Because characterizing him as an enemy soldier fighting a war IS defending him. How is THAT not obvious? :shock:
This is what I'm talking about when I mention absolutism. To these people, "He's a murderer, a traitor, and an enemy, but not a terrorist" is seen as defending him. Because I didn't call him a murderer, traitor, enemy, and a terrorist.
Pure lunacy. What's next?
You were defending him against the charge of being a terrorist. The "lunacy" is where you went to claim he's not a terrorist -- that he's an enemy soldier conducting a war.
I'm pretty sure it's you (once again!) who's displaying the "absolutist" thought here.
Shooting at fellow soldiers because you were convinced to turn traitor is not terrorism, because that's not what the word terrorism means.
How do his actions constitute terrorism, in your opinion?
Not "unlawful act" or some violation of the Geneva convention. I agree he's guilty of those. Terrorism. How is shooting at soldiers terrorism?
"1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss,
when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."[33]
"1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States, peoples and individuals under international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international humanitarian law.
2. The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.
4. Nothing in this article condones or makes lawful otherwise unlawful acts, nor precludes prosecution under other laws."[35]
"2. The activities of the parties during an armed conflict, including in situations of foreign occupation, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention.
3. The activities undertaken by the military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are in conformity with international law, are not governed by this Convention."[35]
edit: And you seem to have no idea what the word "absolutist" means.
Ethically speaking, waterboarding is torture. It is little different than when any fascist regime has procured false confessions or intelligence by dunking a person's head in a basin of water, only to remove it at the brink of suffocation. That they are strapped down to a board and we have finer control over the stimulus makes no difference. It's distressing to the person because they believe their life to be in imminent danger. I am not interested in whether or not the U.S. has the so-called right to do it, or that it's called "enhanced interrogation" or torture. The minutiae are irrelevant. The U.S. can do whatever it wants... it has proven that now. Anything that can happen, does happen. Waterboarding is just one thing the public is aware of.
My beef is that the U.S. tries to portray itself as the good guy, the nation that spreads freedom and democracy, humanitarian principles, etc. It is rather two-faced to sign the Geneva Convention on Torture and make grandiose speeches treating people properly, only to turn around and take enemies, without legal recourse, to some concealed gray zone in the Caribbean. All that does is reek of hypocrisy and it has - whether or not those in favour of waterboarding want to admit it - left a black mark on the reputation of the U.S. as a savior of the oppressed.
If you're going to put people under such duress, then just be up front about it. The USSR did it, China does it to dissidents, and I'm sure some European countries do it in their intelligence communities. Just stop acting so righteous about it, as though your tortures are different from some other nation's. You are no different than they are, regardless if you feel justified in doing it.
It is a shining example of why U.S. foreign policy is a complete and utter hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.
It wasn't my argument that he was. Wasn't even considering the point. Was referring to your defense of him. But considering there's no one agreed-upon definition of "terrorism," let's look at what the UN convention considers terrorism:
It's fairly clear what he did fits.
Now, let's look at the proposed exceptions:
He doesn't fall under any of those.
Let's look at the further proposed exceptions by the Islamic Conference:
Doesn't fall under any of those, either.
I surely do. And it would include someone who, say, refers to those who ideologically differ from him as "regressives." And one who doesn't see that defending someone against the label of terrorist is indeed defending that person. You can defend someone and be right. You can defend someone who's been unjustly accused. Yet you're still defending him. And here, you defend him, and in so doing, you say he's an enemy soldier in a war rather than a terrorist. THAT characterization is INDEED "lunacy."
when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act
This is the core component of terrorism. How is this motivation clear to you? He didn't make any statements along those lines.
This is the core component of terrorism. How is this motivation clear to you? He didn't make any statements along those lines.
Funny, you seem to think his "motivation" is "clear" when you refer to him as attacking "enemy soldiers."
Well just how many statements did he make ? Did he not associate with known terrorists prior to committing his heinous act ? Did he not attack unarmed people, some of them civilian, by turning traitor and abusing his prior status as a trusted compatriot ? He sure as **** was a terrorist, and a murderer, and a traitor, and an Islamo scumbag, etc. More importantly, to debate otherwise is absurd. Did not the Obama Administration evenutally rate it as an act of terror ? What are we to call it then ... and act of terror by a plain old murderer ?
I believe you're going to have to do better than that if you want to show wrongdoing.
Plus, I ask all of them just how their morality would endure the test where perhaps their own daughter, or son was at immanent risk by a terrorist but if we just tortured the little bastard a bit, we'd uncover the whole plot, and many lives including their own offspring would be saved? For me, sorry, it's a no brainer. It's just the parental instincts in me I guess. Much like if someone was threatening me or my family in my space, I have the legal right to blow his mother ****ing head off. Seems a little more extreme than forcing someone to drink a little water no and again..
Makes me laugh at the stupidity of the left, and just how ****ing dangerous they and the likes of Obama really are to our real safety!
Pathetic!
Tim-
I vaguely recall him having contact with Islamic extremists, who supposedly convinced him to do what he did. It's mostly speculative because the military hasn't really released a lot of that information. The other prevailing theory is that he just broke down and snapped because he didn't want to be deployed again, which would make him just another mentally unstable man who snapped and shot up the place, more akin to the Virginia Tech shooter than a terrorist.
So, again, if you want to label him a terrorist, you're going to have to show some evidence of a political or ideological objective he was trying to achieve.
Murder. Treason. These fit.
Terrorism has the objective of inflicting fear in furtherance of some sort of political or ideological goal. What evidence is there that he had such a goal?
edit: reading up more on the guy, it sounds more to me like he just became unstable after the death of his parents, and spiraled down from there.
I vaguely recall him having contact with Islamic extremists, who supposedly convinced him to do what he did. It's mostly speculative because the military hasn't really released a lot of that information. The other prevailing theory is that he just broke down and snapped because he didn't want to be deployed again, which would make him just another mentally unstable man who snapped and shot up the place, more akin to the Virginia Tech shooter than a terrorist.
So, again, if you want to label him a terrorist, you're going to have to show some evidence of a political or ideological objective he was trying to achieve.
Terrorism has the objective of inflicting fear in furtherance of some sort of political or ideological goal. What evidence is there that he had such a goal?
It's related to the law of large numbers, mate -- you can't be right 100% of the time, and there are enough political prisoners of the US for there to be a significant "wrongly accused" portion.
Or are you going to attempt to argue that the CIA is infallible?
This, too, is not evidence of wrongdoing. If you make accusations, particularly of the criminal variety, it's customary to have actual evidence, rather than "oh, with that many, someone somewhere HAD to have done it."
We're not looking at a specific case or profile, nor even a specific event. I know I've come into the thread at a point where we're not really discussing this any more, but all I was saying was that America is as fallible as every other nation or group out there -- they make mistakes, and they inevitably make mistakes with political prisoners. That's all.
It's nothing groundbreaking.
I don't "want to label him" anything. It really doesn't matter to me. But you seem hell-bent on him not being a terrorist, though you're certainly willing to attribute to him other things which require the same kind of mind-reading. Like "treason."
Why does it matter to you so much that he is or isn't a terrorist?
What evidence is there that he was affirmatively waging war against the United States or providing aid and comfort to her enemies? That is the definition of "treason."
Why does it matter so much to you? It doesn't make a huge difference to me, the end result is going to be the same.
The shooting at fellow soldiers part.
I'm not the one insisting -- INSISTING -- he is or isn't something. :shrug:
Weak. He could have, as you point out, just snapped. That wouldn't be treason. Treason requires intent. Yet you have no problem saying it's treason.
Ok, you're right. Without knowing his motivations, calling him a traitor or calling him a terrorist are both premature. We'll have to wait until some information is released from his trial. I guess we're in agreement then. Not a terrorist, not a traitor, until we find evidence that he is one of those two.
Let's go with this scenario: A terrorist sets a bomb and to defuse it you need a special code, if you use the wrong code - KABOOM!!! You torture the terrorist so he will reveal the code and he gives you one. Do you believe him?
Also, how easy is it to make someone say "Uncle" when you have their arm twisted behind their back?
Report: KSM Lied to Avoid Further Waterboarding; ‘I Make Up Stories’ - Law Blog - WSJ
Let's go with this scenario: A terrorist sets a bomb and to defuse it you need a special code, if you use the wrong code - KABOOM!!! You torture the terrorist so he will reveal the code and he gives you one. Do you believe him?
Also, how easy is it to make someone say "Uncle" when you have their arm twisted behind their back?
Report: KSM Lied to Avoid Further Waterboarding; ‘I Make Up Stories’ - Law Blog - WSJ
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?