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

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Aramike, the line is perilously close to you.

[CaptainHaplo]

Nice try - but the "testimony. yesteday." comment linked to the testimony of one guy regarding his witnessing of "torture" and its effectiveness.

As it has been pointed out - one guy's OPINION isnt fact, especially when the vast majority of those involved have stated it has been effective. Still - it was a noble try.

Now - regarding Common Article 3 - it states:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

.... - this is the relevant portion.
However - one important part - territory of one of the High Contracting Parties - is often glossed over. Sorry - but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan qualifes under those terms. Was this war being waged on US soil, it would be a different matter - the GC would apply. But its not - so this is why they cannot claim GC protections.

Still - a solid attempt to put out out utter bullcrap in the hope some dumb schmuck might believe it. Might want to check talking points before you repeat them though....

I will deal with the dhr when I return from work this eve.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Nice try - but the "testimony. yesteday." comment linked to the testimony of one guy regarding his witnessing of "torture" and its effectiveness.

As it has been pointed out - one guy's OPINION isnt fact, especially when the vast majority of those involved have stated it has been effective.

That wasn't opinion, it was a sworn testimony. A statement of what that person witnessed.

Can you support that claim?


What is the difference between this person's apparent "OPINION" and these other people who are "stating" it wasn't effective?

As it has been pointed out - one guy's OPINION isnt fact, especially when the vast majority of those involved have stated it has been effective.

You are drawing one statement as opinion and another as fact, as suits your argument.

However - one important part - territory of one of the High Contracting Parties - is often glossed over. Sorry - but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan qualifes under those terms. Was this war being waged on US soil, it would be a different matter - the GC would apply. But its not - so this is why they cannot claim GC protections.

Nice try , one ever so slight teensy weensy little enormously huge gaping great problem with what you have written there though , as the GC does apply which means your latest attempt was total bollox, Afghanistan and Iraq are both high contracting parties , even if they were not America was occupying those territories so as a high contracting party they still apply to the occupying power.
You really should apply your own words to what you write as it really was a classic example of a solid attempt to put out out utter bullcrap in the hope some dumb schmuck might believe it. :rotfl:

I will deal with the dhr when I return from work this eve.

You had better deal with the conventions first .

Who said I opposed torture?

That was sarcasm , we know you support torture but feel slightly uncomfortable that it is unjustifiable so attempt to redefine what it is

[AVGWarhawk]

I know it is a lot of fun to debate the debatable but back to the thread topic at hand:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html

Pelosi an accomplice to 'torture'.....looks that way. Seems there are dirty hands for everyone.

Is it just me or is Obama a gun jumper? Gitmo...hasty decision. Just close it...no plan of action on where and how to keep the detainees. Displaying memos on Gitmo....hasty decision. Does Obama not look the entire picture first before he goes head-long into just throwing things out of the table for all to see? What is next?

I'm guessing Pelosi will become a thorn in Obama's side after this little tidbit.

[Tchocky]

Why was displaying the memos a hasty decision?

Oh, Karl Rove doesn't understand the circumstances of the briefings. He finds it

Originally Posted by Karl Rove

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

Originally Posted by Vivki Divoll

JUST four members of Congress were notified in 2002 when the Central Intelligence Agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” program was first approved and carried out, according to documents released by the agency last week. They were Senators Bob Graham and Richard Shelby and Representatives Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi, then the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees — the so-called “Gang of Four.” Each was briefed orally and it was understood that they were not to speak about the program with anyone, including their colleagues on the committees.

from here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/op...ed=1&th&emc=th

[AVGWarhawk]

It was hasty because it looks to me that possible repercussions were not weighed. Hang with me on this. During the election, Obama kept throwing out timelimes for Iraq withdrawal. After getting a briefing of what is really occurring in Iraq he changed his tune on the withdrawal timeline. He did not have the facts. Gitmo, yes, just close it down without a plan. Repercussions on this hasty decision. No consideration on what the repercussions of this decision would create. Let show memo's on torture...it all looks to be nothing but the "Star Chamber" of Republicans involved anyway, but wait, it seems that some of Obama staunchest supportors knew about these tortures and did nothing. Did Obama take into account that if these memos did go out how would the world view the US? As we see here in this thread, the US is not seen in a good light. It would seem it put the US a few steps back in the hole in the world view of the US. Again, repercussions not considered. Ok, now this administration is looking to persecute some Bush official in this matter. This administration might want to pick up Pelosi as well and let the proceedings begin. Really, this is a political ploy at best and it does not seem to paint anyone in a favorable light. In short, getting the facts, looking at the possible outcomes of releasing these memos and pictures were not weighed. Also, if such a thing did happen and not to the general publics knowledge...what else are the idiots in Washington doing that no one is aware of? Perhaps this will generate a snowball effect of other wrong doings?

EDIT: And another thing...this 'enhanced techique' Call it what it is...torture. This friggin play on words is stupid. It is as bad as 'What is 'is'?..Bill Clinton

[Aramike]

That was sarcasm , we know you support torture but feel slightly uncomfortable that it is unjustifiable so attempt to redefine what it is

Are you kidding? You know how I feel now, too?

I'm not at all uncomfortable with certain forms of torture being used.

What you're attempting to do, however, is say that, because I support a very specific application of the methods, I must support all torture as a whole.

It's not that simple. I have been very specific as to what I support. And I am not at all uncomfortable with supporting it.

I don't need to redefine anything, which is why I don't bother.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Are you kidding? You know how I feel now, too?

I'm not at all uncomfortable with certain forms of torture being used.

What you're attempting to do, however, is say that, because I support a very specific application of the methods, I must support all torture as a whole.

It's not that simple. I have been very specific as to what I support. And I am not at all uncomfortable with supporting it.

I don't need to redefine anything, which is why I don't bother.

Let's say the Bloods catch a Crips gang member on their turf. The Bloods proceed to tie him up, smack him around and pour water in his nose and mouth. The cops bust in just as this Crips member is being waterboarded for the 180th time.

Are the cops going to say he wasn't tortured? What's the DA's reaction going to be? How is it going to be reported in the news? Are they going to say that the Crip didn't have his fingernails pulled out or he wasn't cut up and killed so it wasn't torture? Hell no, they're going to say he was tortured. There's no moral equivalence here. Torture is torture is torture. Just because you've changed the definition for yourself doesn't mean the definition has been changed.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mookie, Aramike I see you are from the US. Tribesman, not sure were you hale from but going after one another is not what the thread is about. I think all involved would be more concerned with how this is being handled, who knew what and why nothing was done in 2003. This to me is really the problem not who here approves or disapproves of torture.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Let's say the Bloods catch a Crips gang member on their turf. The Bloods proceed to tie him up, smack him around and pour water in his nose and mouth. The cops bust in just as this Crips member is being waterboarded for the 180th time.

Are the cops going to say he wasn't tortured? What's the DA's reaction going to be? How is it going to be reported in the news? Are they going to say that the Crip didn't have his fingernails pulled out or he wasn't cut up and killed so it wasn't torture? Hell no, they're going to say he was tortured. There's no moral equivalence here. Torture is torture is torture. Just because you've changed the definition for yourself doesn't mean the definition has been changed.

Erm, again, I'm not saying that waterboarding isn't torture. You should read what I write and skip over Tribesman's attempts to make a point for me, so he has something to attempt to counter.

Let me make this clear (for the umpteenth time) - waterboarding is a FORM OF TORTURE that I support when used following specific guidelines. Period. Case closed. No redefining.

Agreeing with something is NOT redefining it. Redefining something is applying a different definition to a word. I am not doing that. It IS torture.

Seriously, can I make this any easier for you lefties? Geez...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Aramike, the line is perilously close to you.

Erm, that's oddly selective of you.

Besides, I like to walk the line.