Geneva Convention innit.
yerpghettoperson wrote:
Geneva Convention innit.
abnd I got one for the "geneva really, then how can you legally waterboard" crowd
because the very actions and situations in which these individuals were captured, null and voided certain rights that uniformed combatants are afforded.
Code of Conduct V:AussieReaper wrote:
"Name, rank and serial number."M.O.A.B wrote:
Someone unwilling to grant information is going to be far more willing if they're threatened.
If what you say is true, it sounds like the US training is designed to set you guys up for torture.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
The bold part is important.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Can you explain how this huge leap of logic should make sense?FEOS wrote:
So no country should take action against anyone anywhere for any reason at any time?mikkel wrote:
There was this one guy who said something a while back about what injustice anywhere represented, and a lot of people seemed to agree with him. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.FEOS wrote:
America is still a nation of human rights, freedom, justice, and equality. What happened to those two douchebags does nothing to change that.
But it didn't null and void the fifth article of the universal declaration of human rights.Man With No Name wrote:
yerpghettoperson wrote:
Geneva Convention innit.
abnd I got one for the "geneva really, then how can you legally waterboard" crowd
because the very actions and situations in which these individuals were captured, null and voided certain rights that uniformed combatants are afforded.
It makes about as much sense as the leap of logic that a country suddenly doesn't stand for anything because of the treatment of two individuals who are admitted and proven killers of innocents.mikkel wrote:
Can you explain how this huge leap of logic should make sense?FEOS wrote:
So no country should take action against anyone anywhere for any reason at any time?mikkel wrote:
There was this one guy who said something a while back about what injustice anywhere represented, and a lot of people seemed to agree with him. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As its the only book I've read regarding the subject of a soldier being captured, read Bravo Two Zero. McNab got roughed up to hell until he gave them a revised version of why he was there to begin with.AussieReaper wrote:
"Name, rank and serial number."M.O.A.B wrote:
Someone unwilling to grant information is going to be far more willing if they're threatened.
If what you say is true, it sounds like the US training is designed to set you guys up for torture.
Either you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I'm saying, or your sense of logic is appalling.FEOS wrote:
It makes about as much sense as the leap of logic that a country suddenly doesn't stand for anything because of the treatment of two individuals who are admitted and proven killers of innocents.mikkel wrote:
Can you explain how this huge leap of logic should make sense?FEOS wrote:
So no country should take action against anyone anywhere for any reason at any time?
You're trying to say that deliberately disregarding human rights and justice does nothing to change the integrity of a country's commitment to these values. I don't know how disagreeing with that is a leap of logic to you, 'cause I don't see any more efficient way of failing ones commitment to principles than acting against them deliberately. The fact that you need to add that they were "admitted and proven killers of innocents" just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
I'm still at a loss as to where on Earth you derive logic and similiarity from in your previous comment. Care to shed some light on that?
Last edited by mikkel (2009-04-25 09:54:38)
Either you have no reading comprehension or you can't think deeper than 1mm on a given topic.mikkel wrote:
Either you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I'm saying, or your sense of logic is appalling.FEOS wrote:
It makes about as much sense as the leap of logic that a country suddenly doesn't stand for anything because of the treatment of two individuals who are admitted and proven killers of innocents.mikkel wrote:
Can you explain how this huge leap of logic should make sense?
You're trying to say that deliberately disregarding human rights and justice does nothing to change the integrity of a country's commitment to these values. I don't know how disagreeing with that is a leap of logic to you, 'cause I don't see any more efficient way of failing ones commitment to principles than acting against them deliberately. The fact that you need to add that they were "admitted and proven killers of innocents" just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
I'm still at a loss as to where on Earth you derive logic and similiarity from in your previous comment. Care to shed some light on that?
See? I can be condescending, too.
Here's the logical leap that you made, applied in the manner I applied it:
As a nation, we value life and freedom. But under certain circumstances, we take freedom--and at times, life--away from our citizens. Does that mean that as a nation we no longer value life or freedom? Absolutely not...unless you apply your flawed logic.
Oh...and we do that with people who are "admitted and proven killers of innocents". Your inability to grasp the logical leap just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
How's that for shedding light? Or do I need to turn the lamp up a bit?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I go through torture everytime I show up to my math class. Id rather be waterboarded.
Unfortunately, you're wrong.FEOS wrote:
Either you have no reading comprehension or you can't think deeper than 1mm on a given topic.mikkel wrote:
Either you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I'm saying, or your sense of logic is appalling.FEOS wrote:
It makes about as much sense as the leap of logic that a country suddenly doesn't stand for anything because of the treatment of two individuals who are admitted and proven killers of innocents.
You're trying to say that deliberately disregarding human rights and justice does nothing to change the integrity of a country's commitment to these values. I don't know how disagreeing with that is a leap of logic to you, 'cause I don't see any more efficient way of failing ones commitment to principles than acting against them deliberately. The fact that you need to add that they were "admitted and proven killers of innocents" just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
I'm still at a loss as to where on Earth you derive logic and similiarity from in your previous comment. Care to shed some light on that?
See? I can be condescending, too.
I really think you should go back and read the last few posts, because this argument has absolutely no basis in the logic I've used.FEOS wrote:
Here's the logical leap that you made, applied in the manner I applied it:
As a nation, we value life and freedom. But under certain circumstances, we take freedom--and at times, life--away from our citizens. Does that mean that as a nation we no longer value life or freedom? Absolutely not...unless you apply your flawed logic.
How's that for shedding light? Well, you shed light on your failure to read and comprehend what I post. Thanks.FEOS wrote:
Oh...and we do that with people who are "admitted and proven killers of innocents". Your inability to grasp the logical leap just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
How's that for shedding light? Or do I need to turn the lamp up a bit?
I felt the same way when I was going through Calculus 3.Man With No Name wrote:
I go through torture everytime I show up to my math class. Id rather be waterboarded.
Hang on, basically what it sounds like you're on about is that if someone was imprisoned in the US, say a criminal, that would mean everything the US stands for about freedom etc, means jack shit anymore because they put a guy in a cell and took away his freedom.mikkel wrote:
Unfortunately, you're wrong.FEOS wrote:
Either you have no reading comprehension or you can't think deeper than 1mm on a given topic.mikkel wrote:
Either you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I'm saying, or your sense of logic is appalling.
You're trying to say that deliberately disregarding human rights and justice does nothing to change the integrity of a country's commitment to these values. I don't know how disagreeing with that is a leap of logic to you, 'cause I don't see any more efficient way of failing ones commitment to principles than acting against them deliberately. The fact that you need to add that they were "admitted and proven killers of innocents" just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
I'm still at a loss as to where on Earth you derive logic and similiarity from in your previous comment. Care to shed some light on that?
See? I can be condescending, too.I really think you should go back and read the last few posts, because this argument has absolutely no basis in the logic I've used.FEOS wrote:
Here's the logical leap that you made, applied in the manner I applied it:
As a nation, we value life and freedom. But under certain circumstances, we take freedom--and at times, life--away from our citizens. Does that mean that as a nation we no longer value life or freedom? Absolutely not...unless you apply your flawed logic.How's that for shedding light? Well, you shed light on your failure to read and comprehend what I post. Thanks.FEOS wrote:
Oh...and we do that with people who are "admitted and proven killers of innocents". Your inability to grasp the logical leap just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
How's that for shedding light? Or do I need to turn the lamp up a bit?
calcutta what?S3v3N wrote:
I felt the same way when I was going through Calculus 3.Man With No Name wrote:
I go through torture everytime I show up to my math class. Id rather be waterboarded.
hard maths.Man With No Name wrote:
calcutta what?S3v3N wrote:
I felt the same way when I was going through Calculus 3.Man With No Name wrote:
I go through torture everytime I show up to my math class. Id rather be waterboarded.
rather be waterboarded. seriously. If I had to get water boarded once a week for the next 2 years in order to get A's in these math classes without having to show up, I would.
If that's what it sounds like to you, then I would suggest that you go back and read the thread again, then post a reply to this and point out which part gave you that idea, because I have neither said nor insinuated anything as preposterous as that.M.O.A.B wrote:
Hang on, basically what it sounds like you're on about is that if someone was imprisoned in the US, say a criminal, that would mean everything the US stands for about freedom etc, means jack shit anymore because they put a guy in a cell and took away his freedom.mikkel wrote:
Unfortunately, you're wrong.FEOS wrote:
Either you have no reading comprehension or you can't think deeper than 1mm on a given topic.
See? I can be condescending, too.I really think you should go back and read the last few posts, because this argument has absolutely no basis in the logic I've used.FEOS wrote:
Here's the logical leap that you made, applied in the manner I applied it:
As a nation, we value life and freedom. But under certain circumstances, we take freedom--and at times, life--away from our citizens. Does that mean that as a nation we no longer value life or freedom? Absolutely not...unless you apply your flawed logic.How's that for shedding light? Well, you shed light on your failure to read and comprehend what I post. Thanks.FEOS wrote:
Oh...and we do that with people who are "admitted and proven killers of innocents". Your inability to grasp the logical leap just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
How's that for shedding light? Or do I need to turn the lamp up a bit?
One of the U.S's principles is freedom. Putting a guy in a cell takes away freedom, so taking away that freedom is not sticking to the principles it would seem.mikkel wrote:
You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
Not nearly as wrong as you think--in fact, not at all. But we'll get to that.mikkel wrote:
Unfortunately, you're wrong.FEOS wrote:
Either you have no reading comprehension or you can't think deeper than 1mm on a given topic.mikkel wrote:
Either you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I'm saying, or your sense of logic is appalling.
You're trying to say that deliberately disregarding human rights and justice does nothing to change the integrity of a country's commitment to these values. I don't know how disagreeing with that is a leap of logic to you, 'cause I don't see any more efficient way of failing ones commitment to principles than acting against them deliberately. The fact that you need to add that they were "admitted and proven killers of innocents" just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
I'm still at a loss as to where on Earth you derive logic and similiarity from in your previous comment. Care to shed some light on that?
See? I can be condescending, too.
Let's go with the actual post I was responding to, shall we?mikkel wrote:
I really think you should go back and read the last few posts, because this argument has absolutely no basis in the logic I've used.FEOS wrote:
Here's the logical leap that you made, applied in the manner I applied it:
As a nation, we value life and freedom. But under certain circumstances, we take freedom--and at times, life--away from our citizens. Does that mean that as a nation we no longer value life or freedom? Absolutely not...unless you apply your flawed logic.
Now let's break it down:YOU wrote:
Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
Any attempt...liberal interpretation of justice.YOU wrote:
Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice
Does not the legal code itself (of any nation) justify transgression of human rights? You are taking away someone's freedom...the most basic of human rights. And justifying it as punishment for their proven or admitted actions.
Again. Using your argument, justification of any transgression ("any attempt to justify"...your words) of human rights--by your very own words--"absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards."YOU wrote:
...absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards
Your words. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights...change(s) what a nation represents in those regards. Any justification would include the justification of the law, if punishment for one's admitted or proven crimes results in any form of punishment that impacts that person's human rights. Rights like freedom, for example.
There's nothing whatsoever "convenient" or "practical" about the GITMO or interrogation situation. The most convenient way out would have been to just ship them back to the States and put them in our criminal justice system (even though that isn't required under the Geneva Convention). No one is suggesting anyone be "lauded" for that particular episode, but to dismiss the entire history of this country and its values based on that small piece of our overall history is asinine. It's convenient, but it's not at all correct.YOU wrote:
You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
Hopefully the lamp didn't hurt your eyes. Unless you had them shut...then nevermind.mikkel wrote:
How's that for shedding light? Well, you shed light on your failure to read and comprehend what I post. Thanks.FEOS wrote:
Oh...and we do that with people who are "admitted and proven killers of innocents". Your inability to grasp the logical leap just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
How's that for shedding light? Or do I need to turn the lamp up a bit?
Last edited by FEOS (2009-04-25 14:41:35)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I stopped reading at 'Barak.'
I don't think you understand what constitutes a transgression of human rights. Imprisonment as a punishment administered by a court in adherence with the articles laid forth by the universal declaration of human rights does not transgress these rights. Even you must find it somewhat absurd to insinuate that all legal imprisonment is in violation of human rights.FEOS wrote:
Let's go with the actual post I was responding to, shall we?mikkel wrote:
I really think you should go back and read the last few posts, because this argument has absolutely no basis in the logic I've used.FEOS wrote:
Here's the logical leap that you made, applied in the manner I applied it:
As a nation, we value life and freedom. But under certain circumstances, we take freedom--and at times, life--away from our citizens. Does that mean that as a nation we no longer value life or freedom? Absolutely not...unless you apply your flawed logic.Now let's break it down:YOU wrote:
Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.Any attempt...liberal interpretation of justice.YOU wrote:
Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice
Does not the legal code itself (of any nation) justify transgression of human rights? You are taking away someone's freedom...the most basic of human rights. And justifying it as punishment for their proven or admitted actions.
Again, I really cannot believe that you think that legal imprisonment is a violation of human rights, and that you would use this belief at the core of your argument. Not only is it absurd, but even if you're convinced that you're right, you're misconstruing my words to argue ridiculous banalities that are clearly not meant by what I've been saying, and my impression of you is that you're not that infantile.FEOS wrote:
Again. Using your argument, justification of any transgression ("any attempt to justify"...your words) of human rights--by your very own words--"absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards."YOU wrote:
...absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards
Your words. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights...change(s) what a nation represents in those regards. Any justification would include the justification of the law, if punishment for one's admitted or proven crimes results in any form of punishment that impacts that person's human rights. Rights like freedom, for example.
When the purpose is interrogation, which clearly the only reason that the men in question were subjected to torture for, are you really suggesting that the most convenient solution to getting information is to.. release the prisoners? The most convenient solution to getting information is to use all methods available, regardless of legality, and that seems to be what has happened here to some extent.FEOS wrote:
There's nothing whatsoever "convenient" or "practical" about the GITMO or interrogation situation. The most convenient way out would have been to just ship them back to the States and put them in our criminal justice system (even though that isn't required under the Geneva Convention).YOU wrote:
You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
I'd love for you to show me where I've ever insinuated that the entire history of the United States should be "dismissed" because of this episode.FEOS wrote:
No one is suggesting anyone be "lauded" for that particular episode, but to dismiss the entire history of this country and its values based on that small piece of our overall history is asinine. It's convenient, but it's not at all correct.
This is almost getting embarrassing.FEOS wrote:
Hopefully the lamp didn't hurt your eyes. Unless you had them shut...then nevermind.mikkel wrote:
How's that for shedding light? Well, you shed light on your failure to read and comprehend what I post. Thanks.FEOS wrote:
Oh...and we do that with people who are "admitted and proven killers of innocents". Your inability to grasp the logical leap just confirms the fundamental lack of understanding of what these values demand of the people who claim to uphold them.
How's that for shedding light? Or do I need to turn the lamp up a bit?
Last edited by mikkel (2009-04-25 15:26:35)
The U.S. holds absolutely no principle of freedom for criminals, so putting people in jail through legal and constitutional means has never been contrary to any principle in the United States.M.O.A.B wrote:
One of the U.S's principles is freedom. Putting a guy in a cell takes away freedom, so taking away that freedom is not sticking to the principles it would seem.mikkel wrote:
You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
I absolutely do...particularly when you apply an absolute, as you did.mikkel wrote:
I don't think you understand what constitutes a transgression of human rights. Imprisonment as a punishment administered by a court in adherence with the articles laid forth by the universal declaration of human rights does not transgress these rights. Even you must find it somewhat absurd to insinuate that all legal imprisonment is in violation of human rights.FEOS wrote:
Let's go with the actual post I was responding to, shall we?mikkel wrote:
I really think you should go back and read the last few posts, because this argument has absolutely no basis in the logic I've used.Now let's break it down:YOU wrote:
Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards. Even if it is just "two douchebags." You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.Any attempt...liberal interpretation of justice.YOU wrote:
Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights and liberal interpretation of justice
Does not the legal code itself (of any nation) justify transgression of human rights? You are taking away someone's freedom...the most basic of human rights. And justifying it as punishment for their proven or admitted actions.
Any transgression of human rights includes those sanctioned by the law (which would also include the specific instances under debate here). You said "any justification". Applying the law to the situation to justify taking away someone's freedom (a violation of their basic human rights) would fall under "any justification"...which would be the leading portion of your argument.
I'm not at all being infantile. We are arguing over the assertion you made. The fact that your assertion was poorly formed, and involved an absolute (which is what I was pointing out, btw)...which then you refuse to recognize and instead ridicule the position that is simply pointing out the flaw in your logic...THAT is infantile.mikkel wrote:
Again, I really cannot believe that you think that legal imprisonment is a violation of human rights, and that you would use this belief at the core of your argument. Not only is it absurd, but even if you're convinced that you're right, you're misconstruing my words to argue ridiculous banalities that are clearly not meant by what I've been saying, and my impression of you is that you're not that infantile.FEOS wrote:
Again. Using your argument, justification of any transgression ("any attempt to justify"...your words) of human rights--by your very own words--"absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards."YOU wrote:
...absolutely does do something to change what a nation represents in those regards
Your words. Any attempt to justify transgression of human rights...change(s) what a nation represents in those regards. Any justification would include the justification of the law, if punishment for one's admitted or proven crimes results in any form of punishment that impacts that person's human rights. Rights like freedom, for example.
There is no "regardless of legality". A determination of legality was made, and the individuals involved acted in accordance with that determination, regardless of what you think of it.mikkel wrote:
When the purpose is interrogation, which clearly the only reason that the men in question were subjected to torture for, are you really suggesting that the most convenient solution to getting information is to.. release the prisoners? The most convenient solution to getting information is to use all methods available, regardless of legality, and that seems to be what has happened here to some extent.FEOS wrote:
There's nothing whatsoever "convenient" or "practical" about the GITMO or interrogation situation. The most convenient way out would have been to just ship them back to the States and put them in our criminal justice system (even though that isn't required under the Geneva Convention).YOU wrote:
You can't seriously suggest that a nation should be lauded for its principles if it doesn't stick by them when it's inconvenient or impractical to do so.
And yes, the most convenient thing to do with prisoners is chaff them off to someone else to let them deal with them. The more difficult thing to do is interrogate them yourselves...and make hard decisions on just what lengths need to be gone to in order to obtain the information you need in the time that you have available. The most convenient thing would be to not make the decision. I never said it was the most effective. You were the one making erroneous insinuations regarding convenience.
Do you really want me to just provide your post yet again? Or can you read it for yourself?mikkel wrote:
I'd love for you to show me where I've ever insinuated that the entire history of the United States should be "dismissed" because of this episode.FEOS wrote:
No one is suggesting anyone be "lauded" for that particular episode, but to dismiss the entire history of this country and its values based on that small piece of our overall history is asinine. It's convenient, but it's not at all correct.
I suppose it must be embarrassing to have your own words used to show that your statement and included logical leap are woefully flawed. It must be even more embarrassing to be unable or unwilling to see it...even after it has been made painfully clear.mikkel wrote:
This is almost getting embarrassing.FEOS wrote:
Hopefully the lamp didn't hurt your eyes. Unless you had them shut...then nevermind.mikkel wrote:
How's that for shedding light? Well, you shed light on your failure to read and comprehend what I post. Thanks.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So what we've arrived at now is that you apparently feel that imprisonment for any reason is a transgression of human rights, and that I disagree with this belief. That's all well and good.FEOS wrote:
I absolutely do...particularly when you apply an absolute, as you did.mikkel wrote:
I don't think you understand what constitutes a transgression of human rights. Imprisonment as a punishment administered by a court in adherence with the articles laid forth by the universal declaration of human rights does not transgress these rights. Even you must find it somewhat absurd to insinuate that all legal imprisonment is in violation of human rights.
Any transgression of human rights includes those sanctioned by the law (which would also include the specific instances under debate here). You said "any justification". Applying the law to the situation to justify taking away someone's freedom (a violation of their basic human rights) would fall under "any justification"...which would be the leading portion of your argument.
What we've been talking about is the justification of torture, and instead of sticking to the topic at hand, you choose to focus on debating my opinion that justification of any transgression of human rights, as defined by my standards, alters the extent to which a nation is willing to honour these rights. By and large, our differing opinions on how far beyond article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this definition extends is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Even if this argument you're making was relevant to the topic, and even if we were to all accept your definition of what constitutes transgression of these rights, the deliberate and intentional violation of them still does something to change the commitments of a country towards upholding them. That's obvious by definition. If you think that imprisonment constitutes a transgression of human rights, then doing this changes the level of commitment towards upholding them. If you think that torture constitutes a transgression of human rights, then doing this changes the level of commitment towards upholding them as well.
So far, what I've argued against is your sentiment that "deliberately disregarding human rights and justice does nothing to change the integrity of a country's commitment to these values." It seems to me that we've just established that you've done absolutely nothing to prove me wrong on that.
What I refuse to recognise is your definition of what constitutes a transgression of human rights. If you think that's infantile, then I really do not see how you can think that your own refusal to recognise my definition of the same is any more serious. Unless of course you hold yourself in a higher regard without basis in the argument, which would be.. infantile. My assertion was not poorly formed, and involved an absolute that is obviously a logical truth. A logical flaw is disagreeing with that sentiment.FEOS wrote:
I'm not at all being infantile. We are arguing over the assertion you made. The fact that your assertion was poorly formed, and involved an absolute (which is what I was pointing out, btw)...which then you refuse to recognize and instead ridicule the position that is simply pointing out the flaw in your logic...THAT is infantile.mikkel wrote:
Again, I really cannot believe that you think that legal imprisonment is a violation of human rights, and that you would use this belief at the core of your argument. Not only is it absurd, but even if you're convinced that you're right, you're misconstruing my words to argue ridiculous banalities that are clearly not meant by what I've been saying, and my impression of you is that you're not that infantile.
Let's try this again. When you want to get information from someone, the most convenient way to do this is typically not to send him on his way. That's about the most "erroneous insinuation" you can make regarding convenience. I'd be very glad to hear how the most typically convenient way to get information from someone is to not have him in your custody for questioning. It seems the officials responsible for the alleged torture felt that it was better to subject the prisoners to this than to send them on their merry way, so I don't get your argument.FEOS wrote:
There is no "regardless of legality". A determination of legality was made, and the individuals involved acted in accordance with that determination, regardless of what you think of it.mikkel wrote:
When the purpose is interrogation, which clearly the only reason that the men in question were subjected to torture for, are you really suggesting that the most convenient solution to getting information is to.. release the prisoners? The most convenient solution to getting information is to use all methods available, regardless of legality, and that seems to be what has happened here to some extent.
And yes, the most convenient thing to do with prisoners is chaff them off to someone else to let them deal with them. The more difficult thing to do is interrogate them yourselves...and make hard decisions on just what lengths need to be gone to in order to obtain the information you need in the time that you have available. The most convenient thing would be to not make the decision. I never said it was the most effective. You were the one making erroneous insinuations regarding convenience.
On the other hand, it doesn't matter if rights are transgressed out of convenience, practicality, hatred, or any other reason. It seems you like to focus on disagreements that are not relevant to the core of the argument, which isn't really very productive.
Apparently you can't. Please, show me precisely where I argue that the "entire history of this country" should be dismissed. I think your biggest problem in this argument is that you can't.FEOS wrote:
Do you really want me to just provide your post yet again? Or can you read it for yourself?mikkel wrote:
I'd love for you to show me where I've ever insinuated that the entire history of the United States should be "dismissed" because of this episode.FEOS wrote:
No one is suggesting anyone be "lauded" for that particular episode, but to dismiss the entire history of this country and its values based on that small piece of our overall history is asinine. It's convenient, but it's not at all correct.
Right back at you.FEOS wrote:
I suppose it must be embarrassing to have your own words used to show that your statement and included logical leap are woefully flawed. It must be even more embarrassing to be unable or unwilling to see it...even after it has been made painfully clear.mikkel wrote:
This is almost getting embarrassing.FEOS wrote:
Hopefully the lamp didn't hurt your eyes. Unless you had them shut...then nevermind.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-04-26 01:58:33)
Your words were used, not mine. If you want to change your position now--which apparently you do, based on your rant above--then fine. Do so.
Then we can discuss your altered position.
You are the one who said "any justification for transgression". Period. That's it. That's what you said. The law is a justification for transgressing on someone's human rights. You cannot argue that is not the case any more than you can argue gravity doesn't exist.
The logical trap you fall in to is that, if you think it's OK under some situations (ie, it's justified) to transgress on someone's human rights--like take away their freedom by imprisonment--then you are recognizing that there are situations where one can act in a manner that appears to contradict the basic tenets of one's society and still be adhering, by and large, to those tenets...because you can justify it in the law.
So now that I've pointed that out, you start narrowing down your argument from a ridiculous absolute to something more meaningful and reasonable. All the while being snide and condescending.
Well at least you've moved off your original ridiculous position to one that makes more sense.
You're welcome.
Then we can discuss your altered position.
You are the one who said "any justification for transgression". Period. That's it. That's what you said. The law is a justification for transgressing on someone's human rights. You cannot argue that is not the case any more than you can argue gravity doesn't exist.
The logical trap you fall in to is that, if you think it's OK under some situations (ie, it's justified) to transgress on someone's human rights--like take away their freedom by imprisonment--then you are recognizing that there are situations where one can act in a manner that appears to contradict the basic tenets of one's society and still be adhering, by and large, to those tenets...because you can justify it in the law.
So now that I've pointed that out, you start narrowing down your argument from a ridiculous absolute to something more meaningful and reasonable. All the while being snide and condescending.
Well at least you've moved off your original ridiculous position to one that makes more sense.
You're welcome.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular