congressional Hearing 2007
TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF `ENHANCED' INTERROGATION.

Steven Kleinman, Colonel, USAFR, Intelligence and National Security Specialist, Senior Intelligence Officer/Military Interrogator. .... He was an interrogator and case officer during Operation Just Cause,
as the chief of a joint combined interrogation team during
Operation Desert Storm, and served as a senior adviser on
interrogation to the commander of a special operations task
force during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He currently holds the
rank of colonel, as the reserve senior intelligence officer at
the Air Force Special Operations Command.

Congressman Nadler: "Okay, let me ask you a question, and I need you
to set aside for a minute any moral or legal concerns and also
any other limits that might be imposed by the Army Field
Manual.
If you were in a position where you knew with absolute
certainty that no one would ever know what you had done, and
you knew that the intelligence you needed to get was of urgent
value, is there anything that you would, could or should do
that would go beyond what is permitted in the Army Field
Manual?"
Colonel Kleinman" Absolutely not, sir. Absolutely not. The
wonderful point we are in--and I would like to try to expand on
that, if I may--moral, legal and operational confluence all
ends in one very narrow circle. And that is, what we need to do
to adhere to legal concerns, what we need to do as a Nation
that would be morally correct, and what I would need to do as
an operator all falls in that same circle.
There is not an approach, there is not a strategy, there is
not a treatment that would even come close to violating Geneva
Convention guidelines, or the Constitution of the United
States, and certainly not the field manual on interrogation. We
talk about rapport, but rapport is a very inexact term. There
is a lot more to it.
But, fundamentally, to answer your question directly, I
would not need to do anything that would be prohibited by the
field manual and still be very, very effective."

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 01:40 PM

For what it's worth -

U.S. signs UN convention against torture (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/)

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

I'm sure 'ol Ronnie sat around trying to get rid of torture so he can protect terrorists. NOT

Reagan, as well as probably every participant of any conventions or treaties, probably made remarks and voted as gentlemen. They were likely trying to preserve some dignity to war, to not kill indiscriminately and not to torture a captured prisoner. I doubt one single person involved signed hoping to salvage the life or rights of a terrorist.

And if court precedence shows it to afford such protections to terrorists, it should be fixed to take away every last right from them.

Treaties/Conventions against torture amongst "civilized" and uniformed armies = probably a damn good idea

Treaties/Conventions against torture protecting cowardly terrorists - a shit idea

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 01:42 PM

Abso
Torture is Ungodly and ineffective.

And I can make posts showing it to be an effective tool, the rest is simply your opinion.

Why do you hate saving lives and protecting terrorists?

AGAIN, I would allow the torturing of 400,000 terrorists if one good man/woman was saved as a result.

abso

11-30-2010, 01:56 PM

Abso
Torture is Ungodly and ineffective.

Ungodly, i would agree and that is unquestionable claim.

ineffective, thats a questionable claim.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 01:57 PM

All of the above - but if it's a KNOWN terrorist, then just proceed directly to torturing without passing GO.

Again "known" Terrorist, you're saying if some Government, Cop, or who ever calls someone a Terrorist they're a Terrorist?

Like this?

Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists' (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/army-preps-for-tea-party-terrorists-this-is-insane/blog-310473/)

The New Push to Criminalize Dissent (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1242)

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) withdrew its controversial report on “Right Wing Extremism” (PDF) as a terrorism threat back in May, but now left-wing media pundits say it’s time to bring back the report that tarred all U.S. military veterans and any political conservative as potential terrorist threats."

Yep as you say in your own words -

"proceed directly to torturing without passing GO"

abso

11-30-2010, 01:57 PM

And I can make posts showing it to be an effective tool, the rest is simply your opinion.

Why do you hate saving lives and protecting terrorists?

AGAIN, I would allow the torturing of 400,000 terrorists if one good man/woman was saved as a result.

jim, also i agree with you and i disagree with him, but i would like to bring to your attention that none in here is thinking about protecting terrorists, we are all debating about our values, and our ethics and morality, should we sacrifice them to save lifes or not, we say that we should o it, they say the we shouldnt, thats what we are debating about.

revelarts

11-30-2010, 01:58 PM

And I can make posts showing it to be an effective tool, the rest is simply your opinion.

Why do you hate saving lives and protecting terrorists?

AGAIN, I would allow the torturing of 400,000 terrorists if one good man/woman was saved as a result.

Why are you Against using the alternative options that work BETTER?

if you goal is to save lives rather than torture.
It seems to me that you would want he MOST effective method.
AND COMPLETELY GIVE UP THE LEGALLY AND MORALLY QUESTIONABLE.

MY GOD, when did American become land of the free home of the torturers if you piss us off.

George Washington was against it.
It's been ILLEGAL FOR YEARS. AND IS NOT NECESSARY.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:09 PM

Again "known" Terrorist, you're saying if some Government, Cop, or who ever calls someone a Terrorist they're a Terrorist?

Like this?

Army Preps for Tea Party 'Terrorists' (http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/army-preps-for-tea-party-terrorists-this-is-insane/blog-310473/)

The New Push to Criminalize Dissent (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1242)

"The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) withdrew its controversial report on “Right Wing Extremism” (PDF) as a terrorism threat back in May, but now left-wing media pundits say it’s time to bring back the report that tarred all U.S. military veterans and any political conservative as potential terrorist threats."

Yep as you say in your own words -

"proceed directly to torturing without passing GO"

This is exactly why I don't answer in the manner you want me to, because you would rather play games with the words than actually discuss the issue. And here you are again with the "You're saying". I guess when you can't win you'll just make up a post and claim it's things I am saying.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread thought I was advocating torture against the "right wing extremists"! That's BS and you know it. You're playing semantics and word games and only looking like the ass you are.

Btw - why did you change YOUR stance? You once wrote that you were fine with them torturing based on RACE, and now you seem to be against it.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:12 PM

Why are you Against using the alternative options that work BETTER?

if you goal is to save lives rather than torture.
It seems to me that you would want he MOST effective method.
AND COMPLETELY GIVE UP THE LEGALLY AND MORALLY QUESTIONABLE.

MY GOD, when did American become land of the free home of the torturers if you piss us off.

George Washington was against it.
It's been ILLEGAL FOR YEARS. AND IS NOT NECESSARY.

Then let them start with the "better" options you speak of. If that doesn't work, torture the fuckers. My whole point is that terrorists are NOT deserving of any protections, IMO. If you can do it in an easier and "more humane" way, fine, but if not I couldn't care less if you slice their bellies open to get the info. If they don't fess up, fuck 'em, that's one less terrorist to worry about - before Obama sells him to another country anyway.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:18 PM

jim, also i agree with you and i disagree with him, but i would like to bring to your attention that none in here is thinking about protecting terrorists, we are all debating about our values, and our ethics and morality, should we sacrifice them to save lifes or not, we say that we should o it, they say the we shouldnt, thats what we are debating about.

Abso, which side of history would you rather be remembered by:

#1 - While we unfortunately dealt with a lot of casualties and more loss of life than one can possibly fathom, we lived up to our nations morals and integrity.

#2 While we unfortunately had to resort to techniques that were unsavory and against what we generally stand for, we were able to save thousands of lives and countless injuries.

I understand both are made to sound dramatic and are not fully based on facts or an actual situation. But the point is, history has a way of being nice to you when it involves ridding the world of shitty people and saving the lives of good people.

NightTrain

11-30-2010, 02:20 PM

This is exactly why I don't answer in the manner you want me to, because you would rather play games with the words than actually discuss the issue. And here you are again with the "You're saying". I guess when you can't win you'll just make up a post and claim it's things I am saying.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread thought I was advocating torture against the "right wing extremists"! That's BS and you know it. You're playing semantics and word games and only looking like the ass you are.

Btw - why did you change YOUR stance? You once wrote that you were fine with them torturing based on RACE, and now you seem to be against it.

I think it was fairly clear to everyone that he wanted to maneuver you and try to nail you with semantics.

It's not worth your time, I already nailed him at his own game with 'mercenary' and despite clear evidence from UN guidelines defining a mercenary he still refused to acknowledge that he was beaten.

When he retreats to his Obtuse end-game, he'll begin responding with :

Really?

This is then followed by more circular arguments as he fumbles and thrashes his way around to try and somehow pull a win out of a good rousing game of semantics.

You're wasting your time, he won't cowboy up.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:22 PM

I think it was fairly clear to everyone that he wanted to maneuver you and try to nail you with semantics.

It's not worth your time, I already nailed him at his own game with 'mercenary' and despite clear evidence from UN guidelines defining a mercenary he still refused to acknowledge that he was beaten.

When he retreats to his Obtuse end-game, he'll begin responding with :

This is then followed by more circular arguments as he fumbles and thrashes his way around to try and somehow pull a win out of a good rousing game of semantics.

You're wasting your time, he won't cowboy up.

Yeah, I got the "really" thing several times. Wasn't aware of the thread you speak of but will do so now!

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:26 PM

This is exactly why I don't answer in the manner you want me to, because you would rather play games with the words than actually discuss the issue. And here you are again with the "You're saying". I guess when you can't win you'll just make up a post and claim it's things I am saying.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread thought I was advocating torture against the "right wing extremists"! That's BS and you know it. You're playing semantics and word games and only looking like the ass you are.

Btw - why did you change YOUR stance? You once wrote that you were fine with them torturing based on RACE, and now you seem to be against it.

So you didn't answer because it could show how weak your position is? :lame2:

No play on words, reality what a concept eh? The only one playing games is yourself.

Please show me where I advocate torture or are you just pulling it out your ass yet again? :link:

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:28 PM

I think it was fairly clear to everyone that he wanted to maneuver you and try to nail you with semantics.

It's not worth your time, I already nailed him at his own game with 'mercenary' and despite clear evidence from UN guidelines defining a mercenary he still refused to acknowledge that he was beaten.

When he retreats to his Obtuse end-game, he'll begin responding with :

This is then followed by more circular arguments as he fumbles and thrashes his way around to try and somehow pull a win out of a good rousing game of semantics.

You're wasting your time, he won't cowboy up.
Really?

I put forth my "opinion" and backed it up with links and your only response from you is that I'm wasting your time.

OK if you say so:lame2:

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:34 PM

So you didn't answer because it could show how weak your position is? :lame2:

No play on words, reality what a concept eh? The only one playing games is yourself.

blah blah blah, your usual treading of water complaining I haven't answered you. Fine, I'll concede, my several times of answering you in different manners are not there.

Please show me where I advocate torture or are you just pulling it out your ass yet again? :link:

Upset a little, homo boy? Don't like it when people just make shit up in the midst of a debate and claim you said things you never did? Tough shit, stop doing it to me then.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:36 PM

Really?

I put forth my "opinion" and backed it up with links and your only response from you is that I'm wasting your time.

OK if you say so:lame2:

Sure, backed up with a fucking dictionary OVER actual military protocol - and then sticking with it as if you were still correct. Classic!

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:37 PM

Sure, backed up with a fucking dictionary OVER actual military protocol - and then sticking with it as if you were still correct. Classic!

Aaah Dictionary where?

As usual you're just making shit up and pulling it out your ass

NightTrain

11-30-2010, 02:38 PM

Here's the thread, the mercenary discussion begins on page 4:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29617-legal-non-citizens-vote/page4&highlight=mercenary

Note the same confused tactics and unwillingness to be a man about it. A waste of time, Jim.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:38 PM

Aaah Dictionary where?

As usual you're just making shit up and pulling it out your ass

Man, you really are stupid! LOL

You replied to NT who referenced another thread. I replied to your reply by referencing the other thread. I'm sorry that was too hard for you to follow, idiot.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:38 PM

blah blah blah, your usual treading of water complaining I haven't answered you. Fine, I'll concede, my several times of answering you in different manners are not there.

Upset a little, homo boy? Don't like it when people just make shit up in the midst of a debate and claim you said things you never did? Tough shit, stop doing it to me then.

So you pull shit out your ass, blatantly lie then name call when you're called on it.

What's wrong Slick?

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:39 PM

Here's the thread:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29617-legal-non-citizens-vote/page4&highlight=mercenary

Note the same confused tactics and unwillingness to be a man about it. A waste of time, Jim.

Been going through that thread! Good thing you put up a link to it though, as I just made a post about it and Pagan is lost as usual.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:40 PM

Man, you really are stupid! LOL

You replied to NT who referenced another thread. I replied to your reply by referencing the other thread. I'm sorry that was too hard for you to follow, idiot.

That's a completely different thread and topic, you might wanna take a look at this thread and topic there Slick :lame2:

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:41 PM

So you pull shit out your ass, blatantly lie then name call when you're called on it.

What's wrong Slick?

Where did I blatantly lie? My statement about what you said about torturing based on race? How about if I add "So what you're saying is..." before it, would it then be ok to place words in your mouth like you've done to me several times in this thread?

Again, you REALLY are fucking stupid! LOLOLOL It was to prove a point, tiny head.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:42 PM

That's a completely different thread and topic, you might wanna take a look at this thread and topic there Slick :lame2:

And yet you replied to NT - IN THIS THREAD - where he referenced the other thread - and you think I'm the one who is confused? YOU replied to him, I simply replied to you.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:43 PM

Where did I blatantly lie? My statement about what you said about torturing based on race? How about if I add "So what you're saying is..." before it, would it then be ok to place words in your mouth like you've done to me several times in this thread?

Again, you REALLY are fucking stupid! LOLOLOL It was to prove a point, tiny head.

Come on Slick, where that so called thread where I advocate Torture? :link:

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:44 PM

Come on Slick, where that so called thread where I advocate Torture? :link:

First, here's the deal:

YOU go back through this thread. Find each time where you replied to me, and stated "So what you're saying is..." or "So what you mean is..." - and then fucking link to me where I stated the things that follow those phrases. As soon as you do so - I'll be more than happy to do the same for you.

abso

11-30-2010, 02:45 PM

Abso, which side of history would you rather be remembered by:

#1 - While we unfortunately dealt with a lot of casualties and more loss of life than one can possibly fathom, we lived up to our nations morals and integrity.

#2 While we unfortunately had to resort to techniques that were unsavory and against what we generally stand for, we were able to save thousands of lives and countless injuries.

I understand both are made to sound dramatic and are not fully based on facts or an actual situation. But the point is, history has a way of being nice to you when it involves ridding the world of shitty people and saving the lives of good people.

thats exaclty what i am saying, that me and you say that we should sacrifice our values to protect innocents, but what i meant is that they are not saying that we should protect terrorists, they are just saying that we should protect our values.

but for me, i agree with you, we should have more interest in protecting humans, than protecting values.

and i would prefer to be remembered in side #2.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 02:46 PM

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:47 PM

Come on Slick, where that so called thread where I advocate Torture? :link:

Damn dude, you're advocating torture by having people read your absolute stupidity in both this thread and the one where NT shredded you about the mercenaries. I know it's just 2 threads and you're too stupid to multitask, but it's still torture to those of us reading through your crap.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:48 PM

Can't come up where I advocate torture can you?

Evade, sidestep, lie then evade again ... oh hum ............

No need to, proved my point over and over.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:51 PM

Here you go, pagan, you wanted so desperately to know WHO was going to define WHO is a terrorist.

The dictionary! Merriam Webster is our new authority. No need to listen to Geneva or any other UN conventions!!!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist?show=1&t=1291146669

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 02:54 PM

Dumbass is arguing with NT in another thread as to how a mercenary is qualified. NT provided classification and protocol from the geneva convention. Pagan used, um, the dictionary. And continues on that he is correct. Even states:

So you hold the Geneva Convention as the defining authority on Military terms and actions?

So I guess we shouldn't use them as any type of authority on terrorists or torture either.

Pagan

11-30-2010, 03:00 PM

First, here's the deal:

YOU go back through this thread. Find each time where you replied to me, and stated "So what you're saying is..." or "So what you mean is..." - and then fucking link to me where I stated the things that follow those phrases. As soon as you do so - I'll be more than happy to do the same for you.

Evade, lie then evade again

Ho Hummmmmmmm

For the record my "so what you mean" was trying to clarify your position which you continually evade, maybe that's why there where question marks on them.

You know if you would provide a strait answer I wouldn't have to ask, by the way those "so what you're saying" and "so what you mean" I quoted your posts.

So come on slick stop playing games, provide the link where claim -

This is exactly why I don't answer in the manner you want me to, because you would rather play games with the words than actually discuss the issue. And here you are again with the "You're saying". I guess when you can't win you'll just make up a post and claim it's things I am saying.

I'm sure everyone reading this thread thought I was advocating torture against the "right wing extremists"! That's BS and you know it. You're playing semantics and word games and only looking like the ass you are.

Btw - why did you change YOUR stance? You once wrote that you were fine with them torturing based on RACE, and now you seem to be against it.

:link::link:

Hint, it doesn't exist.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 03:06 PM

Look, dumbass, YOU made statements that I DID NOT make by first stating "So what you're saying is..." - which is a shit tactic to use when debating, to just outright make something up that your opponent never said - even if you were "only to trying to clarify my position" which was total horseshit. I came back at you and did the same to you in return, but a little harsher. And it appears you don't like having words put in your mouth and now you want to make demands.

Tough shit. Debate honestly and don't do shit to other people that you don't want coming back to bite you in the ass.

Either way, thread has turned into a shitfest by the both of us and no use in leaving open. I'm not going to play "flame tag" with you.

jimnyc

11-30-2010, 03:18 PM

Locked the thread but re-opened as some can likely have a good discussion in here. I'll no longer respond to Pagan to allow you guys to continue. I was going to separate all the shit posts and split to a new thread but it was just too much work. :laugh2:

Kathianne

11-30-2010, 03:42 PM

it does happen, but not on daily basis as you think, its not a common thing to happen, because families which are willing to allow their kids to join the war are rare, but your logic to generalize that practice is what i am against, you cant deny that many palestinians are against that practice.

From your first link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict

This deliberate involvement of children in armed conflict has been condemned by international organisations and certain Palestinian groups.

Major Palestinian armed groups, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, have publicly disavowed the use of children in military operations, but those stated policies have not always been implemented. Some leaders, including representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have said that they consider children of 16 to be adults.

-----------------------------------------------------

so some of them consider 16 to be adult, while you consider 18 to be adult, then my question is, who can define who is and who isnt an adult ???, why should someone follow your own definition which is over 18, instead of their definition which is over 16 ?

i am not saying that i support those bombing, i dont support them even if the bomber is 30 or 40, i am just debating about the child using part which you stated.

i dont deny that some get used in the operations, but not very often, and not on daily basis, its rare to find a family that accepts to let her childs fight.

and instead of just saying that they are being used, you should ask, why and how can they convince teenagers to detonate themselfs, WHY would a teenager accept that ?

Again from the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Pales tinian_conflict#Indoctrination

According to emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine Vamik Volkan,

Most suicide bombers in the Middle East are chosen as teenagers, “educated,” and then sent off to perform their duty when they are in their late teens or early to mid-twenties. The "education" is most effective when religious elements of the large-group identity are provided as solutions for the personal sense of helplessness, shame, and humiliation. Replacing borrowed elements sanctioned by God for one’s internal world makes that person omnipotent and supports the individual’s narcissism. I found that there was little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well.<SUP id=cite_ref-Volkan_7-0 class=reference></SUP>
Volkan gives the examples of beatings, torture, or the loss of a parent as typical humiliating events which might make a young person more susceptible to recruitment for suicide terrorism.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Abso, once again you first denied it happened, then move the goal post to 'it doesn't happen daily', as if I ever said such a thing. :rolleyes:

The you quibble on definition of adult, ignoring the use of stroller bombs, but heh, what's the deal as long as not daily, right? Oh no, you condemn any, BUT then go onto ask me why? some would do this. That brings you back to education in the religion.

So? I guess I was right.

abso

11-30-2010, 04:19 PM

Abso, once again you first denied it happened, then move the goal post to 'it doesn't happen daily', as if I ever said such a thing. :rolleyes:

The you quibble on definition of adult, ignoring the use of stroller bombs, but heh, what's the deal as long as not daily, right? Oh no, you condemn any, BUT then go onto ask me why? some would do this. That brings you back to education in the religion.

So? I guess I was right.

i didnt deny that it happen, what i meant that its not a policy to make it happen, and discussing the adult age is the core of the subject, because if you see 16 as minor while they say its adult, what makes you right and them wrong, is it your law that should apply to them !!!

Kathianne

11-30-2010, 04:35 PM

i didnt deny that it happen, what i meant that its not a policy to make it happen, and discussing the adult age is the core of the subject, because if you see 16 as minor while they say its adult, what makes you right and them wrong, is it your law that should apply to them !!!

Age isn't the issue. It's respecting the youth, not training them to be martyrs because they are young and impressionable. Actually it's just evidence of a people who value their medieval beliefs more than their future.

As you said at one point, doesn't matter if the bomber is 30 or 40, though you have more in the 20-30 category. It's the belief system that is warped.

NightTrain

11-30-2010, 05:31 PM

abso

11-30-2010, 05:58 PM

Age isn't the issue. It's respecting the youth, not training them to be martyrs because they are young and impressionable. Actually it's just evidence of a people who value their medieval beliefs more than their future.

As you said at one point, doesn't matter if the bomber is 30 or 40, though you have more in the 20-30 category. It's the belief system that is warped.

i know that the belief system is stupid, and perverted in a stupid way, but that doesnt have anything with using minors in war, as they didnt use kids under 16 years old which is the adult age in their belief.

if the debate is about using minors, then i would say that they dont in their belief, just in your law not in theirs.

but if its about the moral gounds of using 16 - 20 years old in suicide bombings, i wouldnt agree with that, and i would denounce it.

Kathianne

11-30-2010, 06:07 PM

i know that the belief system is stupid, and perverted in a stupid way, but that doesnt have anything with using minors in war, as they didnt use kids under 16 years old which is the adult age in their belief.

if the debate is about using minors, then i would say that they dont in their belief, just in your law not in theirs.

but if its about the moral gounds of using 16 - 20 years old in suicide bombings, i wouldnt agree with that, and i would denounce it.

If I take your teens and explain they have no hope in the future. That god wants them to save others in their country, but it's their personal lot to join god sooner, than later, as a martyr. Doesn't matter if the person is 15, 18, or 26 when activated, the abuse was done at their most impressionable:

Your quote:

According to emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine Vamik Volkan,

Most suicide bombers in the Middle East are chosen as teenagers, “educated,” and then sent off to perform their duty when they are in their late teens or early to mid-twenties. The "education" is most effective when religious elements of the large-group identity are provided as solutions for the personal sense of helplessness, shame, and humiliation. Replacing borrowed elements sanctioned by God for one’s internal world makes that person omnipotent and supports the individual’s narcissism. I found that there was little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well. While excuses made on basis of 'humiliation' the truth is still the truth. Abuse, systematized by leaders, be they religious, political, or social.