BF2S Forums Bush attempting to pardon himself & his administration for war crimes

lowing wrote:

If you had the guy that knew where your missing kid was and all he told you was that your kid was going to die in 2 hours, and he refused to tell you where your kid was, do you really expect me to believe that you wouldn't do ANYTHING MORE than just ask him politely for the information needed to save your kid? Only 2 possible answers here.

You can stop shooting your pistols in the air thinking you done got them dag gum commie libs at their own thinkin' games. Because you ain't.

First of all, your illustration is wrong. You say that the guy KNEW where my missing kid was. Yet this bill grants the power to detain/interrogate with no trial anyone the Pentagon says is a bad guy. No proof necessary. There's no "knowing", lowing. You need to change your little scenario to "if you had a guy that YOU SUSPECTED knew where your missing kid was".

Answering for myself - you're damn right I would do more than just ask him politely, even if I just suspected that he knew where my missing kid was.

But your question is disingenuous. There's what I'd do as an emotionally-charged individual, and then there's what should actually be in the law books as stone-cold reason. Just because I would do something doesn't mean I think it's right or should be upheld in federal courts. I'd punch a guy in the face for insulting my mother, but it doesn't mean I think Congress should pass a law to condone it.

You're asking one question, when you should be asking three.
1) Would you do MORE than just ask politely for the information needed to save your kid? YES I WOULD.
2) If you tortured to get that information, would you be suprised to learn that you broke the law? NO I WOULD NOT.
3) If you indeed did something so wrong to save your kid that it violated Congressional laws on torture, do you think those laws should be changed to retroactively excuse you from any crimes? NO I DO NOT.

It's common knowledge to.. *gasp- should I say it?* informed people, that torture almost never helps in extracting useful information.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-10-01 15:31:35)

I read books.  The Nazis knew full well that using physical torture as a means to extract useful information was plain dumb.  (After using extracted info, and learning it didn't help)

walter the farting dog was a good book

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you had the guy that knew where your missing kid was and all he told you was that your kid was going to die in 2 hours, and he refused to tell you where your kid was, do you really expect me to believe that you wouldn't do ANYTHING MORE than just ask him politely for the information needed to save your kid? Only 2 possible answers here.

You can stop shooting your pistols in the air thinking you done got them dag gum commie libs at their own thinkin' games. Because you ain't.

First of all, your illustration is wrong. You say that the guy KNEW where my missing kid was. Yet this bill grants the power to detain/interrogate with no trial anyone the Pentagon says is a bad guy. No proof necessary. There's no "knowing", lowing. You need to change your little scenario to "if you had a guy that YOU SUSPECTED knew where your missing kid was".

Answering for myself - you're damn right I would do more than just ask him politely, even if I just suspected that he knew where my missing kid was.

But your question is disingenuous. There's what I'd do as an emotionally-charged individual, and then there's what should actually be in the law books as stone-cold reason. Just because I would do something doesn't mean I think it's right or should be upheld in federal courts. I'd punch a guy in the face for insulting my mother, but it doesn't mean I think Congress should pass a law to condone it.

You're asking one question, when you should be asking three.
1) Would you do MORE than just ask politely for the information needed to save your kid? YES I WOULD.
2) If you tortured to get that information, would you be suprised to learn that you broke the law? NO I WOULD NOT.
3) If you indeed did something so wrong to save your kid that it violated Congressional laws on torture, do you think those laws should be changed to retroactively excuse you from any crimes? NO I DO NOT.

So than do you think torture in a case where it resulted in saving thousands of American's lives would be acceptable or not?? Hypothetical here, someone was tortured and information was released that saved lives, just want to know your opinion.

If I am the guy on the ground acting as an agent of the United States and what I am doing is illegal, I'm not going to do it. I don't KNOW it's going to save thousands of lives. I have a guy in front of me who MIGHT have information, and I know what the laws are. I'm not going to break the laws. It's simple.

If I am the legislator, I'm not going to vote for a law that legalizes torture, no matter what scenario you're going to throw at me, including the one you're trying to use right now.

If I am a judge looking at a case where someone committed a crime, I am going to prosecute him. Am I glad that he saved lives? Yep. Doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime.

Is Robin Hood not a crook just because what he did with the money was "good"? No. He has a good heart, sure. Doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime.

What is with you guys and your what-if fantasy scenarios? I feel like I'm at a slumber party. You can try to appeal to people's emotions all you want, but the reality is that emotion is not the foundation for law, nor should it be. Good legislation is written using reason. Emotion is not reason.

Redback00 wrote:

Everyone is talking about the GC not being relevant because the terrorists don't apply.

Maybe Bush is seeking protection because he invaded Iraq without cause? And the resulting atrocities committed by the military against the detainees. The GC becomes very applicable then.

Just a thought.

Atrocities against the detainees?  A pyramid of buttcrack?  Leading someone around by a leash?  Letting a dog snarl in someone's face? Making them wear women’s underwear?  Frat initiation sounds much worse since there's actual physical violence.   Come on.  These guys being detained live better at Gitmo than they do in their own country.  New prayer rug, new Quran, 3 squares a day.  If this is our version of torture the enemy has nothing to worry about.   We suck at it.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-10-01 18:36:00)

Stingray24 wrote:

Redback00 wrote:

Everyone is talking about the GC not being relevant because the terrorists don't apply.

Maybe Bush is seeking protection because he invaded Iraq without cause? And the resulting atrocities committed by the military against the detainees. The GC becomes very applicable then.

Just a thought.

Atrocities against the detainees?  A pyramid of buttcrack?  Leading someone around by a leash?  Letting a dog snarl in someone's face? Making them wear women’s underwear?  Frat initiation sounds much worse since there's actual physical violence.   Come on.  These guys being detained live better at Gitmo than they do in their own country.  New prayer rug, new Quran, 3 squares a day.  If this is our version of torture the enemy has nothing to worry about.   We suck at it.

You're funny...do you really believe that...yeah, not to concerned about the childish pranks that the idiots play...but don't you think Bush is positioning himself for the shit we haven't heard about yet? Remember, we only heard about the "secret" prisons about a month ago and I'm sure we will here more details in the months/years to come. They were secret for a reason.

You can guarantee that some of the prisoners were Iraqis and as a result, Mr. Bush may be in some trouble.

Last edited by Redback00 (2006-10-02 01:18:57)

I thought you couldn't introduce laws that worked retrospectively anyway. If anyone in Bush's administration were to face charges over the treatment of detainees for the time leading up to the bill, surely they would still be liable because the law was not in place when the acts took place.

So it's not really a case of Bush attempting to pardon himself for crimes committed, maybe he's got something even worse up his sleeve for later.

Spearhead wrote:

It's common knowledge to.. *gasp- should I say it?* informed people, that torture almost never helps in extracting useful information.

QFE

lowing wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you had the guy that knew where your missing kid was and all he told you was that your kid was going to die in 2 hours, and he refused to tell you where your kid was, do you really expect me to believe that you wouldn't do ANYTHING MORE than just ask him politely for the information needed to save your kid? Only 2 possible answers here.

You can stop shooting your pistols in the air thinking you done got them dag gum commie libs at their own thinkin' games. Because you ain't.

First of all, your illustration is wrong. You say that the guy KNEW where my missing kid was. Yet this bill grants the power to detain/interrogate with no trial anyone the Pentagon says is a bad guy. No proof necessary. There's no "knowing", lowing. You need to change your little scenario to "if you had a guy that YOU SUSPECTED knew where your missing kid was".

Answering for myself - you're damn right I would do more than just ask him politely, even if I just suspected that he knew where my missing kid was.

But your question is disingenuous. There's what I'd do as an emotionally-charged individual, and then there's what should actually be in the law books as stone-cold reason. Just because I would do something doesn't mean I think it's right or should be upheld in federal courts. I'd punch a guy in the face for insulting my mother, but it doesn't mean I think Congress should pass a law to condone it.

You're asking one question, when you should be asking three.
1) Would you do MORE than just ask politely for the information needed to save your kid? YES I WOULD.
2) If you tortured to get that information, would you be suprised to learn that you broke the law? NO I WOULD NOT.
3) If you indeed did something so wrong to save your kid that it violated Congressional laws on torture, do you think those laws should be changed to retroactively excuse you from any crimes? NO I DO NOT.

Appreciate the honest answer, but I still feel the question has merit because, like I said, thousands of lives are possibly being saved, probably already has, possibly your kid or mine, who knows. Reality is, sometimes the gloves have to come off. We will never win this or keep it in check if when dealing with rats, you don't climb into the sewer sometimes. We will win a fight tieing our OWN hands behind our backs while our enemies throw sucker punches.

Key word in your statement "Possibly"

Ask John McCain if torture works.