Where fools rush in.. (Dem's & hearings)

Was discussing in the context of the thread at the time I wrote it. More importantly, in general discussion it isn't called "torture" ... it's called a "beheading".

No , there were three seperate levels of crime committed , kidnap first , then torture , then murder

Again, not that difficult to comprehend. Or is it?

Ask yourself , as you clearly havn't got it

I have never, not once, attempted this throughout this thread.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No , there were three seperate levels of crime committed , kidnap first , then torture , then murder

Ask yourself , as you clearly havn't got it

Ah yes, you keep attempting to imply that I said something that I didn't.

Funny how you avoid the actual FACTS that were posted in favor of the fantasy world where you're points actually make sense as a rebuttal.

Too difficult for you, huh?

[AVGWarhawk]

Tribeman/Aramike,

You both have missed the entire reason for this to be brought up. The now transparent government is two faced. This is nothing but political positioning. If you really think they cared about torture they would have raised their hand in 2003 when this was brought up in closed door briefings. This is nothing but making a set up for the next elections. It is all about power. They could care any less that some terrorist suffered some form of torture.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13416407.htm

Ummm...he started it and I guess should finish it. The transparency just got opaque.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Tribeman/Aramike,

You both have missed the entire reason for this to be brought up. The now transparent government is two faced. This is nothing but political positioning. If you really think they cared about torture they would have raised their hand in 2003 when this was brought up in closed door briefings. This is nothing but making a set up for the next elections. It is all about power. They could care any less that some terrorist suffered some form of torture.

Heh, I didn't miss the point. It's just that the topic of whether torture is right or wrong is a lot more interesting.

It's clear that Pelosi and Co. knew all about what was going on. I've honestly given up on trying to point out the facts about these power-mad liberals. People just want to believe what they WANT these politicians to be (which is what the politicians describe themselves as). The facts be damned.

It's a sad state of affairs, really.

The now transparent government is two faced.

Did you expect them not to be ?
Politicians have a strong tendancy to be self serving scum no matter which party they belong to .

It's just that the topic of whether torture is right or wrong is a lot more interesting.

It isn't really , what is interesting is watching people try and justify the unjustifiable .

Funny how you avoid the actual FACTS

It appears you have difficulty with the meaning of the word FACT

[Aramike]

It appears you have difficulty with the meaning of the word FACT

Actually, you do. The facts of what I said can be proven, as the posts are here for all to see. In fact, I even quoted myself as proof, and have made the facts apparent.

This is yet another abject failure to cover up your errors in the discussion.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - There is that saying that one should never argue with an idiot, because he will bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience. There is another that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Now - the facts are simple - an interrogation tactic was used that is - by the current legal definition - one of torture. However, the people that it was used on do not enjoy the legal protections of the treaty defining such acts, nor do they fall under the protections of any ratified convention or the U.S. Constitution. If anyone doubts this - then I challenge them to put up a link to a US ratified treaty in which the terrorists organizations in question were a signatory, or a US Supreme Court decision stating that non-signatories to treatys and conventions shall be extened their benefits.

It can't be done.....

Also - it has been stated that the UCMJ or other military guidelines specifies how terrorists should be dealt with. Again - show me. The UCMJ, and related Geneva Convention articles stipulate how to deal with captured government civilians and military personnel of an enemy NATION. The UCMJ also puts forth a strict code of conduct for armed services personnel themselves. This is why convictions and article actions against the individuals have been ONLY under the articles of personal conduct. Again - show me I'm wrong..... Not one conviction has been for an article violation regarding the treatment of the prisoners involved itself, but rather the personal conduct article was violated by said acts.

If one were to be intellectually honest, then if the GC covered every combat situation and theatre, then the house to house, forced entry searches, etc still done today would violate the GC rules. This idea that the GC covers everyone and everything, everywhere, is pure bollox spewed by those who might WISH it did, but are apparently under no desire to learn the reality.

Its nice to sit here and bandy semantics and say "well this and well that" - but if you really want to be given some level of credibility in your arguements, you need to either put up, or shut up. Saying "well so and so who was there said such and such" - is, under the law - hearsay. So, instead of saying something is or isnt true, or that a treaty in this case does apply, show us the reality so you have something more than 3rd, 4th and 5th party hearsay that happens to agree with your point of view.

This isn't the first time I have issued such a challenge, and I fully expect that it will be again avoided because after all - the truth isn't whats important to some. For some, "fact" is subjective.

Now - sure the Dems knew what was going on. But whats important is that this entire witch hunt is an attempt to find a way to CREATE the vietnam quagmire all over again for political benefit. Take away the tools that work, hobble those that keep you safe, so that you can say "well we can't win so we have to lose".....

One last comment - politicians are by nature hypocrits. Thats why I have moved forward with my own POTUS run - you may not agree with me all the time, but at least you know I will tell you the way I see it every time - not give you some smoke and mirrors and a smile. The American people deserve that.

[CaptainHaplo]

BTW - I am fully aware that the previous administration stated that "we don't torture" - and that was a boldfaced lie. I don't try to hide or obfuscate that point. Whats done is done.

If anyone doubts this - then I challenge them to put up a link to a US ratified treaty in which the terrorists organizations in question were a signatory,

Terrorists insurgents and non state parties are covered under common provision 3 of the Geneva convention , it was the first time s
uch people became fully covered as earlier treaties only covered "terrorists" acting under the recognised governments . It was signed and ratified by the US , hey they even helped draw it up .
So by asking for a treaty signed by terrorists you demonstrate that you also are woefully inadequate in your knowledge .
Also of course the Declaration of Human rights while not a binding treaty is obligatory on all signataries in regards to all people .

If one were to be intellectually honest, then if the GC covered every combat situation and theatre, then the house to house, forced entry searches, etc still done today would violate the GC rules.

Actually that stuff predated Geneva , it goes back to the Hague conventions , Geneva just built on those .forced entry , search and siezure and fighting in civilian areas ...terms and conditions apply .


OK for someone who doesn't redefine torture

Although, I wouldn't call that "torture" ... I'd call that "pressure".

Redefining

torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay.

redefining

I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

And I agree with that.

Supporting redefining

We are applying so-called "torture"

redefining

Again, you infer that the so-called "torture"

Again

Let's say we're talking about out-and-out torture

And again

Our stance on so-called "torture"

And again

I don't believe waterboarding is torture

yet again

You are right Aramike , I was wrong , you haven't attempted to redefine torture at all repeatedly throughout the topic .
Its lucky you oppose that torture , becasue if you only opposed some torture and supported other torture then your only way forward would have been to attempt to redefine the torture you liked so it wouldn't be torture .

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its nice to sit here and bandy semantics and say "well this and well that" - but if you really want to be given some level of credibility in your arguements, you need to either put up, or shut up. Saying "well so and so who was there said such and such" - is, under the law - hearsay. So, instead of saying something is or isnt true, or that a treaty in this case does apply, show us the reality so you have something more than 3rd, 4th and 5th party hearsay that happens to agree with your point of view.

This isn't the first time I have issued such a challenge, and I fully expect that it will be again avoided because after all - the truth isn't whats important to some. For some, "fact" is subjective.

Testimony. Yesterday.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/

Now - sure the Dems knew what was going on. But whats important is that this entire witch hunt is an attempt to find a way to CREATE the vietnam quagmire all over again for political benefit. Take away the tools that work, hobble those that keep you safe, so that you can say "well we can't win so we have to lose".....

The point of which being....?

[Aramike]

Okay, I'll - yet again - break this down for you into something more simple and suited to your abilities.

Quoting my own statements:

Although, I wouldn't call that "torture" ... I'd call that "pressure".

That's not "redefining" something, as you like to claim. That's stating my opinion on the matter.

torture that does not cause permanant injury or disfigurement, and used with probable cause to do so, is indeed okay.

Seriously? You think saying that I'm okay with limited applications of torture redefines the word?

You can't be serious (but I'm afraid you are). Not smart.

I do believe that the Bush administration did try to redefine torture so that the methods that needed to be employed were legal.

And I agree with that.

I've already clearly stated (in this very quote, even) that I'm referring to the legal definition - not the definition of the word.

Get it straight.

We are applying so-called "torture"

Again, how is this "redefining", as I gave no alternative definition?

Do you know what the word "redefine" means?

You are right Aramike , I was wrong , you haven't attempted to redefine torture at all repeatedly throughout the topic .

Posting a bunch of quotes and typing "redefining" after them doesn't make it true. It just makes you look foolish in that you clearly don't know what the term means.

Its lucky you oppose that torture , becasue if you only opposed some torture and supported other torture then your only way forward would have been to attempt to redefine the torture you liked so it wouldn't be torture .

Who said I opposed torture? I specifically said that I am for some applications of torture under specific circumstances.

The word "torture" encompasses a lot of things. Breaking those things down and being specific as to what applications I'd find acceptable is not "redefining" torture.

That's about as stupid as saying that if I were to prefer a certain model of car, that means I approve of ALL models of cars.

Silly.