Thank you Bush ...

[Pacridge]

Yes, but he's playing the victim and blaming everything on the intelligence community. Nope, Bush's Office of Special Plans and the torture of detainees didn't lead to any bad intelligence. It was all the CIA's fault. :2wave:

Trust me I'm no fan of Bush but it sure sounded to me like he was taking responsibility. Course I only heard bits and pieces of the speech...so?

 

[Iriemon]

Didn't he take responsibility for going to war on faulty intelligence?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1406256

According to Bush, only the intellegence was a mistake, not going to war. So there was no "responsibility" for him to take about going to war. Only the intellegence -- ie other peoples' mistakes.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Bush has capitulated to public opinion he has decided that he's going to fight the war on terror based on polls, something he promised he wouldn't do.

This disastrous bill is going to tie the hands of the military and the intelligence community from performing any form of effective interrogation what so ever.

I am here on the record stating my disgust for this idiotic decision, and when that mushroom cloud is hovering over the New York sky line the blood will be on the hands of all these people who have supported this suicidal piece of legislation.

 

[mixedmedia]

Bush has capitulated to public opinion he has decided that he's going to fight the war on terror based on polls, something he promised he wouldn't do.

This disastrous bill is going to tie the hands of the military and the intelligence community from performing any form of effective interrogation what so ever.

I am here on the record stating my disgust for this idiotic decision, and when that mushroom cloud is hovering over the New York sky line the blood will be on the hands of all these people who have supported this suicidal piece of legislation.

Thank you for letting us in on the contents of Bush's brain. Could it be? Could it possibly be that our president and his advisors decided that this was the best course of action for America? Could it be that there are a few people in Washington who know a little more about this bill and its positives and detriments than you do?

I love how when this administration makes a decision you approve of, it's proof of how decisive and wise they are. But when it is one you don't, it shows how they kowtow to public opinion. This is not a game playing out in your head. Wake up.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Thank you for letting us in on the contents of Bush's brain. Could it be? Could it possibly be that our president and his advisors decided that this was the best course of action for America? Could it be that there are a few people in Washington who know a little more about this bill and its positives and detriments than you do?

I love how when this administration makes a decision you approve of, it's proof of how decisive and wise they are. But when it is one you don't, it shows how they kowtow to public opinion. This is not a game playing out in your head. Wake up.

Nope apparently they know less afterall they voted for it.

I have started two threads in which I showed the exact details of how torture will now be defined,

I have cited many examples of how what will now be considered torture has stopped terrorist attacks even on our own soil including a dirty bomb attack,

I have showed the dangers of the McCain sponsored amendment 1977 S10909,

Wake up.

 

[mixedmedia]

Nope apparently they know less afterall they voted for it.

I have started two threads in which I showed the exact details of how torture will now be defined,

I have cited many examples of how what will now be considered torture has stopped terrorist attacks even on our own soil including a dirty bomb attack,

I have showed the dangers of the McCain sponsored amendment 1977 S10909,

Wake up.

Wow, so you are really purporting that you know more about this bill than McCain, Warner, the president, and the majority of the House and Senate?

You know, I love this place too, but let's not fool ourselves. We are here to discuss politics, among other things, not write US policy. I am sure that our lawmakers are aware of at least as much information as you are privy to. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wow, so you are really purporting that you know more about this bill than McCain, Warner, the president, and the majority of the House and Senate?

You know, I love this place too, but let's not fool ourselves. We are here to discuss politics, among other things, not write US policy. I am sure that our lawmakers are aware of at least as much information as you are privy to. :roll:

Shows how much you know we as U.S. citizens have the same access to all the legislation on the docket as any member of the house or the senate, in fact it's accessible on the web at the library of congress website that and I have access to thousands of government documents located in the basement of my Universities library. That and I'm a political science major planning on getting my law degree or my masters in poli sci and eventually getting into this politics game myself one day so ya I think I know what I'm talking about when I comment on this stuff.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Trajan's argument in a nutshell: Since McCain's bill doesn't allow for "coercion" and "intimidation", we will be less likely to gain useful intelligence from detainees. I'm not sure I agree with that yet or not.

 

[scottyz]

Trajan's argument in a nutshell: Since McCain's bill doesn't allow for "coercion" and "intimidation", we will be less likely to gain useful intelligence from detainees. I'm not sure I agree with that yet or not.

I imagine that McCain has actually experienced both and knows a hell of a lot more about it than Trajan could ever hope to.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I imagine that McCain has actually experienced both and knows a hell of a lot more about it than Trajan could ever hope to.

U.S. interogation techniques are not even close to being on par with that of the V.C. but I suppose you agree with Turbin Durbin that the U.S. is on par with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

 

[scottyz]

U.S. interogation techniques are not even close to being on par with that of the V.C. but I suppose you agree with Turbin Durbin that the U.S. is on par with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

I agree that McCain is much more knowledgable on the subject than you.

 

[Billo_Really]

I think it is pretty disgusting that the subject of torture has become controversial.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think it is pretty disgusting that the subject of torture has become controversial.

I find it disgusting that the leftists insinuate that what we do during coercive interogation is torture.

 

[Stace]

I find it disgusting that the leftists insinuate that what we do during coercive interogation is torture.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read the Geneva Conventions? I learned all about them in Basic Training and yearly training after that.....trust me, things like what happened at Abu Ghraib are NOT "coercive interrogation".

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read the Geneva Conventions? I learned all about them in Basic Training and yearly training after that.....trust me, things like what happened at Abu Ghraib are NOT "coercive interrogation".

Even if our interogation methods are not considered to be coercive interogation under the third Geneva Convention Article 4 section 2
the insurgents are not granted POW status and as such are not subject to protection under the Geneva Convention so your point is moot:

1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
4. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
5. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
6. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
7. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

 

[mixedmedia]

Even if our interogation methods are not considered to be coercive interogation under the third Geneva Convention Article 4 section 2
the insurgents are not granted POW status and as such are not subject to protection under the Geneva Convention so your point is moot:

1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
4. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
5. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
6. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
7. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

So let me make sure I am understanding you here, you believe it proper US policy to torture captives simply because they are not in uniform?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So let me make sure I am understanding you here, you believe it proper US policy to torture captives simply because they are not in uniform?

No I don't think it's proper to afford the same rights to terrorists who blow up women and children on purpose as we do to honorable soldiers who just happen to be fighting on the wrong side.

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments, where they will certainly be lost." -- William Lloyd Garrison

 

[mixedmedia]

No I don't think it's proper to afford the same rights to terrorists who blow up women and children on purpose as we do to honorable soldiers who just happen to be fighting on the wrong side.

You don't know whether someone we have captured has done such things, nor whether they are even a part of, in this case, the Iraq insurgency. You are rationalizing on a grand scale. Are you aware that most of those in Abu Ghraib during the period of abuse were arrested in sweeps and consequently released? Pesky minor details?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You don't know whether someone we have captured has done such things, nor whether they are even a part of, in this case, the Iraq insurgency. You are rationalizing on a grand scale. Are you aware that most of those in Abu Ghraib during the period of abuse were arrested in sweeps and consequently released? Pesky minor details?

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility -- British Sea Lord John Fisher

 

[mixedmedia]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. -- John Stuart Mill

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility -- British Sea Lord John Fisher

Oh quotes now. Very good. Why did I even bother?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh quotes now. Very good. Why did I even bother?

You forget already? It's because you want to protect the rights of those poor terrorists who kill innocent women and children.

 

[mixedmedia]

You forget already? It's because you want to protect the rights of those poor terrorists who kill innocent women and children.

You pretend to be dense. Nice, that. All you could offer up regarding the question of us perhaps torturing the innocent are someone else's words about the ugliness of war. People whose words you cannot claim interpretive authority over. You can call me names and try to paste mealy-mouthed rhetoric on me all day long, Trajan, 'cause I know who I am and what I stand for. You're the one flapping in the breeze with your quotes, your inflammatory accusations and an obssession with copy & paste commands.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You forget already? It's because you want to protect the rights of those poor terrorists who kill innocent women and children.

I've not read one post that is pro-terrorist in this thread. I have your posts that are PRO-TORTURE. It's oh so interesting to see you write unsubstantiated attacks against anyone who disagrees with you that torture is unacceptable.

I guess the fact that information received through torture is worthless to some people who, it appears, want to torture prisoners not to get info but instead like doing it to get their rocks off.

I also love that almost anyone who disagrees with torture as a method is THE reason, THE person to blame the next time America is attacked. Apparently the pro-torture crowd doesn't have the same morals that almost the entire country has, instead they despise other Americans who they perceive as "weak on torture" so much so that they stoop to scare tactics as their only method to make their points.

Will Americans commit attrocities in Iraq? DUH! Shall we condone it? NEVER! The pro-torture apologists do condone it and it seems revel in joy that we are lowering ourselves to the same evil level of our enemy. Great!

 

[Caine]

I am here on the record stating my disgust for this idiotic decision, and when that mushroom cloud is hovering over the New York sky line the blood will be on the hands of all these people who have supported this suicidal piece of legislation.

FEAR FEAR FEAR FOR YOUR LIVES!
SUPPORT BUSH, HE WILL SAVE YOU!

 

[JustMyPOV]

What this all amounts to is that there are great benefits to not torturing detainees. These are benefits that might not be immediately visible, it won't produce a torture-based, faulty report about "Yellow Cake" and Niger, but there are truly benefits.

There's a young man in Iraq right now who is sitting on the fence, believes strongly in his religion, but isn't sure whether it's the fundamentalists or the progressives have the right idea. The terrorists are actively praying on this sort of person, and this is the same person we have to persuade that democracy is better than totalitarian theocracy.

We're not going to convince him of this unless we convey, through our actions, as well as our words, that we are superior to the terrorists. He isn't going to be swayed in our direction when he sees in the local media that we're kidnapping and torturing people, sometimes, innocent people, for information. The battle for control of the country has been won. The battle for the hearts and minds of the people has just begun, and we're going to lose if we don't act in a manner consistent with our own views on human rights, regardless of whether those we detain wear uniforms.