Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11

 

2009-02-07 09:43:23
rdx-fx
...
+955|6895

mikkel wrote:

How STUPID do you have to be to realise that asymmetrical morals and conduct results in asymmetrical treatment and conditions? "Durr, we're better than these people, but let's treat them the same way they treat us, and be precisely like them." What, then, is it that's supposed to make us better? What happened to the idea of morally and humanely superior civilised societies? When push comes to shove, you guys sure are proving that you aren't living up to those ideals.
Indeed, how much of a complete IDIOT do you have to be to so completely fail at reading comprehension.

I am calling out you and your ilk for loudly protesting the slightest misstep by Americans, yet seemingly giving a pass to the other guy for hideously inhumane acts.  I do not hear a proportional level of outrage towards their gross atrocities. 

THAT is your hypocrisy.


You accuse me of racism - when nowhere did I "groups people up because they look/think/sound alike".
(Unless, of course, you count the people I called out for having hypocriticial double standards as 'think/sound alike').

You attempt to paint me as 'stupid' and preface a paraphrase of my point with 'durr' to make me out to be a drooling idiot or somesuch - and you use that same paraphrase to completely misconstrue what I was asking.  Juvenile debate club semantic bullshit - If you don't like the question asked, repeat it back rephrased as asking something else

You try to denigrate and minimize everything I've said by calling it a "tired old "hypocrisy" defence" - and completely failed to answer the questions I'd asked.  Then you (purposely or accidentally?) twist the point so far backwards as to imply I'm suggesting something completely opposite from what was asked.

Again.

Are you all hypocrites, or is there a reason there's two sets of rules for acceptable conduct?

I accept that America (and the western world in general) has a higher set of ideals to live up to, a higher standard of morality and justice that should not be thrown away in favor of 'acting like savages because the other guy does'.

I do not accept that the other guy is not proportionately called to task for his atrocities and misconduct.

Equal outrage for equal offense.  Simple, fair, and symmetrical, no?
2009-02-07 10:53:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

To Bertster

The difference is that I PERSONALLY don't condone it...meaning, I wouldn't do it myself. But again, no one knows EXACTLY what has been done or not and NO ONE can say if it is or isn't effective. Like I said before, the worst anyone has claimed is that there has been water boarding and water boarding in itself can be debated as being torture or not.
That is not the worst anyone has claimed. Read my above post again. Read about the rendition flights to other countries. I'm surprised you've written such a long response to a post that you clearly haven't even fully read.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I see that you conveniently skipped over the nations and governments doing far worse than a few Americans and their water boarding. I also noticed that you say "properly civilized" nations should act accordingly. I think that is a big double standard. So if you are a country in turmoil, with a government that is corrupt and behind the times...it gives them the right to act like barbarians and continue to starve their people, kill activists, detain opposition leaders, torture by grotesque means, murder, mutilate and generally destroy whole groups of people. Like you said, one tortured person is too much.....well, shouldn't that hold true to any human being, any government???
No. The double standard is claiming to be a civilised nation and doing stuff like this. It's not ok to do this stuff under any circumstances. But in some instances it's going to happen, because the countries involved are too backwards and fucked up. Are you suggesting the US is on the same levels as these countries? Some people doing fucked up shit is to be expected. It's not good, but it can't be helped. In a nation like the US it can be helped, and shouldn't happen.

I would be equally appalled if any similar nations were torturing people. I find the British complicity in the US interogations bitter enough to swallow.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Seriously, let's debate about far worse situations in this world and lay blame where it should be whether YOU think they are "properly civilized" or not.  So i guess that it is okay to be a third world country and not act like people with SOME morals. How does that work again??? Only properly civilized people should be held to standards of human rights???
It's not ok to "be a third world country and not act like people with SOME morals". But those countries are not looked upon as being civilised nations. The US has standards to live upto - as do many other nations. Countries that torture people cannot claim to be civilised.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I have seen videos of women and men being tortured in China and North Korea.....aren't they considered civilized as much as most countries. What about the mass executions in China for being nothing more than against what your government believes in. I wonder what kind of trial they were given and what type of interrogation they received. There are dissidents in China and Cuba who have been held for DECADES without trial. Oh that's right, Cuba is not civilized???? Michael Moore might disagree with you.
He probably would. But then Michael Moore is full of shit. Cuba is not a civilised nation. Not by modern Western standards. China, Russia - loads of these places are fucked up in all sorts of ways and I wouldn't call them civilised.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Funny, I don't hear anyone here clamoring to talk about people being held without trial far longer than some of these Guantanamo people. Do you know that IRAN is holding and American for the last 2 years........and is now using him as trade bait so that we will release a Iranian special force group caught in Iraq. Ooooops....Iran is not civilized or what? I am sure that there are people in Venezuela who would disagree with you as well. I guess now we have to decide who is a civilized country or not to condone actions against human kind. Really????

If you are going to hold America to a certain standard about water boarding...then I don't give a f@@k if your government is "properly civilized" or not. Do the right thing. If one person is intolerable to you, then what about the rest of the world? What do you consider them? Oh that's right, they aren't properly civilized so it must be okay. Hmmmmm....Okay Obama, let's become a third world country so we can do what the hell we want!!
Yet again, it's not just about waterboarding (which is a form of torture, plain and simple, there's no debate to be had there) it's about all sorts of torture. Then making efforts to cover it up, even interfering in other nations legal systems.

These idiots who torture suspects and are then pissed off when the trials go out of the window, have only themselves to blame and should be held to account for their actions - which are highly illegal.
2009-02-07 11:38:00
rdx-fx
...
+955|6895

Dilbert_X wrote:

Personally I think Guantanamo and all the other sites, including abu Ghraib, were Rumsfeld and Cheney being sadistic vindictive little shits and to cover their own failure.
I think Abu Ghraib was bullshit, but for a completely different set of reasons.

1) MP (Military Police) are not trained to process EPW (Enemy Prisoners of War) or 'detainees' or whatever the term is this week.  MI (Military Intelligence) does the interviews, interrogation, and general processing.  MP is there to make sure the EPW is where he is supposed to be, when he is supposed to be there, and taken care of in terms of safety/hygene/security/nutrition.

If the MP is asked to assist, it is supposed to be at the direction of MI personnel, for a specific directed action in accordance with regulations.  NOT because PVT Susie Smacktard got bored screwing her (married) SGT, and decided in their dim little minds that some harassment of the EPWs would be a laugh.

MP does their job, and stands quietly in the corner during interrogation, looking like a big mean pissed off musclebound Rottweiler that's missed one too many steak dinners this week - while the mousy MI geek does his best Dr. Freud "Tell me about zee mutter, ja?".

The cooks aren't doing field surgery for the medics,
the Infantry isn't cooking dinner for the battalion,
the Supply clerks aren't calling in close air support,
and (last but not least) the Medics better not be giving Last Rites free with every I.V. of 500ml or more.

2) Cell phones and cameras in an EPW holding area?! no-rank, no-authority dumbass MP Privates and Specialists running their own little bullshit fun sessions?! Same dumbass MPs having prior records for conduct that at least should've barred them from having any security clearance whatsoever ( .. </sarcasm> little things like committing adultery with a direct subordinate).



Military has many many Rules, Regulations, ROE (Rules of Engagement), Standard Procedures, Orders, Directives, Doctrines, Field Manuals, Technical Manuals, Common Tasks Standards, Laws of Land Warfare, General Orders, Standing Orders, Fragmentary Orders... etc, etc..
We have so many kinds of rules, that we have to make up new words for "rules" just to index which pile of books goes where.
Screw up on any one of them, and it's a permanent stain on your records.

Regardless of what is on CNN, 99.999% of our troops follow those rules.  Regardless of whether or not someone in Washington D.C. has forgotten them.  Regardless of how much danger that rule may place our troops in ("Don't shoot until the other guy has directly shot at you" etc).

The point of this is to take those aberrations to 'the rules' as just that - aberrations.  Corners of our great Bureaucracy sometimes get stupid, and wander off the path - call them on their bullshit.  That's why we have a 1st Amendment.

Our soldiers routinely get shot at while making damn sure they have the right target.  It would be refreshing to see the same courtesy extended to them when it's just words and accusations being tossed about.

(To be clear, I'm using DilbertX as a jumping-off point for my own thoughts on a related topic.  It's a related topic, not a counter-point).
2009-02-07 11:51:12
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6823|Πάϊ

SealXo wrote:

... he fucking did it.
How this thread continued after this is beyond me. The man is not trying to mask it or anything. He goes right out and says it. He wants revenge, not justice. End of story.
ƒ³
2009-02-07 11:52:30
mikkel
Member
+383|6905

rdx-fx wrote:

mikkel wrote:

How STUPID do you have to be to realise that asymmetrical morals and conduct results in asymmetrical treatment and conditions? "Durr, we're better than these people, but let's treat them the same way they treat us, and be precisely like them." What, then, is it that's supposed to make us better? What happened to the idea of morally and humanely superior civilised societies? When push comes to shove, you guys sure are proving that you aren't living up to those ideals.
Indeed, how much of a complete IDIOT do you have to be to so completely fail at reading comprehension.

I am calling out you and your ilk for loudly protesting the slightest misstep by Americans, yet seemingly giving a pass to the other guy for hideously inhumane acts.  I do not hear a proportional level of outrage towards their gross atrocities. 

THAT is your hypocrisy.

Posts in which the author groups people up because they look/think/sound alike, and attributes them all with the same ideals and the same opinions, and then tries to call them out on hypocrisy. The only thing you achieve by doing this is showing that you have absolutely no relevant criticism, and you need to attribute to them opinions that they may not have in order to conjure up the tired old "hypocrisy" defence. Generalisation, and arbitrary characterisation to suit whichever personal criticism you feel like dishing out, regardless of the actual circumstances. Trench warfare for the sake of warfare.
Good god. Did you not read this passage? Me and my ilk? I'll bet any money that you have little to no knowledge of my stand on ANYTHING besides the matter that we're debating now.


rdx-fx wrote:

You accuse me of racism - when nowhere did I "groups people up because they look/think/sound alike".
(Unless, of course, you count the people I called out for having hypocriticial double standards as 'think/sound alike').
Racism? Where the hell did I ever accuse you of racism? You complain about a lack of reading comprehension? Have a look at yourself.

rdx-fx wrote:

You attempt to paint me as 'stupid' and preface a paraphrase of my point with 'durr' to make me out to be a drooling idiot or somesuch - and you use that same paraphrase to completely misconstrue what I was asking.  Juvenile debate club semantic bullshit - If you don't like the question asked, repeat it back rephrased as asking something else
If I don't like the question asked? The question asked was not PERTINENT to me. It was based on your presumptions that I held opinions which I did in fact not hold. What I said was in reference to your completely baseless and ridiculous assumption about my opinions. Reading comprehension? Seriously?

rdx-fx wrote:

You try to denigrate and minimize everything I've said by calling it a "tired old "hypocrisy" defence" - and completely failed to answer the questions I'd asked.  Then you (purposely or accidentally?) twist the point so far backwards as to imply I'm suggesting something completely opposite from what was asked.

Again.

Are you all hypocrites, or is there a reason there's two sets of rules for acceptable conduct?
Again, your question was based on your wrongful presumptions, so the question clearly does not APPLY to me, because it relies on a presumption of opinion that I do not HOLD. The criticism of this argument was the entire basis for my previous post, and somehow you failed to understand that.

rdx-fx wrote:

I accept that America (and the western world in general) has a higher set of ideals to live up to, a higher standard of morality and justice that should not be thrown away in favor of 'acting like savages because the other guy does'.

I do not accept that the other guy is not proportionately called to task for his atrocities and misconduct.

Equal outrage for equal offense.  Simple, fair, and symmetrical, no?
Do you know who I call to task on what at all? No. You really do not. You assume and you criticise on your assumption, but you still don't know.
2009-02-07 12:14:04
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Poseidon wrote:

However, new charges can be brought again later, and al-Nashiri will remain in prison for the time being.
/thread

I'm sure they'll find a way to put him away for something else.
I think Poseidon's got the right idea here.  He probably will be convicted of something.  The case has simply been delayed.
2009-02-07 12:24:12
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6884|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

However, new charges can be brought again later, and al-Nashiri will remain in prison for the time being.
/thread

I'm sure they'll find a way to put him away for something else.
I think Poseidon's got the right idea here.  He probably will be convicted of something.  The case has simply been delayed.
tax evasion?
2009-02-07 12:31:15
rdx-fx
...
+955|6895

Bertster7 wrote:

No. The double standard is claiming to be a civilised nation and doing stuff like this. It's not ok to do this stuff under any circumstances. But in some instances it's going to happen, because the countries involved are too backwards and fucked up. Are you suggesting the US is on the same levels as these countries? Some people doing fucked up shit is to be expected. It's not good, but it can't be helped. In a nation like the US it can be helped, and shouldn't happen.
Yes, "In a nation like the US it can be helped".  It is helped by the citizenry using their Freedom of Speech to voice their dissent, and Freedom of the Press to discover such things to be pissed about. ("1st Amendment" as it's called in the USA).

It's also helped when those that go outside the boundary of our 'Rule of Law' are held accountable for their actions.  Unfortunately, in the plebian zeal for bloodsports, the media is often more eager for a sensational story and less interested in a balanced account of the facts. Romans had the gladiatorial arenas - modern world has infotainment parading as news (Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, et al)

Bertster7 wrote:

It's not ok to "be a third world country and not act like people with SOME morals". But those countries are not looked upon as being civilised nations. The US has standards to live upto - as do many other nations. Countries that torture people cannot claim to be civilised.
Then call them on their bullshit.  They claim to have the moral high ground, and perfect religious righteousness in their actions.
Make a point to remind them that they're not yet 'sitting at the big table with the adults'.

Bertster7 wrote:

Yet again, it's not just about waterboarding (which is a form of torture, plain and simple, there's no debate to be had there)
Actually, there is plenty to debate there.
If the subject dies or is permanently injured from the treatment - there is a very arguable case against the interrogator, yes.
If there is no intent, or even credible risk of drowning - is it still torture?
Is the interrogator responsible for the subject's imagining he might die?
Is the interrogator responsible for all the propaganda, horror stories, and disinformation that the other side has filled the subjects head with?

Interrogator is responsible for what he tells a subject, but not necessarily what conclusions the subject draws from them.
The physical reality of what goes on during an interrogation doesn't break a person's will.  Their own imagination about what lies in the future as a consequence, does.

Again, there is a spectrum of acceptability.  What is an uncomfortable unpleasant temporary experience to a hardened, trained professional - would be a permanent psychiatric nightmare and "head full of scramblefuck" to a raw civilian.  The interrogator does have an obligation (legal, moral, and ethical) to determine where this point is.  Somewhere in between "Let's chat and be friends" and "Spanish Inquisition, get them to the point where they'll confess to anything we say", is a point where a subject will start giving out useful information.  Too light, and you're 'talking' rather than interrogating - too heavy and you're 'torturing' rather than interrogating.  It is not a job for the impatient, emotionally unstable, sadistic, or malicious.


Bertster7 wrote:

These idiots who torture suspects and are then pissed off when the trials go out of the window, have only themselves to blame and should be held to account for their actions - which are highly illegal.
If the interrogation goes outside the bounds of law, yes, they have only themselves to blame and should be held to account for their actions.  If they choose to operate in a grey area of the rules, subject to judicial interpretation, then they are also gambling their own ass on the outcome.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-02-07 12:33:40)

2009-02-07 12:38:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:


/thread

I'm sure they'll find a way to put him away for something else.
I think Poseidon's got the right idea here.  He probably will be convicted of something.  The case has simply been delayed.
tax evasion?
lol...  maybe...
2009-02-07 12:45:18
rdx-fx
...
+955|6895

mikkel wrote:

Racism? Where the hell did I ever accuse you of racism?
"Posts in which the author groups people up because they look/think/sound alike, and attributes them all with the same ideals and the same opinions"

Right there.

mikkel wrote:

You complain about a lack of reading comprehension? Have a look at yourself.
Right after you read what you wrote yourself.

mikkel wrote:

If I don't like the question asked? The question asked was not PERTINENT to me. It was based on your presumptions that I held opinions which I did in fact not hold.

Again, your question was based on your wrongful presumptions, so the question clearly does not APPLY to me
Then why on earth were you responding to it, if my question was not pertinent to you?

mikkel wrote:

Do you know who I call to task on what at all? No.
No.  Are you someone so notable that I should make a study of your relevant literature, outside the current discussion at hand?
I am discussing exactly what you wrote, as you wrote it.  No more, no less.

You are the one that stepped into my initial premise, not the other way around.
2009-02-07 12:55:28
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Bertster7 wrote:

Your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
lol...so is yours.  and that guy.  and that other guy.


what the fuck is the matter with you?  sherlock
2009-02-07 12:58:04
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

m3thod wrote:

So to win the War on Terror (unachieveable anyway) we have to behave like terrorists?
nope.  but you cant pull them over and read them their rights.  put up yellow tape and have CSI come in and gather evidence in the middle of a warzone or some terrorist mecca that some countries have created.


jesus i give up with you.  you refuse to read what i have said over all these years and ask stupid fucking questions like that.
2009-02-07 12:59:08
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

m3thod wrote:

As ever you refuse to go into any particular detail and assert what you think without any conviction.  Usual crap.
R.T.F.T

usual troll you are
2009-02-07 16:25:09
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6483
To Bert and brother Ernie,

Seriously, unless you live in the deep jungle and don't know what the hell is going on, then I would say that you are not "properly civilized" as you call it. It is funny how you hold countries like Russia and China below other countries in civil standards because they are "fucked up" that is a joke. If you are soooooooooooo concerned about human rights, then all humans should fall under that umbrella no matter where you come from or who your government is.

It is utterly ridiculous to make certain countries responsible or to live up to certain expectations because they have power etc. Is that what you want? A world of sheeple following the all mighty power??? What a joke!!! If I didn't live in America I would still KNOW what right is right and what is wrong is wrong. My government does not have to tell me that, I could care less what the media or internet says as well. I don't live on the net and only come here once in a great while.

All countries and its peoples should know by now what is wrong or right and all people should be accountable for what they do, no matter if you are in government or from the poorest country in the world. Just like America's power and military might doesn't give it the right to do what it wants(as many of you cry about in here) it is the same for any government out there "properly civilized" or not.

By the way, I have some Chinese friends who would love to hear that you think they aren't civilized......DUH!!!!

Finally, if you think that every country is not fucked up in one form or another, then you are sorely naive and in your examples, I guess we are all uncivilized..........LOLOL

So which is it and who are you to judge who is or isn't "properly civilized" and it is a totally fucked up train of thought to excuse one country or another because it doesn't fit your idea of civility. If you are going to bitch about some guys getting waterboarded or flown to secret locations (oh dear!) then you need to start bitching about any human who is being messed with right now. I noticed you skip over that quite a bit, ignoring what is happening out there and excusing the worst countries because they aren't civilized IN YOUR DEFINITIONS....good God!!
2009-02-08 03:08:46
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

usmarine wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.
lol...so is yours.  and that guy.  and that other guy.


what the fuck is the matter with you?  sherlock
Yes. Opinion is irrelevant. Quite right. What matters is what is legally defined as torture under the relevant international acts that the relevant parties are signed up to.

The fact is that waterboarding is classed as torture under those acts. End of story.
2009-02-08 03:15:38
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

rdx-fx wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No. The double standard is claiming to be a civilised nation and doing stuff like this. It's not ok to do this stuff under any circumstances. But in some instances it's going to happen, because the countries involved are too backwards and fucked up. Are you suggesting the US is on the same levels as these countries? Some people doing fucked up shit is to be expected. It's not good, but it can't be helped. In a nation like the US it can be helped, and shouldn't happen.
Yes, "In a nation like the US it can be helped".  It is helped by the citizenry using their Freedom of Speech to voice their dissent, and Freedom of the Press to discover such things to be pissed about. ("1st Amendment" as it's called in the USA).
Doesn't really count when they intervene to prevent publication of evidence in such instances does it. Sounds like a bit of a violation of that 1st Amendment to me.

It doesn't help when it is well documented that the CIA have destroyed videotape evidence of his interogations, as ordered by the then head of the CIA.

rdx-fx wrote:

It's also helped when those that go outside the boundary of our 'Rule of Law' are held accountable for their actions.  Unfortunately, in the plebian zeal for bloodsports, the media is often more eager for a sensational story and less interested in a balanced account of the facts. Romans had the gladiatorial arenas - modern world has infotainment parading as news (Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, et al)
Who has been prosecuted for torturing detainees?

No one. Yet we are aware it has happened and so they have not been held accountable for their actions.

rdx-fx wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's not ok to "be a third world country and not act like people with SOME morals". But those countries are not looked upon as being civilised nations. The US has standards to live upto - as do many other nations. Countries that torture people cannot claim to be civilised.
Then call them on their bullshit.  They claim to have the moral high ground, and perfect religious righteousness in their actions.
Make a point to remind them that they're not yet 'sitting at the big table with the adults'.
People do. Have you never seen a demonstration about Gitmo or condemnations of it from international organisations like the UN?

Or on the other hand, if you're talking about nations that do disregard human rights, did you see the reception the Chinese President got in the UK recently? Or the demonstrations around the world while the Olympic torch was going round the world? These countries do get blamed - but they're not quite as much in the spotlight as the US, for obvious reasons.

rdx-fx wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Yet again, it's not just about waterboarding (which is a form of torture, plain and simple, there's no debate to be had there)
Actually, there is plenty to debate there.
If the subject dies or is permanently injured from the treatment - there is a very arguable case against the interrogator, yes.
Risk of death is utterly irrelevant in determining if something is torture. Are you trying to claim that pulling someones fingernails off doesn't count as torture? There's no risk of death there.

The definitions of torture as laid out under law are what determines if something is torture.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, PART I, Article 1. wrote:

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
That's what torture is. The US is signed up to this convention and should honour their obligations.

rdx-fx wrote:

If there is no intent, or even credible risk of drowning - is it still torture?
Yes.

rdx-fx wrote:

Is the interrogator responsible for the subject's imagining he might die?
Yes.

rdx-fx wrote:

Is the interrogator responsible for all the propaganda, horror stories, and disinformation that the other side has filled the subjects head with?
No.

rdx-fx wrote:

Interrogator is responsible for what he tells a subject, but not necessarily what conclusions the subject draws from them.
The physical reality of what goes on during an interrogation doesn't break a person's will.  Their own imagination about what lies in the future as a consequence, does.
Simulating drowning is causing severe mental sufffering - which is not "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanction". As such it is torture. Regardless of any physical danger involved.

rdx-fx wrote:

Again, there is a spectrum of acceptability.  What is an uncomfortable unpleasant temporary experience to a hardened, trained professional - would be a permanent psychiatric nightmare and "head full of scramblefuck" to a raw civilian.  The interrogator does have an obligation (legal, moral, and ethical) to determine where this point is.  Somewhere in between "Let's chat and be friends" and "Spanish Inquisition, get them to the point where they'll confess to anything we say", is a point where a subject will start giving out useful information.  Too light, and you're 'talking' rather than interrogating - too heavy and you're 'torturing' rather than interrogating.  It is not a job for the impatient, emotionally unstable, sadistic, or malicious.


Bertster7 wrote:

These idiots who torture suspects and are then pissed off when the trials go out of the window, have only themselves to blame and should be held to account for their actions - which are highly illegal.
If the interrogation goes outside the bounds of law, yes, they have only themselves to blame and should be held to account for their actions.  If they choose to operate in a grey area of the rules, subject to judicial interpretation, then they are also gambling their own ass on the outcome.
But they're not though, are they. How many interogators have been convicted of torturing?

This is not the 1st case to be dismissed due to torture being used in interogation. There have been several - yet despite that fact, no one has been held to account. The only real impact of this seems to be losing convictions. Hopefully more of this will happen to drive home the fact that if you want convictions, torture is not the right way to go about it. Perhaps this and not just laws against it, will stop these interogators and their bosses from using torture and a method of intel gathering.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 04:02:53)

2009-02-08 03:18:48
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6409|eXtreme to the maX

rdx-fx wrote:

We have so many kinds of rules, that we have to make up new words for "rules" just to index which pile of books goes where.
Screw up on any one of them, and it's a permanent stain on your records.
Its a bit surprising they were broken so blatantly at Abu Ghraib then.
And it wasn't just the two stooges involved, it was a few more than that.
Fuck Israel
2009-02-08 03:34:03
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6885|SE London

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

To Bert and brother Ernie,

Seriously, unless you live in the deep jungle and don't know what the hell is going on, then I would say that you are not "properly civilized" as you call it. It is funny how you hold countries like Russia and China below other countries in civil standards because they are "fucked up" that is a joke. If you are soooooooooooo concerned about human rights, then all humans should fall under that umbrella no matter where you come from or who your government is.
If you are unaware of rendition flights and the SOLID evidence about them - then it seems you have been living in the deep jungle.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

It is utterly ridiculous to make certain countries responsible or to live up to certain expectations because they have power etc. Is that what you want? A world of sheeple following the all mighty power??? What a joke!!! If I didn't live in America I would still KNOW what right is right and what is wrong is wrong. My government does not have to tell me that, I could care less what the media or internet says as well. I don't live on the net and only come here once in a great while.
How much less could you care?

In any case - so what? What has any of this got to do with what is and isn't torture?

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

All countries and its peoples should know by now what is wrong or right and all people should be accountable for what they do, no matter if you are in government or from the poorest country in the world. Just like America's power and military might doesn't give it the right to do what it wants(as many of you cry about in here) it is the same for any government out there "properly civilized" or not.

By the way, I have some Chinese friends who would love to hear that you think they aren't civilized......DUH!!!!
Their country isn't. That's not to say they aren't. You were very clear a moment ago in distinguishing people and their sense of morality from their nations - this is precisely the same.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Finally, if you think that every country is not fucked up in one form or another, then you are sorely naive and in your examples, I guess we are all uncivilized..........LOLOL
"If I think that every country is not fucked up in one form or another"? I don't think that.

That would mean that I thought no countries were fucked up in any way.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

So which is it and who are you to judge who is or isn't "properly civilized" and it is a totally fucked up train of thought to excuse one country or another because it doesn't fit your idea of civility.
Is torture civilised? It's not just me that believes it is not.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

If you are going to bitch about some guys getting waterboarded or flown to secret locations (oh dear!) then you need to start bitching about any human who is being messed with right now.
Oh dear what? Are you denying it happens? Are YOU that naive? I can cite reams of evidence from highly credible sources - including high court judges, indicating that this does happen.

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I noticed you skip over that quite a bit, ignoring what is happening out there and excusing the worst countries because they aren't civilized IN YOUR DEFINITIONS....good God!!
I haven't done that at all.

Bertster7 wrote:

It's not ok to do this stuff under any circumstances.
That's not excusing. I have never at any point in this thread, or ever, excused any countries of torture.

I maintain that the US should be held to account since they are higher profile and far more importantly, have a system in place where the people can do something about it. Look what happens in China if people try to do something about these sorts of issues - they get run over by tanks. In many African states if you speak out against these sort of thing you will probably be beaten to death, or hacked up with machetes.

I thought in the US you had a government fully accountable to the people?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-08 03:59:43)

2009-02-08 03:40:56
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6796|Connecticut

m3thod wrote:

The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.


Yeah right, you aint got shit.
OJ Simpson was suspected too.

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2009-02-08 03:41:25)

Malloy must go
2009-02-08 03:50:04
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6975|UK

deeznutz1245 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.


Yeah right, you aint got shit.
OJ Simpson was suspected too.
suspected is a long way off from proven.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2009-02-08 04:06:51
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6823|Πάϊ

deeznutz1245 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.


Yeah right, you aint got shit.
OJ Simpson was suspected too.
So you're saying that if you're a suspect that makes you guilty? omg lol
ƒ³
2009-02-08 04:14:00
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6796|Connecticut

oug wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.


Yeah right, you aint got shit.
OJ Simpson was suspected too.
So you're saying that if you're a suspect that makes you guilty? omg lol
No dolt. What I am saying is that under our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty by a trial of your peers. So in other words if I were to walk into your place of work and stab you to death in front of all of your colleagues as witnesses I would be a suspected murderer. Until of course I am found guilty. Kind of hard to understand what I was saying still? OMG LOL!
Malloy must go
2009-02-08 04:18:22
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7020

m3thod wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

The charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active Guantanamo war crimes case.


Yeah right, you aint got shit.
OJ Simpson was suspected too.
suspected is a long way off from proven.
Glove doesn't fit.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-08 04:43:29
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6823|Πάϊ

deeznutz1245 wrote:

oug wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:


OJ Simpson was suspected too.
So you're saying that if you're a suspect that makes you guilty? omg lol
No dolt. What I am saying is that under our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty by a trial of your peers. So in other words if I were to walk into your place of work and stab you to death in front of all of your colleagues as witnesses I would be a suspected murderer. Until of course I am found guilty. Kind of hard to understand what I was saying still? OMG LOL!
Well then why bring up a case of a suspect who was proven guilty when obviously this has nothing to do with this case, where there was no conviction. Don't try to turn things around now, we know what you meant.
ƒ³
2009-02-08 05:14:32
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6456|what

"The bad guys are bad so it should be okay if we torture them."
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard