Nope. Not Torture.

[taznut]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3055023
You just haven't seen the proof that it (waterboarding) can work because the current administration refuses to release the information about what was learned as a result of waterboarding. .
after listening to Cheney blame the CIA for misinformation about al quida/911 connection after defending them a couple of weeks ago i am now having a hard time believing what he says... i agree, it doesnt look good that Obama wont release the documents that Cheney is talking about...
but, IMO, this is a null point... i dont think it matters if it works or not... just because something works doesnt mean we should do it when it violates our principles...
should we be able to use IITs against people that are suspected of child molestation??? what about serial murderers??? what if someone admits to kidnapping some one and hidding them but refuses to tell the police where they are at???
I know the gut feeling to these is probably yes but you will argue no and that gitmo is different since it is not on US land... but is it really different?? we completely fund and run the place but then say its not bound by our beliefs??? again, this may be a more compelling argument had they not 'justified' it with the courts (if its not on US land and US law doesnt apply then why are US courts saying that it is ok??

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3055048
Then why wont Obama release the results?
Well, my thought on it is that he is part of the same machine that Cheney is.
Long as we continue to debate each other, we the people, are divided. There's a certain political advantage to that.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3054612
Bang I respect every point you have brought forth. But for the life of me this is the one I hear so often that I just can not grasp. Explain please .
From what I see, if an enemy combatant wants to kill our troops, how does torture endanger them further. Does the enemy combatant want to make them more dead? I hear this single arguement issued from both sides. Our troops are in a war zone. How can the be placed into more danger than that?
It's fairly straightforward.
When I was in the first Gulf War the Iraqi soldiers were surendering to any and all US military personnel. Heck, I saw an entire ground unit attempting to surrender to a remote drone.
As a result our losses were low. Very low.
I completely believe that if these Iraqi troops thought they would be waterboarded, interogated "harshly", or in any way subject to torture there is just no way they would have surrendered so easily. We would have had to battle on until the last Iraqi was dead. This would have cost us dearly. I really believe this.
It's much, more dangerous to fight an enemy that would rather die than be captured. I know because from the opposite view I would not have allowed myself to be captured by an Iraqi and I would have had an excellent chance of taking out a couple of 'em before they got me. Lucky for all of us this war happened before the Abu Grad incident was publicised.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3054651
Our gov't is better at taking our rights than the terrorists. Incase you didn't notice, the gov't now owns banks, car companies, and other private businesses. They've taken our property to improve the tax base. They fleece the "rich", hard working Americans to redistribute wealth in the name of fairness. They are trying to limit free speech with the likes of the fairness doctrine and other forms of limits on talk radio. The 2nd Amenendment is under constant attack, and Judge Sotomayor does not think citizens have the right to bear arms.
Interrogation does not prevent planning attacks, it allows us to stop them.
Sorry, while I can agree with you that the Constitution of the United States is being ignored by the executive and congressional branches of our government I will not submit that it's a valid reason to continue eroding our rights even further.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by taznut
http:///forum/post/3055056
after listening to Cheney blame the CIA for misinformation about al quida/911 connection after defending them a couple of weeks ago i am now having a hard time believing what he says... i agree, it doesnt look good that Obama wont release the documents that Cheney is talking about...
but, IMO, this is a null point... i dont think it matters if it works or not... just because something works doesnt mean we should do it when it violates our principles...
should we be able to use IITs against people that are suspected of child molestation??? what about serial murderers??? what if someone admits to kidnapping some one and hidding them but refuses to tell the police where they are at???
I know the gut feeling to these is probably yes but you will argue no and that gitmo is different since it is not on US land... but is it really different?? we completely fund and run the place but then say its not bound by our beliefs??? again, this may be a more compelling argument had they not 'justified' it with the courts (if its not on US land and US law doesnt apply then why are US courts saying that it is ok??
My principle is if someone meets the conditions laid out in the Geneva Conventions fine. If they don't then under justifiable circumstances turn loose on them with whatever works. We should stick to our word but I wouldn't bring spit wads to a gun fight. I am not saying your position is wrong. I don't think there is a black and white right or wrong answer to this. Perhaps revisiting the Conventions and specifically spelling out who will and wont be considered eligible for protection would maybe make some people less willing support terrorism.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3055098
It's fairly straightforward.
When I was in the first Gulf War the Iraqi soldiers were surendering to any and all US military personnel. Heck, I saw an entire ground unit attempting to surrender to a remote drone.
As a result our losses were low. Very low.
I completely believe that if these Iraqi troops thought they would be waterboarded, interogated "harshly", or in any way subject to torture there is just no way they would have surrendered so easily. We would have had to battle on until the last Iraqi was dead. This would have cost us dearly. I really believe this.
It's much, more dangerous to fight an enemy that would rather die than be captured. I know because from the opposite view I would not have allowed myself to be captured by an Iraqi and I would have had an excellent chance of taking out a couple of 'em before they got me. Lucky for all of us this war happened before the Abu Grad incident was publicised.
Ok, now I see your point. So because of fear of what may happen as a POW, they continue to fight on thus increasing our casualties. That makes sense to me.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3055544
Ok, now I see your point. So because of fear of what may happen as a POW, they continue to fight on thus increasing our casualties. That makes sense to me.
Didn't most of Sadaam's men desert the second time around. It is the nuts who gave us all the problems...

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3055103
Sorry, while I can agree with you that the Constitution of the United States is being ignored by the executive and congressional branches of our government I will not submit that it's a valid reason to continue eroding our rights even further.

Who do you mean by "our rights"?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3055576
Who do you mean by "our rights"?
Everyone covered under the Bill of Rights.

 

[uneverno]

Perhaps, under the circumstances, we owe the Japanese WWII war criminals, whom we executed for waterboarding Allied POW's, a posthumous apology.
If the church can re-communicate Galileo 500 years-ish after the fact, it's the least we can do.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3055614
Everyone covered under the Bill of Rights.

Do you also include illegal combatants in that?
We owe nothing to those who hide behind women and children.
I see no evidence illegal combatants ( or illegal aliens for that matter) are covered in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
1,2,4 and 10 are under attack.
It started with the end of Bush II and continues at an excellerated rate under Barry the First.
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will worst ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution
This seems to hit the target today.
"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"
Federalism is dead.

 

[uneverno]

There would've been no mention of "illegal combatants" in the Constitution, because at the time, it was we who did not adhere to the "rules of war."
The British accused us of such behaviour repeatedly and often. We didn't wear uniforms, we didn't line up in the proscribed fashion, we ambushed them from the forests and the trees, etc.
What goes around comes around, pot calling the kettle, what's good for the goose, methinks thou dost protest, etc.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3055713
Do you also include illegal combatants in that?
We owe nothing to those who hide behind women and children.
I see no evidence illegal combatants ( or illegal aliens for that matter) are covered in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
1,2,4 and 10 are under attack.
"Do you also include illegal combatants in that?"
I think the Supreme Court should determine that once and for all. In my opinion they should be covered while in our custody. I wouldn't cry if the courts said otherwise.
"1,2,4 and 10 are under attack. "
I suppose if you put it that way everything is OK. What's the big deal if a few more rights are trampled.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3055726
There would've been no mention of "illegal combatants" in the Constitution, because at the time, it was we who did not adhere to the "rules of war."
The British accused us of such behaviour repeatedly and often. We didn't wear uniforms, we didn't line up in the proscribed fashion, we ambushed them from the forests and the trees, etc.
What goes around comes around, pot calling the kettle, what's good for the goose, methinks thou dost protest, etc.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Oh crap, here is the we were terrorists argument.
There you have it folks, dems think our founding fathers were no different than the terrorists.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3055726
There would've been no mention of "illegal combatants" in the Constitution, because at the time, it was we who did not adhere to the "rules of war."
The British accused us of such behaviour repeatedly and often. We didn't wear uniforms, we didn't line up in the proscribed fashion, we ambushed them from the forests and the trees, etc.
What goes around comes around, pot calling the kettle, what's good for the goose, methinks thou dost protest, etc.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The British also treated the POWs during the revolutionary war FAR FAR FAR worse than we treat the GITMO POWS. Read the book, Forgotten Patriots by Edwin Burrows.
So following the same thought outline, what we are doing is ok then. After all, we were accussed of doing the same things way back when. That makes it all ok.
Incidentally, I am in a quandry regarding this, soley in part because on Bang Guy's point.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3055726
There would've been no mention of "illegal combatants" in the Constitution, because at the time, it was we who did not adhere to the "rules of war."
The British accused us of such behaviour repeatedly and often. We didn't wear uniforms, we didn't line up in the proscribed fashion, we ambushed them from the forests and the trees, etc.
What goes around comes around, pot calling the kettle, what's good for the goose, methinks thou dost protest, etc.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
We did wear uniforms. There was actually a uniform of the Continental Army.
http://revolutionarywarantiques.com/...-Army-Uniforms
The Brits were a little put off being beaten by the rabble.
We were turning farmers into soldiers, and we did need some time to get a standard uniform, but as early as 11/1775 we had a Congressionally approved uniform.
As to our tactics, yes we changed the face of warfare, then lost the edge when they were turned on us in Viet Nam.
History teaches, those who ignore are doomed to failure.
We are NOT terrorists.

 

[oscardeuce]

The British also treated the POWs during the revolutionary war FAR FAR FAR worse than we treat the GITMO POWS. Read the book, Forgotten Patriots by Edwin Burrows.

Remember why Francis Scott Key was on that British vessel?
I'm still wondering who has watched the beaheading videos.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3056324
We are NOT terrorists.
You've missed my point. I was not saying we are terrorists. What I'm saying is it's a matter of perception.
The Georgians whom we're funding and arming, are considered terrorists by the Russians, for example.
At that point, the question has to become, is there a universally agreed upon definition of "Terrorist?" Or is it only ours that counts?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3055947
dems think our founding fathers were no different than the terrorists.

I'm not a dem, I'm far more liberal than that

. I don't partake of party koolaid either. Neither BLUE raspberry nor RED cherry appeal to me.
The Dems are the left hand branch of the Liberal Fascist party, as the Repubs are its right hand branch.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3056412

I'm not a dem, I'm an independent w/ a liberal outlook. I don't drink party koolaid.
The Dems are the left hand branch of the Liberal Fascist party, as the Repubs are its right hand branch.
yeah, I'm an independent with a conservative outlook.