We Do Not Torture

Gato_Solo said:
Nope. Just the way you try to blame everything wrong on Bush. It's the easy way out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty easy when Bush is the one telling the lie in the article and Cheney is the one lobying against McCain's bill.

It's got to be much harder for you to shift blame to where it doesn't belong.
 
chcr said:
But, in the original quote they didn't.

Did they?
Click to expand...
By lobbying against and threatening to veto McCains bill I'd have to say they are. I consider "We do not torture" just lipservice to the american public than to the geneva convention. You can consider it both if you'd like.
 
flavio said:
Yeah, pretty easy when Bush is the one telling the lie in the article and Cheney is the one lobying against McCain's bill.

It's got to be much harder for you to shift blame to where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

So...because we don't need another layer of government (torture is also against the UCMJ) watching over our shoulders while we work, you divine that that means Bush and Cheney condone torture... :rofl4:

Of everything on that list, tell me of one thing that was not punishable, or punished. And I'll require proof... :devious:
 
Taking away options, any option, is foolish. The definition of torture, as we've seen in this & the original ABu Ghraib thread, is highly subjective. However, if person A knows where the explosives at Grand Central STation are hidden, I have no qualms about pulling teeth with a cement mixed to get answers.
 
Gato_Solo said:
So...because we don't need another layer of government (torture is also against the UCMJ) watching over our shoulders while we work, you divine that that means Bush and Cheney condone torture... :rofl4:
Click to expand...
Because they are lobbying against and threatening to veto a bill banning torture you think they're really against torture....:rofl4:
 
flavio said:
Because they are lobbying against and threatening to veto a bill banning torture you think they're really against torture....:rofl4:
Click to expand...

As I said before...there are already rules and regulations against torture. Why do we need another?
 
flavio said:
Because they are lobbying against and threatening to veto a bill banning torture you think they're really against torture....:rofl4:
Click to expand...

What makes you think they'll pay attention to this one anyway. :shrug:
 
chcr said:
What makes you think they'll pay attention to this one anyway. :shrug:
Click to expand...

He brought it up...I just pointed out that we already have those rules, and he *poof* disappeared.
 
chcr said:
*sigh* We're talking about apples and oranges. There is a very large difference between indiscriminate torture and using psychological and physical means to extract information from people that you know have it. We've become too squeamish as a society. It doesn't bode well for our survival.

Saddam is not on trial for torture, rape rooms (which aren't illegal in any case, women are property) or for killing. He is specifically on trial for using poison gas on the Kurds. Wanna bet he gets off?
Click to expand...

There isn't a large difference, because you have no control over who your government tortures or doesn't, if you concede they have the right to use it.
 
Bobby Hogg said:
There isn't a large difference, because you have no control over who your government tortures or doesn't, if you concede they have the right to use it.
Click to expand...
I don't have any now.
 
chcr said:
I don't have any now.
Click to expand...

Psst...It's called voting. If you don't like either candidate, you can always pencil in your choice. Anything else is a cop-out. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
As I said before...there are already rules and regulations against torture. Why do we need another?
Click to expand...
Offhand I believe one difference is that the new bill extends protection from torture to detainees who may not meet official POW status. For other differences I guess we'll have to compare the two.

It passed in the Senate 90-9, has the support according to the report, "more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
 
flavio said:
Offhand I believe one difference is that the new bill extends protection from torture to detainees who may not meet official POW status.
Click to expand...

Covered in the Geneva Convention, the UCMJ, and the LOAC...all signed, ratified, and entered into law by Presidents Reagan and Clinton.

flavio said:
For other differences I guess we'll have to compare the two.

It passed in the Senate 90-9, has the support according to the report, "more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Click to expand...

So? Does that make this new law necessary?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Covered in the Geneva Convention, the UCMJ, and the LOAC...all signed, ratified, and entered into law by Presidents Reagan and Clinton.
Click to expand...
Where is covered in the UCMJ?

So? Does that make this new law necessary?
Click to expand...
Certainly would seem so given the supporters. Definitely doesn't point to any reasons to be strongly against it does it?

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the administration had interpreted an international treaty banning torture to mean that a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment did not apply to C.I.A. actions overseas.

"That's why the McCain amendment is important, and that's why this language they're floating now would gut it," said Ms. Massimino, who provided a copy of the administration's proposed changes to The New York Times.

Human rights advocates said that creating parallel sets of interrogation rules for military personnel and clandestine intelligence operatives was impractical in the war on terrorism, where soldiers and spies routinely cross paths on a global battlefield and often share techniques

"They are explicitly saying, for the first time, that the intelligence community should have the ability to treat prisoners inhumanely," Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said. "You can't tell soldiers that inhumane treatment is always morally wrong if they see with their own eyes that C.I.A. personnel are allowed to engage in it."


Source....
Click to expand...
 
Bobby Hogg said:
True, but perhaps that's why we need to take a look at ourselves and the power we give to our governments.
Click to expand...

I've always felt we give too much power to our governments (even when mine had a lot less than it does now). Should I revolt? The average person will vote for anything that appears to keep him safe and comfortable, regardless of what it does to his freedom or sensibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top