- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-9.htm
Notice that part in bold as specified by the amendments defintion of cruel and degrading treatment coercive treatment will herby be made illegal.
Good to see that we're tying the hands of the military from protecting us and themselves.
JustMyPOV said:No, it's called living up to a higher standard so we're not viewed by the general populace of the greater middle-east as being just as bad as the enemy we fight. A terror suspect is just that, generally speaking, a suspect. So that guy that they've in custody may well have been a moderate who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. (It happens. Some detainees are released.) Our military slaps him around, makes him go hungry/thirsty, poops in his Koran, etc... How do you think he probably feels when they find out he was just some guy with no ties to terrorists, and he's released? He's probably going home and writing a letter to Zarqawi asking where to go to sign up for Al Qaeda in Iraq! This isn't how we're going to win the hearts and minds of the people of that region. I praise Bush for coming to his senses on this issue, and realizing that this war is going to take more than big guns and an iron fist to win.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:No it's called tying the hands of the military, no longer will any form of interogation be allowed if this bill goes through. You are skewing the issue in that you assume that if you are against the bill you are somehow pro torture, according to the new bill's defintion of torture of cruel and degrading acts it is now going to be such as you can't even yell at a suspect or threaten him, it's ridiculous and in effect it will tie the hands of the military it seems to me the libs won't be happy until we get attacked again. Which they infact do want so they can point at Bush and say see I told you so.
JustMyPOV said:Yes, it must be that vast, left-wing conspiracy I've heard about, and the 90-9 majority of Senate "libs" that voted for this bill are ALL in on it. Here are the names of some of those damned "libs" that voted to pass this ammendment :roll: :
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
George Allen (R-VA)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Hutchison (R-TX)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Richard Luger (R-IN)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
John Sununu (R-NH)
John Warner (R-VA)
THere is one set of guidlines that this country and all other civilized nations agreed to after WWII in 1949. That's the Geneva convention. It is the one set of guidlines that our military and all militaries of the world adhere to.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Notice that part in bold as specified by the amendments defintion of cruel and degrading treatment coercive treatment will herby be made illegal.
Good to see that we're tying the hands of the military from protecting us and themselves.
McCain is of course Mr. Liberal himself. Yes damn the liberal media for providing the exact lines in which this admendment constitutes. Damn those who support this bill for being anti torture.Trajan Octavian Titus said:They've gone along with this crap because the liberal media has so misrepresented the facts of the McCain amendment that the public is now under the impression that if you don't support the bill then you are somehow in support of torture. These people want to get reelected it's as simple as that they've caved and the president has capitulated and in my opinion if we get attacked again it's going to be on all of their heads, the Libs and McCain for sponsoring it and the Reps for giving in. Besides that fact this is a tag on amendment to a military bill that if it did not include I believe S10909 I would support.
jfuh said:THere is one set of guidlines that this country and all other civilized nations agreed to after WWII in 1949. That's the Geneva convention. It is the one set of guidlines that our military and all militaries of the world adhere to.
Sen. McCain said it best. THis is not about who they are, this is about who we are. If you allow our military to practice inhumane acts of torture against "enemy" combatants that are not classified as a traditional military, then we are then opening up our troops for the same if not more brutal means of torture by enemies, and our military will have future POW's.
McCain is of course Mr. Liberal himself. Yes damn the liberal media for providing the exact lines in which this admendment constitutes. Damn those who support this bill for being anti torture.
You seriously fail to provide any reasoning for how, and in what way this bill ties down the hands of our military. Mind you our military acted perfectly without the use of torture during Panama, the gulf war, WWII, and WWI. So why is it now that using torture is so important to our military that without it they can not fight?
Coercive interogation of course has produced countless credible results allowing the apprehension of more terrorist right? It is a well known fact that prisoner's under torture will admit to anything you want them to producing worthless results. Even the Isralie supreme court has banned all uses of cruel and degrading treatment.Trajan Octavian Titus said:See this is your whole problem you seem to think that if you disagree with the McCain bill that you somehow support torture, I have shown you exactly how the McCain bill would tie the hands of the military ie after its passing no more coercive interogation techniques will be allowed which includes not being allowed to threaten detainees, the bill also stipulates that the definition of torture is 'cruel or degrading treatment,' tell me just what the hell does that even mean, it seems to me you won't be able to do anything to extract information perhaps when we catch Zarqawi we should offer him some icecream.
I suggest you refrain from mudslinging and accusing my mental capacity. Unless you are no better then to use such form to argue when you can not come up with any better argument.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Your main problem is that you either haven't read the amendment or you lack the mental capacity to understand it.
jfuh said:Coercive interogation of course has produced countless credible results allowing the apprehension of more terrorist right? It is a well known fact that prisoner's under torture will admit to anything you want them to producing worthless results. Even the Isralie supreme court has banned all uses of cruel and degrading treatment.
If you can read cruel and degrading, I don't see as to why you don't understand what that means. Why must imprisionment involve cruel and degrading punishments or tortures? Obviously you've been watching too much TV.
I suggest you refrain from mudslinging and accusing my mental capacity. Unless you are no better then to use such form to argue when you can not come up with any better argument.
Source? Or is this another one of those fictitious stories that fundamentalists in the republican far right are pushing forth.Trajan Octavian Titus said:During the height of the IRA terrorist campaign against the U.K. British MI6 decided to tell IRA captives that they were to be killed by being pushed out of helicopters so they would blind fold them take them up and threaten to push them in some cases they did push them out about two feet above the ground, this was considered mock execution and therfor the public was outraged and the practice was outlawed, MI6 says they never recieved such credible intel again after the practice was outlawed. K.S.M. broke under two minutes of waterboarding, we stopped a dirty bomb attack on U.S. soil by using coercive techniques, your assumption that coercive interogation isn't effective is just plain wrong I think it's you who's been watching to much liberal media.
jfuh said:Source? Or is this another one of those fictitious stories that fundamentalists in the republican far right are pushing forth.
To understand what difference a ban on torture will make, I spoke this week with British sources about the interrogation techniques used against the Irish Republican Army in the early 1970s. The British were facing a hideous IRA bombing campaign, and to stop the bombers, the British army and police in Northern Ireland tried to squeeze information from their IRA prisoners.
The British recognized what every cop knows -- that interrogation is much easier if the prisoner is disoriented. So the British put hoods on their IRA prisoners, just as U.S. interrogators have done in Iraq. The British approved other, harsher methods: depriving IRA prisoners of sleep, making them lean against a wall for long periods, using "white noise" that would confuse them.
The clincher for British interrogators was mock execution. The preferred method in the mid-1970s was to take hooded IRA prisoners up in helicopters over the lakes near Belfast and threaten to throw them out if they didn't talk. Sometimes, they actually were thrown out. The prisoners didn't know that the helicopter was only a few yards above the water. I'm told that technique nearly always worked. (So, too, with the "waterboarding" that U.S. interrogators used to break al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed.) The British eventually had to give up their extreme techniques because of public outcry, and I'm told they got less information. But they eventually prevailed against the IRA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501438.html
FinnMacCool said:Thats an op-ed article. not a very good source.
It's actually an article trying to make the case against torture which it does a **** poor job of considering the fact that it proves my point that coercive interogation techniques get the job done. It's the perfect source it's a liberally slanted article that proves my point.
FinnMacCool said:noooo. . .it doesn't prove your point because its an OP ED piece. If you want to acknowledge that as actual "evidence" then you better acknowledge Farenheit 9/11 as actual evidence.
Noo . . . because it's an op-ed piece that disagrees with my point of view yet unwittingly makes my case for me it would be like me using Farenheit 9/11to prove that Bush is a good president that is what makes it such a good source and the part which I selected is factually accurate this is not the first place I heard it from it's just the first place I found it on the web.
FinnMacCool said:Wrong. It doesn't prove anything because its an op-ed piece, regardless of the persons political affiliatation.
When's the last time you actually read a newspaper? The New York Times prints op-ed pieces on their front page all time and passes it off as actual journalism, you know that NSA article on the NYT's front page the other day? It was, by any rational definition of the word, an op-ed piece and it's being used by the Senate as the catalyst to push for investigations into the presidents phone tapping allegation and stopped the Patriot Act from being renewed. Op-ed pieces contain fact as well as opinion the part that I used was the fact not the opinion. What do I have to track down these MI6 agents myself for my argument to be credible to you? Seriously I got the time.
FinnMacCool said:You certainly do. Why don't you do that? Because otherwise this article will prove absolutely nothing to me or anyone here.
Only for those who lack the mental capacity to disseminate fact from opinion in an editorial luckily I give most people on this forum more credit than you do.
When you left out the source in the first place, that discredits your argument. The second time around you actually list your source, but you edited everything to use for your own twisted cause. Particularly the portion of responsibility as well as taking out the provisions of "anything goes".Trajan Octavian Titus said:It's actually an article trying to make the case against torture which it does a **** poor job of considering the fact that it proves my point that coercive interogation techniques get the job done. It's the perfect source it's a liberally slanted article that proves my point.
jfuh said:When you left out the source in the first place, that discredits your argument. The second time around you actually list your source, but you edited everything to use for your own twisted cause. Particularly the portion of responsibility as well as taking out the provisions of "anything goes".
Finally, opinion editorials are called Opinion for exactly that reason. They are an opinioin of the author, not facts. This is also why these portions of a newspaper have thier own section.
O! Who has no real arguments? You certainly don't. An Op-ed piece is nothing. Its zip. zero. You have absolutely no evidence of that. And even if I were to sit down and call it evidence it wouldn't be enough to convince me of this contrary to respected gov't officials and military who say different. nice try though.Can you challenge the assertion that coercive interogation works? Everything you post is opinion you haven't offered one fact yet, I've offered up quotes from British intelligence and get back: "you found that quote in an op-ed so it doesn't count." Hay guess what that was a fact found in an op-ed . . . . it boggles the mind doesn't it? Catch a clue people you have no arguments only fallacies.
FinnMacCool said:O! Who has no real arguments? You certainly don't. An Op-ed piece is nothing. Its zip. zero. You have absolutely no evidence of that. And even if I were to sit down and call it evidence it wouldn't be enough to convince me of this contrary to respected gov't officials and military who say different. nice try though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?